Posted on 02/09/2006 8:10:43 AM PST by NYer
...which is what a reasonably intelligent person will arrive at if given enough room to grow and reason more than, unfortunately, the homosexual-activist culture refuses to individuals as to the subject of homosexuality.
By definition, your discussions would have been with someone who you submit is in denial.
Hahaha...from the look of things, that actor ("Will" on WILL AND GRACE) has been adversely affected by the role he's been/is playing because I saw a photo of the guy backstage from the last Emmy's and he was standing there with his pants down around his ankles. Supposedly as "gimick" but after I recovered from the double-take, I realized just what the "humor" was supposed to be about and went stone cold inside. Because it wasn't funny, just disturbed. Disturbingly real and disturbingly sad.
Thanks for posting.
Most excellent analysis I have ever read.
Ok, give!! What was the 'gimick'???
And if it means he's gay, it's sad because he's married with children. I know he has that "noone should be judging but unless they hold a gavel" crapola commercial.
I, too, work in a "creative" field and get a tad weary, like a lot of others, of having it so consistently be associated with homosexuals more than anything actually creative and academic.
About your boss and that "20 year" relationship, most homosexuals I've heard of and from and about maintain time-spanning habits with another primary "partner" BECAUSE they engage in multiple other relationships, both mutually and individually. They just establish property and routines shared with another compatible person but they make that possible because of the additional persons they have contact with as an acceptable practice of that primary relationship.
This article is so accurate and candid that it does define accurately just what the motivation is for homosexuals. The long/er standing relationships between two people is never similar to what you or I or other heterosexuals accept and know as "a committed relationship with the opposite sex" that continues through to and concludes through marriage for life. Homosexuals don't replicate that, they have an entirely different practice of "commitment" that they both seek and desire.
*************
Most of my experience has been with lesbians (sister and current neighbors), but I found this article to be interesting, particularly regarding promiscuity. One thing that was surprising to me was that both belong to groups in which there is much changing of partners. Most relationships seemed to be monogamous for a time, then broke up and each person moved on to another "single" group member. Not being closely involved, I have no idea how monogamous those temporary relationships are. Perhaps I simply assume so, incorrectly.
It must have been very difficult for Mr. Lee to write this piece. I wish the best for him.
If you take Mr. Lee's article at face value, perhaps you should reconsider your claim....
I'm quite serious about this: Mr. Lee is essentially claiming that the likes of ex-Father O'Neill is an agent of a conspiracy. But is that really necessary?
Mr. Lee's article contains some very useful descriptions of the power of delusion, desire, and rationalization. He should have left it at that, as it's a sufficient explanation.
When he tries to build it into something more than that, I begin to distrust him. Seriously: do you really believe that the owners of Lobo's would spend scads of money on fake stock, just to lure homos to the pornography in back? Pshaw. There's no need to assume it.
Yes, but you don't walk into Barnes and Nobel and in the back find "Adult Mart"...
While porn is a big business, businesses that focus on porn and primarily a heterosexual audience, don't do so by beguiling folks into thinking their business is something else.
Homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, is all about covering up huge self destructive actions with a smiling face...
Do what you are going to do, but don't expect the rest of the world to embrace it as normal.
Well worth repeating!
Its far more choice than biology... its not mere biology that gay men tend in large numbers to fall into 1 of three categories:
1) Horrible or no relationship with a father growing up.
or
2) Overbearing mothers
or
3) Molested by men as children.
None of those factors has anything to do with biology, yet they are all very very common themes among homosexual males.
Thanks for posting this. It was something of an eye-opener for me.
As distasteful as it is to see the liberal media continually push the homosexual lifestyle, it is more important to know that they are pushing a "sanitized" version.
People know there is a seedier side but, like me, I don't think they think that that side is what the homosexual lifestyle is mostly about. This article says that it IS more about serial sex than it is about life long, or even longterm, relationships.
I stand by the statement, I do not fool so easily. It appears that you could not say the same.
Bump for later
When did the genome project determine that nobody is born that way?
The Genome Project didn't involve the search for genetic causes of diseasese, disorders and/or behaviors. It mapped existing genes throughout our human population. Your implausible reply there (that "the genome project" didn't "determine that nobody (was) born that way" or did) would be like telling someone that Google Maps didn't write prescriptions so therefore no prescription for anything existed.
There has been no genetic proof or substantiation that homosexuality is "immutable." That means, no one has been able to ever isolate any genetic cause.
Despite the pleas and insistences of some that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic (that people "are born homosexual"), it is not proven to be the case and remains just that: a personal opinion and in the case of many, an obsession. Neither of those things establishes scientific proof.
So, homosexuality remains a behavior. It's not immutable.
More than one person. And yes, in part they are in denial. They deny that what they're doing is disordered, and they attempt to rationalize -- and normalize -- what they're doing with incredibly childish arguments.
The "best" (and most revealing) argument they've got is "don't you feel sorry for me because I can't have sex the way I want to?" In my experience, it has always come down to that.
There's a childish selfishness to them -- and we both know how destructive childish behavior can be.
It hasn't yet. But every other study has shown that there is no genetic link. Of course the fact that the overwhelming majority of sodomites share one of three environmental characteristics also helps. (Poor or absent relationship with their father, being sexually or otherwise abused, being relentlessly teased by their peer group during the formative years)
In 1982, Fr. Enrique Rueda published THE HOMOSEXUAL NETWORK (Devin-Adair, of course long since out of print). He made a good case that there was a homosexual conspiracy within the Catholic Church. He included copies of newsletters they sent to one another, agendas of symposia held by New Ways Ministry, and lots of other information strongly suggesting that the homosexuals knew each other and were consciously cooperating.
Some of the people he names, such as Fr. Shanley, were already active in the 1970s.
Conspiracy or not, it's a real shame that the Bishops didn't pay attention to him when the book came out. A lot of grief could have been avoided.
That's preposterous. Self-delusion is sufficient to explain Lobo's "respectable books" section.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.