Some of us have observed the homosexual movement from the very beginning. First, all they wanted to do was practice the sexual desires which “God gave them,” so they managed to get sodomy laws abolished. But that was not the end game.
Then they wanted to live with their heads held high, so they wanted to hold Gay Pride Parades. If you have ever been to a gay parade, you know that, it is not just a bunch of homosexuals on floats holding up banners saying, “I’m gay and loving it!” You will see all sorts of simulated sexual acts and men wearing clothing in such a way as to be erotically graphic. It is much more of an “in your face” approach. “This is what we are; deal with it.” But that was not the end game.
Now that gay pride parades are common—at least in some areas—there was the next step. So many male homosexuals had the love of their lives suffering in hospitals, and yet, they had no legal right to see this person, and family members were keeping them separated, and so they had to have civil unions or domestic partnership laws. The hospital scenario was presented again and again, although this was a situation that fewer than 1% of homosexuals had ever dealt with. Many had been to hospitals with ex-lovers dying of AIDS, but the number who had been banned from their “lifetime” partner was minuscule. However, by presenting that rarely occurring scenario, homosexuals gained quite a number of state laws which allowed them to become legally attached with the legal rights that they needed to have. But, that was not the end game.
And now, today, the big push is for marriage rights. Everyone has the right to marry the person that they love, except for gays; and it is so unfair! “It is a fundamental human right to marry the person you love!” they proclaim.
There are churches in every state—many of them headed by gay pastors—who are more than willing to perform a marriage ceremony, and pronounce them married at the end of the ceremony; and gays can tell everyone that they know, “This is my gay marriage partner” and they can demand such recognition from their friends and family. But, you know what is so terrible? The state will not proclaim them married! The federal government will not proclaim them married! Oh, dear, oh dear; this is such a violation of their civil rights! How can they really feel married unless the state or federal government recognizes them as married? Attending their own marriage ceremony in which they are pronounced married? Not good enough. Telling all of their friends and family that they are married? Not good enough. Marriage only counts, for some reason, if the state or federal government certifies them as being married.
But gay marriage is not the end game. No gay will ever tell you the end game, because if they did, you would never support gay marriage.
What gays like is more sexual partners. Whereas, it is very unusual for a heterosexual male to have 100 or more different partners, this is not unusual in the gay community. A study in 1978 said that 75% of gay men had over 100 sexual partners. And since gays make up only about 3% of the population, it is hard to find new gay men to have sex with. What is their approach? Some partially change themselves into women; they don’t go all the way (except for the very nutty ones), but they go far enough so that they can have sex with some straight men.
However, if marriage between gays becomes the law, and the state recognizes homosexual marriages to be legally equivalent to marriages between heterosexuals, then life in America is going to change dramatically. Gay marriage is not the end game; but once gay marriage is made legal, then gays can do a number of things they have been wanting to do.
First, because there are always been animosity among gays against Christians, the Bible will be proclaimed to be hate literature and any pastor who tries to teach portions of the Bible will be taken to court for teaching hatred. They could care less whether or not they win; sue a few small churches, and word will get around fast enough. Defending against such lawsuits is expensive, and few churches can afford to do it. We know this will happen because it already has. If marriage between homosexuals is “legalized” then, this opens up the opportunity to strike back at the church, and if a few congregations get shut down, who cares? These churches are nothing but disseminators of hatred.
However, attacking Christians and the Bible is not the end game; that is simply sport and revenge. The end game is, more homosexual partners. When a man has had 100 sexual partners, that has to be a clue that, having sex, and a lot of sex, is extremely important to the homosexual. If there is a way to expand the franchise, so to speak, that is seen as a great objective.
Sexuality is a complex thing, and homosexuals have found that, if a male is violated at a very early age, sexual gratification can be associated with homosexual behavior. This does not work in all cases, but it works in enough cases to make presenting homosexual behavior in the schools a worthy goal for the homosexual community. There are many schools today that teach, in sex education, that there are 3 types of sexual intercourse, and all 3 of them are equally valid. This is taught to as young an age as they can get away with.
Even today, there are schools where books about homosexual couplings are made a part of the curriculum for grammar school children. “And Tango Makes Three” is a popular book which has crept into the primary schools all over America.
There are many schools where homosexuals have pushed anti-bullying programs which, incidentally, present homosexual couples as normal. These programs are pushed with great enthusiasm, despite the meager evidence of bullying occurring because a child has two daddies. However, essentially to these anti-bullying programs is, a homosexual union is normal thing and a good thing.
Homosexuals know that young children, just reaching puberty, can be carefully navigated into trying homosexual acts. They know that, by using lies or trickery, make up and surgery, that additional males can be tempted into homosexual acts. This does not mean that such young men will be turned into homosexuals; it just means, they can be gotten to experiment, and that is the end-game. More gay experimentation and more gay partners.
Men are men, whether they are predominantly interested in homosexuality or heterosexuality; and, for many men, multiple partners is a desirable thing to them. This helps to explain why, even in “committed” gay relationships, fidelity is almost nonexistent.
This is why homosexuals have become so active in school curriculums, particularly on the grammar school level. This is why homosexuals are so interested in having gay marriage proclaimed as legal and equal to heterosexual marriage.
This is why they want homosexual acts to be presented side-by-side heterosexual acts in sex education.
Where is the best place for gays to encourage more gay behavior, which means more partners? On the grammar school level.
Here is exactly what they want; here is the end game:
(1) Sexual intercourse between males to be presented as exactly the same as sexual intercourse between a male and a female. No judgment. “You like coffee; I like tea; its all the same.” All of the resultant physical problems from anal intercourse will not be taught at any level. If there is any teaching about AIDS, it will be presented as a disease spread among all sexual relationships, and, all you have to do is, use a condom to prevent it. Furthermore, this must be presented to as young a group as possible. Preferably to children who do not even know what sexual relations are.
(2) A homosexual union must be presented as exactly equal to a heterosexual union. I have a few dozen Time-Life books on home repair, and, in more than half of the pictures, women are doing the work; laying brick, lifting up walls, drilling holes—this is what homosexuals want to see in our schools. If there is a book or a movie or an illustration which involves a family, they want to see a homosexual couple represented. From the earliest age possible, they want young 5 and 6 year old boys reading about gay penguins, or 10 year olds doing a math word problem which involves a homosexual couple Just like women construction workers are ubiquitous in my Time-Life books, they want to see homosexual couples ubiquitous in the public school curriculum. And if a school fails to do this, then they will go to court over it. Such a school would be teaching underlying or institutionalize bigotry, and that must be stopped. They cannot take such a school to court today, because gay marriage is not recognized by the state and federal governments. However, once that hurdle is made, then “institutional sexual bigotry” in the schools will be attacked via the legal system.
(3) Young males in particular must be raised in such a way as to think about their sexuality at a very young age; preferably before puberty, which will encourage experimentation. Whether you realize this or not, more homosexual behavior will be the result. Whether it sticks or not, is not important. It is the experimentation that counts. It is that discussion about sexual identify with a trusted adult that counts.
Homosexual marriage is not about love and commitment; anyone can do that, with or without the law. Passing homosexual marriage is really about recruiting more partners, the younger, the better.
These things are being done to a very limited extent at a handful of schools across the United States. However, once gay marriage passes (particularly, if it is done on the federal level), then these things will be pushed in a much more concerted way in our future, through the schools and the courts.
From Conservative Review #166
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview166.htm
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview166.pdf
A retired math teacher who spends most of his time exegeting the Old Testament and, once a week, puts out an ezeen.
reedit
it has nothing to do with orientation just ask any ADULT WHO AS A heterosexual male child was violated by an adult heterosexual woman care giver.
@Jim Hlavac: You said:
I understand what you are saying, Jim. I too, just “know” that I am hetero and not homosexual. I heard a psychology professor on the Dennis Prager show talking about the inflexibility of males vs females when it came to their sexuality. He said that among men, changes rarely occur in their sexuality. Especially compared to females. Wish I had caught his name, he had some fascinating insights on the issue. His work would have lended itself nicely to this discussion.
Please make no mistake about what I purport. I do not cast aspersions on all gay people just because of the actions of a few. What I said, and continue to say, is that among pedophiles (of all stripes, so to speak) a statistically significant number of them are homosexuals. That does not infer causation, just correlation.
I will drop a bombshell here at FA. My oldest son is gay. He has had a rough, hard road, but mostly of his own doings and choices. By choices, I mean life choices and not his gayness. He has been in abusive relationships and due to his lifestyle he has become bitter and distant. I only hope that someday I will have a good relationship with him once again.
At no time have I ever been upset about his gayness. Once, when I caught him viewing porn when he was 13, I took exception to it. But that had much more to do with the fact that he had no business at that age viewing pornography, rather than the type of porn it was. When I similarly caught his brother (who is straight) with porn at a young age, I also did not like it. They were both punished for what they were doing, not what type of porn they chose.
You said:
I agree with you on this. Hate is wrong no matter the type, target or method. My problem is with those folks, gay or straight, that use homosexuality as a political weapon to attempt indoctrination of our children.
@feetxxxl: Thanks for the history lesson. I am well aware of the origin of the phrase and the way the SCOTUS has misused it, as well.
I believe that the First Amendment to the Constitution was written to keep the government out of religion, not to keep religion out of the government.
@Gary Kukis: You said:
I think that if we tied the tax money to the child, and not to the school then competition would ensue. In other words, put the power to shop around back into the hands of the parents.
@anticsrocks:
that is no explanation .you hiding behind cliches. please be specific.
@feetxxxl: You said:
McCollum v Board of Education
Epperson v Arkansas
Stone v Graham
Wallace v Jaffree
Allegheny v ACLU
Lee v Weisman
There ya go. These ought to do for starters. In some cases these are state supreme courts, not always SCOTUS. Hope this is specific enough for ya’.
@anticsrocks :
Article VI, paragraph 3 (Constitution of the United States):
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
i see your understanding is so complicated that you that you need to mask it with all kinds of legalities and cannot explain it in simple plain reason…………………more games.
you say religion should be in govt……………what religion? baptistisms, episcoplaianism, pentacostal, united methodist, etc.
do realize that believers cannot even agree on the principles of the new covenant. half say that its standard is christ’s love, and his love shows us what the law is. 50% say that the law(god’s word) is the standard and that it tells christ what he is too support and not support.
of the the 50% that say that the standard is christ love, they cannot agree on what that love is, when it comes to specific issues.
First of all, feet I won’t let you hijack this thread.
But since you cannot fathom what I am talking about when I say it in plain, simple terms – and then you refuse to read the cases I cite when you ask for specifics, I really don’t see how we can have a discussion.
Unless your goal is to shut down debate.
Ours is a nation founded by God fearing, Christian men. They realized the importance of the civil society, or moral order, which is derived from Judea-Christian beliefs. When you remove that framework from the equation, chaos is sure to ensue. That is exactly where we are today with the decisions handed down by SCOTUS and various state supreme courts.
When you take God out of the classroom, not religion mind you, but the belief system of the civil society, then you begin to meander all over the place as a society. That is what is happening in our nation today.
Christianity, or the Judea-Christian belief set is the foundation of our country. In order for the civil society to work, you need to draw from a core set of values. This whole notion of co-opting the idea of separation of church and state to be so literal as to attack our very belief system is nothing short of an underhanded, deliberate plot to secularize whole segments of our society.
I cannot help it that you decided not to read the decisions I cited. Since you needed clarification, I hope this helps.
I will state this once. If you wish to delve further, then post a submission on why you think it is okay to go against the wishes and desires of our Founding Fathers, then we can go ’round and ’round if you like.
i never could understand this god in the class room, christian schools, when the home could be much more a effective. why not then hand the teaching in schools over to the catholic church.
again…………………you say religion should be in govt……………what religion? baptistisms, episcoplaianism, pentacostal, united methodist, etc. ……… add catholicism to that as well.
at one time it was moral to look at one’s wife and children as property(1700 years), to burn witches at the stake(1700 years), to engage in ethnic slavery(1700years), to indulge in the practice of indulgences(800years), and to engage in antisenetic practices of inqisitions, containment centers, genecides,deportations, denial of rights(2000years), and to look at homosexuals, as addicts, alcoholics, and even pediphials (600years)
@feetxxxl: You said:
And there are many private religious schools, which fare quite well and on average score much better in the job they do.
You also said:
Did you even read my comment #263??
I did indeed answer that…
Really feet, your penchant for not reading comments or sources cited is getting rather old. Must I really do all your work for you?
And here you just babble incoherently:
A wife as property? Is that the 1700’s or do you mean 1700 years (ago)?? Really, I mean try and focus and stay on topic, even though I have unfortunately allowed to you hijack this thread.
Let me attempt to steer it back on course.
Taking all religious references out of the public schools has had a profoundly deleterious effect on our society as a whole. I believe that doing so set the stage for those that wish to foist a homosexual agenda upon grade school children. It gave them a window of opportunity to force kids to learn about insane ideas like allowing Kindergarten kids to “explore their sexuality.”
Now why in the hell could it be a good thing to force Kindergarten kids to confront their sexuality?? At that age, they don’t even understand the concept. This is what really pisses people in the mainstream off about the gay agenda. I sure as hell do NOT want my daughter to “confront her sexuality” when she is old enough to attend Kindergarten. That is utter nonsense and for you, feet to defend actions such as this reveals a lot about you as a person.
my apologies for not being more clear.
it was moral to look at one’s wife and children as property for1700 years, to burn witches at the stake for 1700 years, to engage in ethnic slavery for1700years, to practice of indulgences for 800years, and to engage in antisemetic practices of inqisitions, containment centers, genecides,deportations, denial of rights for 1700years, and to treat homosexuals, as addicts, alcoholics, and even pediphials for 500years………………………………………… our moral chriustian judeo heritage.
and just how can you have god without religion……………………….religion is the social structure that is credited with speaking the truth about god.
you are speaking from a basis of religion……………….which appears very baptist.”On page 9, one of the book’s editors, James T. Sears, states, “Acknowledging children as sexual beings or allowing males (particularly homosexuals) to teach in elementary grades dislodges the classroom from the ‘safe haven’ of heteronormativity.”
the classrom isnt talking sexuality. they are talking about human bonding. that 2 of the same sex are forming committed parental relationship to each other to raise a family, that has the same love and nurturing ofr raising children as a heterosexual couple, which is true.
” He also wrote, “Allowing children freedom to develop their sexual identities absent guilt or conditional love is an important attribute of queer households (and classrooms).” – Source
this is your own philosophy, or that of narth which is a pseudo scientific institution( the source of their money have an investment in what conclusions they draw. there is nothing scientific about that.)
@feetxxxl: You are telling me that you have no problem with this??
BTW, this is NOT my philosophy. I am in no way in favor of introducing the idea of sexual identity or a sex life or some sort of sexual awakening to children.
You, however seem to think those ideas are acceptable. Please explain why you believe it is okay to introduce the idea of sexual identity to Kindergarten children. These kids are 5 years old, for goodness sakes and you are in favor of and defend Kevin Jenning’s desires to do this to kids. If you believe this you are just as sick as Jennings is.
You said:
I think you seem to be trying to denigrate the idea of Judea-Christian morals by confusing them with societal constructs; but what exactly do you mean by, “to practice indulgences?” Your ramblings are vague, overarching and pretty non specific. You cite no sources and actually make no sense.
Bottom line – Just explain why you think it is okay to tell 5 year old kids that they must choose their sexuality.
indulgences………………………….what martin luther spoke out against with his 95 points(wikipedia) (buying ones salvation which was supported by an elaborate choice of scripture)
at five years old children already have have some sense of their sexual identity. the point is for the school to providea safe environment where all sexual identities are supported.
since you feel compelled to support an understanding that there is a natural law, for religous reasons, you probably should send your kids to a religious school. but this country cannot create ordinaces concerning public education that support a particular religion.
everyone of those social constructs was proactively supported by believers as being morally correct in regards to judeo christian law.
@feetxxxl: You said:
You are out of your ever lovin’ mind!!
Children at 5 years old have a concept of their GENDER identity, but not their sexuality for God’s sake. There is a HUGE difference between sexual awareness and gender identification.
Think about what you are saying.
You honestly think that a 5 year old knows if he is gay or straight and what it means to even be gay or straight?
You honestly think that a 5 year old understands the concept of sexuality as it pertains to sexual preferences?
Their brains aren’t even developed enough at that age to grasp the idea of the sex act, much less be able to choose between hetero and homosexual leanings.
It is just as wrong for someone to try and teach Kindergarten children what heterosexuality is as it would be for anyone to teach them about homosexuality. And it is not the public school’s job to engender any type of sexuality enhanced environment. You obviously have no background in education.
You are way off base on this one, feet. Tell me, do you even have any children? I can tell you one thing, based on your writings here at FA, I wouldn’t let you within a mile of any of my kids.
You might want to know something before we go any further on this topic, my degree is in Psychology, with a concentration in Child Development. So if you wish to make claims like you did about 5 year olds understanding their sexuality, then you need to understand that I won’t allow you to fabricate arguments out of thin air just to support your stance on this issue.
In other words, quit lying and if you make an outlandish statement like I quoted you as saying at the top of this comment, then you had better link your sources.
@anticsrocks: Sir, you are so right – Jennings is nuts.
The issue sir, of this comment thread is the absurd idea that all gay men are sexual pedaphiles seeking to recruit boys into being gay — this concept is nuts. The premise is nuts. Therefore the discussion of it is nuts.
The reality is 95% of boys are hetero, and 5% are gay — and for the hetero boys there’s a support network to be the best kids they can be — and for the gay kids there’s a condemnation and fury directed at them.
I have no solution — Jennings doesn’t either. Neither does Kukis the author which inspired this debate — and neither do you, or anyone else.
And that’s what I seek — how do we direct gay boys to “puppy love” — to that innocuous teaching or relationship building. You all went through this — you all had this and that girlfriend — but gay boys don’t have any such similar experience — but they’re still gay. Hetero boys receive this training — and still some grow up to be pillaging cretins. And gay boys do not receive this training — and less of us grow up to be pillage cretins as a percentage of whom we are. We’re just not aggressive enough to pillage like hetero boys do.
The issue is not “teaching sex” — that should not be done (oddly, the birds and the bees talk of teaching sex, which is rightly in the hands of the parents, falls of deaf gay ears — it’s irrelevant to us, we wonder what on earth are you talking about — why would you do that with any woman?) — but teaching some moral value system that incorporates the reality of gay boys is necessary. You are not going to condemn this out of us. You are not going to pray it away. You are not going to just ignore it, for it is real. As everyone has acknowledged — better or worse – there’s a sliver of boys who are growing up gay. They are not going away. What will you do with us?
So how then do we make it better for them — and guide them to be better gay boys? As difficult as it seems, it’s no more different than dealing with autistic kids — who grow up, and present problems so much different than “Normal” people. There’s got to be difference in the way you deal with “normal” boys – and autistic boys — and there is.
So let us all recognize, admit, that gay boys are in a special boat on the sea of turbulent teen years. And stop condemning the 5% who grow up gay — and work on instilling in them responsibility, as we work to instill into autistic boys, a better way of dealing with whom they are.
Again, I have no answers. I don’t believe Jennings is good for us; I’m with you on that. But what solution, if any, do you propose to the reality, the sheer reality, ineluctable, irrevocable, reality of gay boys? Condemnation or wishing it will all go away, or saying you’ll prevent it by ignoring it is a fruitless exercise in futility.
That’s what I’m asking. And I ask for help in doing so. But first I have to fight the Kukis argument, which is pointless and nasty, and bears no resemblance to reality. Antic Rocks — I’m with you on that this is a sensitive and difficult subject — but we’re gay — and you all must deal with this in compassion, not condemnation. Will you join me? Or must I keep saying “Nuts” to the culture war against my people?
@anticsrocks: Sir, you and all are arguing hetero to hetero about us gay guys. I can see your utter confusion on this subject. But sir, listen to me, a gay man – a gay man who has talked to thousands of other gay men — we sir are perplexed at why you straight people do not listen to us – we are. We simply are gay. None of us has a blessed clue as to why — as the Babel of discussion indicates heterosexuals don’t either.
But this we know, sir, this we know — we are — and as I pointed out elsewhere and continuously, we have begged for your understanding of this.
Don’t debate among heterosexuals what you believe on the matter – but talk to us gay men – we who are the only ones who can bring light to this subject.
Sir, I never in my life looked at a woman the way you do — it’s inconceivable to me. I find it so disgusting –perhaps more than you view gay sex even — that to try to force me to do it is cruel and unusual punishment. And unfair to any woman you would seek to inflict me upon.
Sir, I plead — deal with gay people — and stop this debate amongst you all as to what you believe. Within us gay men lies the answer — we are, but no one knows why — but we’re a harmless few percent of the population all over the world. We are God’s meekest sheep, yet with the Fortitude of David and the Patience of Job, and the peacefulness of Jesus Himself — precisely because we are exactly whom we say we are – born this way, for God’s good reason we don’t know why.
Work with us, not against us.
@anticsrocks: Sir, you seem to be thoughtful – think about this — gayness is not a part of the current debate between us liberty minded people and the big government people. All over the world there are gay people. There’s no distinction between race, or ethnicity, culture or any other measurement of humankind. There’s gay folks. This debate is not about what Jennings is doing, nor about our erstwhile president on a perpetual golf excursion. It’s not about Christianity or Muslims, nor Left or Right. It’s not about Democrat or Republican, or anything — other than the bizarre reality that there are gay people. Yes, bizarre, for it does seem to go against everything. But, still, here we are. Those of us who are so obstreperous in insisting — we are. We have no choice in this matter. And we do so all over the world. We cannot relent, for we are. And we only beg acceptance of this reality. And we do so peaceably, with great respect for everyone’s opinions, but still, with the unstoppable insistence: we are. And you must deal. You must. Condemnation cannot be the answer to us. It cannot not. Some acceptance of our reality must be the answer. We ask for your help in figuring that out. That’s what we always ask, each in our own way.
I read in the past few days of a scientist who said, roughly — “It’s not rational to not believe the gay people whom say it’s innate — to believe otherwise is to believe in a synchronized mass dishonesty.”
Think about it — all gay people all over the world say we’re gay — and you heterosexuals are still debating as to whether this might be the case.
We are running out of answers to your complaint. Except one, which we repeat: we are, sir, we are.
And so what will we do about it? Condemn or accept?
@anticsrocks: Sir, you say:
“You honestly think that a 5 year old knows if he is gay or straight and what it means to even be gay or straight?
You honestly think that a 5 year old understands the concept of sexuality as it pertains to sexual preferences?”
But you start off with: “You are out of your ever lovin’ mind!!”
Sir, let me, as your gay speaker, say this — you ARE out of your ever lovin’ mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Enough explanation points? I knew sir, I knew.
And you suppose, and postulate.
And Franky Rehack and Peter Triumph complained to my third grade teacher Mrs. Hammer that I was staring at them. Ms. Griddlefeld in Kindergarten commented to my parents that I was overly attentive to the boys. From the time I was six years old my parents sent me to summer camp for three or four months to get rid of me — for I was rambunctiously sexual at 5, 6 and 7 years old. Every parent in the neighborhood complained I was a bit too spin the bottle with their sons
And every gay guy tells me the same – and I’m sure I know gay guys by the busload over the ones you think you studied.
You sir, have ideas, I have knowledge. Ay, there’s the difference.
You think — I know.
You think wrong. I know right.
And so did every lifeguard on Jones Beach Long Island into who’s lap I climbed to find out what was in those Speedos of theirs.
Sir, — you can argue hetero to hetero all day long.
Let me tell you the truth. The reality. For I know reality, and you suppose belief.
Truly, get a grip. You’re wrong. Take it from a gay guy, for once, listen. We are. And we know it at such a young age that your comments are (punfully) fruitless. We’re fruits sir, and we know it from the first inklings of existence.
This you deny, at your peril. Oh well.
Still living in your “me me it’s all about me” world, Jim? When will you figure out your complaints are miniscule when it comes to the larger scheme of things.
Get over it. Bored, bored, bored.
@anticsrocks: Sir, and all, you know what the weirdest thing is about this alleged “debate” over gay folks — you simply will not listen to a word we say.
You are all so cocksure in your cockamamie attitudes and beliefs.
And we who live the thing are wrong.
We find this to be the most comical thing in the world.
And go on about our lives.
And you debate. Endlessly. What you think and study and believe.
And we are. And you deny our testimony.
You are all very strange people, you heterosexuals. And we will never be able to understand you. You are weird.
@MataHarley: I’m not discussing me — you are discussing me . I did not start this debate about us here — Mr. Kukis did — you are debate us. We are not debating us. It’s not about my station in this world. It’s about your view of my station in this world. Which is why you debate it incessantly, with no conclusion in site. And you’re friggin’ oblivious to how utterly banal and boring it truly is. We’re so tired of it you have no earthly idea. Cease, and we would shout hallelujah. We’re not the ones debating us — I’m one gay guy among dozens of you heterosexuals debating us right here, long before I showed up. You’re consumed by us. What on earth are you talking about? You’re obsessed with us. You’re holding hearings on us in nearly every state legislature, and every national legislature on earth. You debate us incessantly. Us? It’s about us? Ha!
And then you have the audacity to decry when one of us enters the debate?
Truly amazing. Amazing willful, blind, purposeful ignorance on your part.
You are weird people.
You are *always* discussing, “you”, Jim Hlavac. Me? I could care less about “you”. You deign to speak for all gays at every opportunity, and are abnormally focused on you and what you perceive are your unfair conditions in daily life. This is evidenced even further by your disassocation with “weird people”, meaning anyone other than you and your sexual appetities, at every opportunity. Why the hell do you think I’ve weighed in, what twice?, to your ga’zillion melodramatic commentaries.
You bore the tar out of me, and offend me even more with your abnormal focus of self. I have relatives, friends and acquaintances that are gay. Even had the hearbreaking task to help bury a few from AIDS. None of us have a problem with each other. They’d all find you deplorable and whiny.
Get a life, and stop lecturing the rest of us.
@MataHarley: And you’re right, I have long maintained that we gay folks are unimportant — so give us the piece of paper, stop the condemnation, figure out how we fit in or don’t and say “howdy do, gay folks, welcome to America!” – But no, you’re going to endlessly debate our very existence.
Us? — you all started this fire. Shouldn’t have raided one too many gay bars. Stonewall done did you in. We’ve been pissed ever since. Leave us alone, kiss us, make happy, and let’s get on with some real problems.
But we’re not obsessed with us — you are obsessed with us. Get a grip girl. No gay folks ever debated the reality of you heterosexuals. We need you — you make more of us. Thanks.
Not that interested in what makes you feel comfortable, Jim Hlavac. That’s your onus. No one wonders what will make me feel “important” in humanity either. And certainly not based on my sexual preferences. Unlike you, I’m not a prima donna that thinks the world is required to make me feel anything, let alone welcome.
Obsessed with you? Hardly. If you didn’t shove yourself in my face at every opportunity, wouldn’t give you and your psychological inadequacies a second thought.
@MataHarley: I was quietly sitting at home this Saturday, living life, when my email box lit up with comments on this two and a half week old thread. I didn’t start it. Are you blind?
It’s about me? What are you drinking or smoking? So I might avoid it
There are dozens of heteros talking about us, including you, right here — obsessed.
Me? I did nothing but defend — against crap like yours.
Yeesh, Get a grip girl
@MataHarley: And had I not said a word — you all would be discussing gay folks.
Jesus, you is nuts.
Mata, are you really that stupid? Me? I would be the lats person to discuss me or mine. “tis you ’tis you — and you’re blind if you don’t see this.
Mata — the whole damn thing was started by a heterosexual named Gary Kukis. That’s why where here discussing gay folks. Oh, sorry, a gay guy spoke. Too effin’ bad.
But it wasn’t started by a gay guy.
Are you really that thick?
No, I pray not. I pray.
As is usual with your comments… perpetual in motion and devoid of content… it doesn’t appear you need me here since you manage to entertain yourself about yourself. Nor do I have the patience to humor you in your self perceived persecution.
ta ta
Mata, you is brainless. ta ta yourself. I need a cocktail. Not necessarily in that order. God bless us all.
@anticsrocks:
yeah…………………..at 5 they scent some kind of attraction, theydont understand what it means, but yeah as early as 5. and the fact that what ever the attraction it is good and for this to be in school in kidergarten and 1st grade has been long in coming, but i is so important and needs to be there……so important to eliminate…………….bullying……………….homophobia(judging someone by their orientation)……………………….provide for equal protection
@Jim Hlavac:
i love your outrage………………………not one, not one should be ever considered credible to speak for those who are gay except those who are gay………..never……never………never……i love it.
if someone heterosexual wants to know what it is to be gay it is for them to ASK…………………..and then to listen……………………nothing could be greater description of ” love one another as i have loved you”. heterosexual believers are outraged that any one would challenge that they know what it is to be gay…………………this what they call the gay agenda……………..gay aggression and miltancy.
@Jim Hlavac: Okay, you started out thoughtful and made some points back in comment# 271. But after that you went downhill faster than a barn sour horse uphill from the barn.
You keep asking “us” to stop debating about “you” and instead debate with “you.”
Funny, I thought we were.
And besides, you put too much importance on our discussion. We are only talking about this behind random keyboards that are hooked up to the interwebz. No one here at FA – to my knowledge – has the power to effect public policy on this issue.
Later on, to Mata you said:
So you are saying that we heterosexuals cause more of you homosexuals to exist?
Doesn’t that contradict what you said here:
or here –
or here –
or here –
– or a myriad of other places where you claim you are born gay.
So which is it?
Also, I have a question. You claim to be sent away to camp at 6, yet above in one of your comments you said it was 11. Care to clarify?
@feetxxxl: You said?
Okay, I am with you on the bullying. All bullying is bad and needs to be dealt with.
But there is no way you will convince me that 5 year old kids know who they want to have sex with – hell, they don’t even know WHAT sex is.
remember what it was like when you were a male child. when you encountered something feminine that you thought was pretty and smelled nice and had a pleasanrt way of speaking you reacted differently to the person(whether adult or another child) than you did to the males around you. you wanted to be in close proximity to the person, and their approval became important. that wasnt about intercourse but about bonding, the issue of intercourse didnt happen until you went thru the changes and sexual identitiy came to the forefront.
this is the affirmation that needs to be given to all children gay or straight to affirm the bonding of both. “love one another as i have loved you” ” love the little children the way i love the little children ….all of them.”
@feetxxxl: Actually, as a very young boy, I hated girls and I liked girls, depending upon the day and the age.
There is a balance of the souls as well as a complementary component when it comes to a man and a woman, something which does not occur in homosexual relationships.
Being sexually attracted to someone or something does not make it right, nor should it culminate in a sexual relationship.
@Jim Hlavac:
My point in this piece was, gay marriage is not the end game or the end of this “in your face” gay movement, but merely a strong legal foothold, from which would be launched thousands of attacks on schools, individuals, businesses and churches. And I gave a number of examples to substantiate this.
Several gays have, on several occasions, proven my point with what they have said.
@Jim Hlavac:
You obviously exist, and your political agenda will never be complete until you have corrupted our grammar schools, muffled our pastors, legally attacked anyone who looks at your sideways, and edited our Bibles.
However, I recognize that it is not you, but Satan working through you.
And the dishonesty of the gay agenda comes from your father, the devil (John 8:44).
And from “The Usual Suspects” The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”
@Jim Hlavac:
Having the innate desire to do something does not make it right, no matter when that innate desire revealed itself. I am sure that there are many married men who read Flopping Aces who have seen this or that woman to whom they are attracted, but made a conscious choice not to pursue that attraction, because it is wrong. It is wrong to step outside of this relationship, even if the man has been attracted to numerous women starting at age 3 (or whatever).
Furthermore, you are completely aware of a study of identical twins where one person is gay and the other is not. Certainly, there is a genetic predisposition for homosexuality just as there is for alcoholism and drug addiction, but that a genetic predisposition is not the only factor.
Furthermore, society does not excuse alcoholics or drug addicts, simply because they had a genetic predisposition to do so.
Finally–and this is something else that you are fully aware of–there are many homosexuals who have forsaken that life, sometimes through believing in Jesus Christ and sometimes through psychiatry (although one of the first political attacks of the homosexuals–and I admit, tactically, this was brilliant–was to get psychiatrists to agree that homosexuality was not a psychological/physiological illness, despite all of the similarities to other genetic predispositions, like alcoholism).
@Jim Hlavac:
The so-called “Kukis” argument is, gay marriage is not the end game; gay marriage is a legal foothold. This will not end the gay-political movement, but it will inspire and energize it. The end result will be a butt-load of new laws and court decisions, which is he exact opposite of what conservatives want. We want less government interference, not more. Letting you call a “gay relationship” marriage will change our society profoundly.
And I gave you a mere handful of examples which prove this.
There is nothing feminine about a gay man….but you sure know how to nag. 🙂
@feetxxxl:
Heterosexuality is the norm; it makes up 95-98% of the population. If more therapy was available to homosexuals, maybe it would make up an even higher percentage.
Your continual quotes like this and references to 5 year olds and their sexual identities proves my point; homosexuals want to get into the grammar schools.
One of my propositions is this: if gay marriage becomes federal law, then schools will be sued for “gay discrimination practices” if they do NOT mention gayness at the earliest ages; and if they do not have gay penguin books presented at the earliest ages. This will be called “institutionalized gay discrimination” or something like that.
You have proven my point again and again and again. You are not content to have homosexual encounters with consenting adults; you are not content to having the same legal rights as married couples do (ala, the domestic partnership). What you want is far more insidious than that, which is to impose the homosexual agenda upon the entire nation.
@anticsrocks:
That is certainly a piece of the solution. However, this is not something that can be done overnight, as chaos would ensue.
@feetxxxl:
Approximately 1/3 of all pedophile arrests are same-sex abuse. Given that 2-4% of all males are homosexual, that is disproportionate and it indicates a high correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia.
@Jim Hlavac:
Another example of how you want to get into the grammar schools.
” There is a balance of the souls as well as a complementary component when it comes to a man and a woman, something which does not occur in homosexual relationships.”
the balance of souls in any bonded relationship is the fruit of the spirit that is in that relationship, love,joy,peace, kindness,self-control,goodness,faithfulness,patience,and gentleness, the fruit of the spirit of christ, that is different from the fruit of the spirit of powers and principalities.
this is in gay marriages in the same way it is in heterosexual marriages.
gary
i see you worship at the altar of ” heteronormativity.” and man woman marriage. that why the seperation of church and state. the mandates of altar worshippers(congress will make no laws supporting any religion) can not make the laws but instead it is reason that does, based on the inlienable rights spoken in the declaration of independence, all men are created equal………..that includes gay men as well. if all are created equal, and heterosexual men influence the nature of this culture, then gay men equally should be allowed to shape the nature as well.
you are afraid of major changes in this country, if i worshipped at your altar i would be worried to. i worship christ, his spirit , his love.
homosexualitiy has been deemed legal and therefore any changes that come supporting this legality are good, legally, socially,culturally, etc.
@Gary Kukis:
i keep telling you that narth is a pseudo scientific organizaTION.
@Gary Kukis:
you said:
“Heterosexuality is the norm; it makes up 95-98% of the population. If more therapy was available to homosexuals, maybe it would make up an even higher percentage.”
Wow. And now it finally comes out. Your goal isn’t to prevent gays from gaining a legal foothold… your goal is just to eliminate gays all together. You really think gays need therapy? Really? And you base all this off your holy book which not everyone follows. (Is your goal actually for the bible to gain legal foothold, to censor the gays and make sure all 5 year olds are indoctrinated Christians?) You also butchered the john 8:44 quote… people have been interpreting the bible in different ways forever… but you must have some very strange version.
Gary… you make it hard for Christians to defend Christianity… we are supposed to be a religion of love and all you do is spew unadulterated hate.
I am disappointed to see that Jim didn’t respond to my questions.
@anticsrocks: I’m sorry sir, I got a life.
I’m so tired of the “debate” over gay folks. So tired.
So in the past day or two I was dealing with the things of life, deleting the comments that I saw come to my email — I was doing laundry, Spring and the garden, and getting the IRS tax stuff ready, and the WWII veteran I take care of, and on and on, through life — not a “gay lifestyle.” Life. This is the point I make, we’re just living lives — as normal as you in 99% of the way — but, that 1%, we’re gay. We’re not, as a group, child molesters, though I’m sure there are some of us who are, just as most are heterosexual men.
Oh, I could be bothered going through it all the way again. Mr. Kukis’s theory, his thesis — his premise — is wrong — and worse — malicious. For no reason other than “Belief.” And that goes to what you and I referred to — gay folks are not “recruiting” so much as we are “accepting” the gay kids who come to us. No, it’s not as bad as it used to be, when I would pick up discarded young men and take them in and give them sustenance, and send them on there way, without ever touching their junk — because they were thrown out by their own parents. What was I to do with a gay teen on the street? Leave him there? That would be Christian Compassion — after good Christians chased him out. No. It would not. Thankfully it got better, and I don’t see but one a year now, versus the 1 a week used to, back in the 1980s.
But what would anyone have me do with those boys, often just late teens? Chase them away again? That’s moral? You jest, no?
Sir, anticrocks — yes, straight people make gay people — here’s how — you enjoy your sex, and a baby comes, and for some reason known so far only to God Himself, the boy turns out gay. You make us, by whatever mechanism you believe in. Genetics? Environment? Lousy parenting? Strong or weak mothers, near or distant fathers? Oh you all have so many reasons, you can’t all be correct. I won’t even deign to discuss them all. I wish us to sit down and figure out why there are gay boys like me. But I’m tired of discussing whether it’s real, or we’re natural. You don’t want to believe that — go research. More and more evidence is that we’re biological – our brains are physically different. And we’re differently physically. I just got back from a night at the bar — and I look — and I see a physical difference between straight men and gay men. Yes, we’re just sissies. Only us will be. Not you. We don’t make more of us. We just try to deal with those whom you send our way.
Yes, Mr Kukis, and all, there is a “moral component” to gayness – but it doesn’t lie in the gayness itself, it lies in how we all deal with it, and more importantly, how the vast majority of you deal with it. But we’re not going to change, nor just be celibate, so that the rest of you are happy. It’s not going to happen. Our answer to the culture war is “Nuts.”
I have no easy answer. I can provide no silver bullet to solve the problem. I’m just a guy. I’m a citizen like you, buffeted by it all. But I’m gay, and on this subject, and perhaps only this one, I just know more than you all, I think about it all more — for it is my life, it is my existence. I’m just more knowledgeable on it all because I have lived it — not because of any academics, or theory or theology. And existence, reality, always trumps belief. Liberals belief, regardless of evidence. Conservatives deal with reality, whether they like it or not. I’m a conservative in this regard, and many others.
But we ask this of you — this is the only thing we ask of you — stop condemning us as evil. We are not. We are not trying to steal your sons. You do something to those sons long before they come to us; we believe it’s genetic; many of you believe it happens after birth. Still, we take them in, those gay boys tossed away, we try as we might. We’re not good at it because we have no experience. And we have no help in providing the moral underpinnings to push those young gay men to relationships, to a sexually monogamous relationship — but still, a gay one. For the gayness is not political, or theoretical. It’s a blessed reality all over the world, at God’s bidding. I don’t know why, but I know it.
No, what we get is the blanket accusations about our supposed “agenda” to make more gay folks. That was Mr. Kukis’s thesis. It’s wrong. Just plain wrong. I don’t know what nuances you all — and there were hundreds of comments — have on this issue. But the one thing I know — I know this with all my heart — we are not recruiting your boys. In ways not yet known you heterosexuals are making gay people. Just l like my parents made me — back in the 1960s — long before there was a gay debate; long before the word gay was uttered in public. There I was, now what?
I want to work with you all to find a way to deal decently with gay folks. But accusations, and the blanket aspersions, and the worst — the child molesting charge — will not work. Neither will condemning us. Neither will just telling us to not be gay. We just are. The gayness is not moral, the way we’re gay is. There’s a difference, and that’s what we gay men seek — how to be moral gay men — but we can never accede to the wish of you all to not be gay. It’s too much a part of our existence. If you can’t grasp this, I cannot help you, and we shall argue incessantly. For we can never relent.
I’m not sure on 90% of this subject — I seek your help. But of this I’m positive — as all gay men are — we are. We just are. We don’t know why, but we have these feelings long before we know a word about it. The gayness comes first, then we find other gay men. And Kukis put it backwards, as many do: first there’s gay men — and we make another gay. This is wrong. We’re gay, you are not. OK, so now what?
So if you want to debate old ideas, well, I can’t help.
But if you want to accept my reality — the gayness — which is so intrinsic that it has nothing to do with politics anywhere on earth — then I’m willing to debate how to deal with it. But again, condemnation is unacceptable. We are the Pink Sheep of The Flock Of God. You must ask Him why we are here. He seems to like us, for he gave us the fortitude to withstand all assaults on us.
It’s difficult, it’s weird. It flies in the face of perceived wisdom. But it’s real. So now what?
@anticsrocks: Sir, let me appeal to you, and all, in a different way. This is not a political debate. Mr. Kukis has contended it is. And he says it’s a political program for gays to seize as many boys as we can to make more of us. His contention is horrific. It is blood libelous. Let me tell you why:
OK, you sir, and your wife, with whom I wish you many years of bliss, you were taught all your lives that you would grow up to meet your prince and princess charming. And all of society was on your side. Everything, from puppy love and fairy tales to engagements and marriage celebrations. This is good. I do not denigrate this. This is necessary for you all to do this. This is a mainspring of civilization without a doubt.
Alas, for you, but not for us, we are also a spring of civilization, somehow. To discount our claim on our reality of being is to believe we have, as Mr. Kukis says we do, some synchronized mass dishonesty. This is ludicrous. And we keep begging you all to understand this. Some tiny sliver of the population, about 4 or 5% of the boys, and 1 or 2% of the girls, with the girls being more fluid in this, are gay. We 4 or 5% of gay guys — we’re so set in this — not because of choice — But in the exact same way you are straight. Do you understand this? Not you, but us, is gay. And it’s not going to change. We cannot, will not, ever change. We’re gay. The same percentage of boys are going to be gay. That’s it. This is reality. Now, you all are debating this reality. And Mr. Kukis is subtracting from the debate. For our recognition of our reality comes long before we ever encounter any other such person. You folks, on the other hand, you have each other from the get go.
And when gay guys grow up — we hear the exact same thing as you do, sir. We hear we’re going to grow up — indeed, told we are — to find the girl of our dreams and settle down and have kids, and all of society will be for us in doing this.
And it falls on completely unalterably deaf ears. Do you grasp this? Can you? We just listen to this and say to ourselves, “What? You got to be kidding! No way I would do that!” And then we go find others of our kind, and ask to be left alone and do what we do. “Don’t tread on us either.”
We’re peaceful, productive, surprisingly calm, rational, even conservative people in doing this. Causing a ruckus is not good for our health; and we’re not aggressive people. We have set up a separate economy as much as we could, too. It’s easy to find. “Plumbers” = “gay plumbers” — anything, any occupation. Any endeavor — there’s a gay counterpart, away from you. This we did to spare you.
Now there’s some legal issues. For you all use “family law.” And we must use “business” or “contract” law. We’re already dealing with all of life’s issues. In our way; but there’s no space on the form for us sometimes. We’re good at it. But it should be brought under family law. You know, law is broken down into “titles.” I don’t know, maybe family law is “Title Two” — well, make “Title Two 1/2” for us. This must come about. Precisely because we are so embedded in society, we are so peaceful, we are such a benign presence, and we’re not going anywhere. And given our existence in all of humanity’s breadth and length — long before Kevin Jennings, NAMBLA or Obama came along there were gay people everywhere on earth — we are, I do submit — obviously a necessary part of humankind — and that to keep condemning us is cruel and unusual punishment.
We’re harmless sissies, so let us both deal with it the best we can, and let you lions lay down with us sheep, and then let’s both together solve the true problems of the nation.
But sissies are not a problem sir, we’re just not.
@anticrocks, sir, I’m glad you asked why I did not answer your questions. This is an important debate we’re all having, precisely because it involves us less than 20,000,000 gay folks — and all the rest of the 300,000,000’s attitudes about us. Think about that — look what a tiny number we are. And we’re a threat? We’re recruiting in a grand scheme and all we could come up with is the 20,000,000 obviously gay men and women, whom nearly everyone can recognize nearly instantly? This is our plan to “promote homosexuality” and defile civilization? Seriously? Yet, such is the debate.
Some say we have an “agenda” — though everyone seems to have a different view of what that is. Still, we’re so disorganized it’s not funny. Our “agenda” is very simple — you must deal with us as we are and stop condemning us and making ludicrous, malicious, unfair, and grossly inaccurate accusations about us. Treat others as you would want to be treated.
Then, help us find a moral, social and legal way to fit in as we can, and leave us out when necessary, as you do with every other citizen.
We are compelled to make our legal and financial arrangements singularly or as couples under business and contract law — but these exist. And you make it under family law. Bringing us into family law somehow will have no affect on your use of family law, for it is so well established, as it should be. But it will make it easier and more systematic for us, thereby encouraging even more benign gayness in society than we all ready are. And the Broadway Shows we put on don’t seem to be so bad.
So the debate I propose is not my existence, but how you bring us into family law. For we’re families, or individuals, but related to families. My mother loves me, why can’t the rest of you?