As the ice has been broken in Israel on their version of "Dancing with the Stars", The Girls discuss whether same-sex dancing is appropriate family viewing and will Hollywood cross the line (again)? [Video embedded after page break]
Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield
Editor at Large
Brent Baker
Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes
Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd
Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard
Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock
Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth
Publisher
Brent Bozell
Site Design
Dialog New Media
Comments
It seems more and more girls
Submitted by scarebear83 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 4:12pm.
It seems more and more girls at the high school in my hometown are saying they're lesbian. I think at some high schools it is getting as bad as we see on TV etc. I've heard teenagers talk about doing things etc. that I nor anyone else I was in school with would have ever dreamed of doing! And I graduated in 2001 so that should tell you how quickly things are going downhill.
As far as what's on TV today, I think if I ever have kids I'm not getting cable. I'm gonna buy up DVD's of the old shows I grew up with.
That really won't work
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 4:24pm.
"As far as what's on TV today, I think if I ever have kids I'm not getting cable. I'm gonna buy up DVD's of the old shows I grew up with"
I've been there done that..sooner or later you will cave..best of luck.
I don't see more open
Submitted by charlesandy on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 4:41pm.
I don't see more open lesbianism among younger people as a regressive development. it seems like a healthier, freer society.
Yeah, we want to do all we can to encourage it since
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 4:57pm.
its so healthy.
WTF planet did you arrive from and when are you leaving?
I don't know if you mean
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 5:14pm.
I don't know if you mean "more" open lesbianism, or "more open" lesbianism.
While it is certainly the latter, I have doubts about the former. Young girls experiment, and in some places, lesbianism is a fad (see Lesbian Chic, for one, and there are other articles.)
Ellen deGeneres' previous squeeze, Anne Heche, went from Ellen to marriage with a guy, and two children. Did she have a "religious awakening"? I doubt it.
Women can choose to be homosexuals, moreso than men.
From the Times article:
Women have always speculated about what it would be like to be with another woman, but it has always been a thought that is furtive, a daring idea whispered among friends — usually after a bottle or two of chardonnay. Now, it’s more than a possibility, it looks like a real option. If men fail you, there’s always the girl-on-girl fall-back. To increasing numbers of young women, it seems like a good thought in a bad world.
I meant that hopefully, young
Submitted by charlesandy on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 5:33pm.
I meant that hopefully, young gay people feel safer now more than ever when they decide to become open about their sexuality.
I certainly agree that young people experiment.
Towards the end of the article at your link, it says
"Love is not a lifestyle option. Love is a beautiful, happy accident between two people, no matter what their gender."
I agree.
Perhaps Anne Heche found someone she loves that happens to be a man. I also doubt that she had a "religious awakening."
Perhaps Anne Heche found
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 5:43pm.
Perhaps Anne Heche found someone she loves that happens to be a man.So you're saying that homosexuality is not about sex, it's about love? Then why do women have woman friends who they love without it being lesbianism?
Yes.
Submitted by charlesandy on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 5:58pm.
Yes, in fact, that is exactly what I am saying. I'm saying that homosexual men and women are capable of having just as meaningful, loving, (and physical) relationships as heterosexual people, and their relationships are just as emotionally legitimate as heterosexual couples'.
I'm not sure what your second sentence means. Do you mean that if homosexuality isn't a choice, women would not be able to have other women friends without wanting to have sex with them? I could be off the mark in interpreting your second sentence.
Yes, you're off the mark.
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 6:52pm.
I meant that I disagree with your "it's about the love" thing. Homosexuality is about the sex, not the love. We don't call two women who love each other "lesbians" unless they are having sex together.
Homosexuality is about the
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 7:00pm.
Homosexuality is about the sex, not the love. We don't call two women who love each other "lesbians" unless they are having sex together.I'm not sure how you can say that-- don't you distinguish between men you fall in love with and men who are your friends?
Sexuality is about who you are attracted to, and that is not purely physical or purely emotional. Love is definitely part of it, but we don't love everyone in the same way, whether we are gay or straight.
Some people seem to be able to fall in love with and be attracted to members of both genders. Clearly, not everyone can or does, but that doesn't make the phenomenon any less real for the people who experience it.
motherbelt, mamabear did a
Submitted by charlesandy on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 7:22pm.
motherbelt,
mamabear did a good job of articulating the point.
Thanks!
Let me chime in. You
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 9:31pm.
Let me chime in.
You couldn't be any further off the mark, and it clearly means you live in some faraway land in complete seclusion from the rest of the world.
As I'm watching a close friend of mine wither away from HIV, his partner of 20+ years is at his side. The completely healthy one supports the other completely, who most of the time is in a near comatose state from his medications.
It hasn't been about the sex for a long time. But it's always been about love.
Kinda like you?
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 10:48pm.
Your brain is withering away.
It hasn't been about the truth for a long time. But it's always been about using fake stories to make your point.
You have no class.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 11:00pm.
You have no class.
...sez the 16 time retread troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 12:34am.
That faked being a woman, black, and having 8 children.
In 2010?
Submitted by MrShy on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 12:43am.
Someone not living in a third world is "withering away" from HIV?
Yeah, coming from ACL I think I have to call b.s. on this one, too. I put nothing past him.
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Anyone see the Bono ads?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 1:06am.
With all the actors saying what your could do with 40 cents?
40 cents a day says Bono. Maybe Dead Zippers could give a little to help his dying buddies in Africa. He talks about them enough with the man on man kissing and the sad hospital deathbed scenes he stole from a script that someone tossed in the trash.
According to the CDC, 18,000
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:20am.
According to the CDC, 18,000 people still die from AIDS each year in the US.
It's not a joke, and the fact that it is rarer to die from the disease today than it was 20 years ago does not make it okay for you to laugh about those deaths.
Shut up hippiebear troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:25am.
I told you never to interact with me again.
You see any funnies above? First we have DiaperBoy Dead Zippers making dry dry dry jokes no one finds funny and now we have you claiming we are making jokes where none are to be found.
Go back to the rock you climbed from under and knock it off with the lies.
Your little stupid buddy gets enough dents in his skull without your non-helping help.
Maybe Dead Zippers could
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 10:21am.
Maybe Dead Zippers could give a little to help his dying buddies in Africa. He talks about them enough with the man on man kissing and the sad hospital deathbed scenes he stole from a script that someone tossed in the trash.--now we have you claiming we are making jokes where none are to be found.
While I certainly don't think this is funny, you are clearly making fun. Whether or not you believe ADK specifically, those sad hospital deathbed scenes are happening for people every day right here in the US. They do not just happen in movies. I think mocking it makes you a disgusting person, but hey-- that's just my opinion. You've never pretended that you think your behavior should be better than other people you complain about-- say, those who mock military service and assume it's made up, just as an example.
If you don't have a problem with your own hypocrisy, you clearly aren't going to care what anyone else thinks! The only reason I bothered to comment is because I dislike the idea that people might get the impession from you and Mr. Shy that AIDS death doesn't happen in this country anymore. THAT would be a lie.
Oops. Must be really sad.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 12:04pm.
Your post didn't start with "Sorry I lied". I didn't read a word of it. So sad for you.
Wanna try again?
And yours didn't start with
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 12:58pm.
And yours didn't start with "I'm sorry I've been stalking a woman."
Try again.
DiaperBoy swings. DiaperBoy misses.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 1:18pm.
DiaperBoy failed to notice hippiebear was the one that responded to me just like she has done every single time.
Whine on DiaperBoy.
Did I say anything about hippiebears's children or what hours she posts or talk about crossing county lines or say anything at all personal to or about her?
Unless, wait, do you actually think she lives under a rock?
Whine on DiaperBoy. goldbar DiaperBoy. nwahs DiaperBoy.
What is this idiotic
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 2:57pm.
What is this idiotic "crossing county lines" claim you keep bringing up?
Somewhere on this site nwahs is laughing his a$$ off at you.
Your post didn't start with
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 8:30pm.
Your post didn't start with "Sorry I lied". I didn't read a word of it. So sad for you.So... if you didn't read a word of it, how do you know it didn't start with "Sorry, I lied?" Did I just catch you lying?! *gasp* The scandal! Pretending you've stopped reading what I write is my very favorite of your dodges. I'll bet if I called you a liar and a moron you would coincidentally decide my posts were worth reading again just in time to respond. How convenient that would be ;)
That many!
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 1:34pm.
Well at least they had a "choice" as to their lifestyle. 50 million babies never given a chance. What kind of meds and technology available today could save the lives of 50 million babies? I'm not laughing.
yeah, i hope all the gays die
Submitted by charlesandy on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 2:18pm.
yeah, i hope all the gays die too.
dont be stupid c/a
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 2:37pm.
Engaging in unprotected sex is a choice with consequences. Abusing drugs and alcohol is a choice that has consequences. Abortion is a choice with consequences. No rational human takes joy in these tragic deaths and your comment though an attempt at sarcasm missed again.
I agree with everything you
Submitted by charlesandy on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 6:25pm.
I agree with everything you just said except that my attempt at sarcasm missed again.
1.3 million babies are killed
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 3:11pm.
1.3 million babies are killed every year in this country before they are born. That's a stastic you don't seem to have a problem with.
I do have a problem with it,
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 8:50pm.
I do have a problem with it, actually, I just don't want to solve the problem the same way you do.
Don't feel bad about getting that wrong though. I tried to bring up some of my problems with abortion as it is currently practiced during the discussion we had, but everyone was having so much fun calling me a murderer it just got completely ignored. I'm not surprised you missed it.
No mamabear, you haven't
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 10:50pm.
No mamabear, you haven't proven me wrong. And don't worry, I don't feel bad about anything.
There is no practice of abortion that legitimizes the murder of the unborn. None.
I'm pretty sure there's no
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 8:49am.
I'm pretty sure there's no way for me to "prove" to you that I feel a certain way, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Your post makes no sense. I
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 4:35pm.
Your post makes no sense. I haven't asked you to prove anything about your feelings.
You said I failed to prove
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 5:35pm.
You said I failed to prove you wrong, but the only thing I claimed you were wrong about were my feelings on abortion. So what exactly did you want me to "prove?"
mamabear, I read through my
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 9:50pm.
mamabear, I read through my posts again. I didn't ask you to prove anything.
You said I hadn't "proven"
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 7:52am.
You said I hadn't "proven" you wrong, meaning, presumably, that I should have.
F. Scott Fitzippers
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 1:47pm.
Thanks for the poignant tale. Maybe Axelrod could use you as a scriptwriter.
Completely disagree. Teens
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 11:05pm.
Completely disagree. Teens are always rebellious. I think this is just a new way to rebel against their parents, while the left of society calls them "brave" and "heroes".
homosexuality is ancient.
Submitted by charlesandy on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 11:30pm.
homosexuality is ancient.
Point??
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:29am.
So is pedophilia.
My point was that
Submitted by charlesandy on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 2:20pm.
My point was that homosexuality isn't just a recent fad.
Alot of things are ancient. Pedophilia is abuse. A homosexual relationship is love.
point for me i spose.
Submitted by charlesandy on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 9:20pm.
point for me i spose.
sandy I thought you left?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 9:25pm.
sandy I thought you left? Don't let the door hit you on the way, oh let the door hit you I don't care.
All Due Respect
Submitted by scarebear83 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 5:07pm.
"I've been there done that..sooner or later you will cave..best of luck."
With all due respect, if you're caving cause the kid wants you to then that's not a good sign. If you deem something bad for your kid you need to stand your ground and unfortunately, cable TV today is just getting worse and worse, I'm 27 and even I can't watch half the stuff that's on today.
I agree.
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 5:18pm.
If you deem something bad for your kid you need to stand your ground. Amen.All Due Respect again
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 5:40pm.
Do you you have kids? They're like a force of nature..that's why we have them and love them. But in the end we can't control what they become or do for their own amusement.
Yes, they are a force of
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 5:50pm.
Yes, they are a force of nature indeed. I know you weren't asking me, but I have raised 3. And yes, sometimes stand your ground and sometimes you cave. None of us are perfect. And as they say, you pick your battles.
But don't just assume that you won't be able to maintain your discipline. Your kids, if they never have it, might not even miss cable TV. Of course, when they get old enough to go to friends' houses, you lose control there.
I agree that we can't control what they become...when they get old enough to make and be repsonsible for their own decisions. But we most certainly can, and should control what they do for their amusement before then. That's what being a parent is about: protecting them from situations they are not yet emotionally capable of handling.
We can't just let them do what they want.
Yes, believe me I tried my
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 5:55pm.
Yes, believe me I tried my best..But by the time they were teenagers, I got tired of waiting by the phone at 3:00 am... what to do ;)
Scarey post mandrake. My
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 11:08pm.
Scarey post mandrake. My kids are 18 and 20 and aren't out those kind of hours. Not because they are afraid of me, but because they respect me and know the bounderies. They learned young about bounderies and it came in handy when they got older.
i don't know your exact situation but my first
Submitted by porpoiseboy on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 11:21pm.
urge is to say.....you didn't try hard enough mandrake. i have 16 & 17yr olds and they would think i was crazy if i didn't run a tight ship. they actually TELL ME they appreciate the boundries. it saves them from ALOT of peer pressure. they always have an out, which is......"no way man, my dad will kick my butt". and i maintain a "look" that make kids BELIEVE them. we laugh about it.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
The best social program is a JOB...ronald reagan
I don't have kids but I have
Submitted by scarebear83 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 6:28pm.
I don't have kids but I have seen parents who "cave in" to the kids tantrums and that's why we see so many spoiled people today. I think it's time we stop "caving in" everytime a kid says or does something. While they are under the age of 18 (or even still living in your house) you have the right to be a parent and to set the rules. If they can't follow them, then by all means tell them when they turn 18 they can hit the door cause you're not responsible for them legally anymore. But that's the attitude I see today in a lot of people, "Well, I just can't control them anymore so it's better to just let them have what they want..." People are giving up too easily today and not standing their ground.
You said "we can't control what they do for their own amusement," if that's the case would you allow your kid to have porno magazines just because of what you just said? Would you allow them to smoke pot or drink alcohol for that reason as well?
You said
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 6:46pm.
You said "I don't have kids", so please don't presume to lecture me on the subject of raising children. When you get there..trust me you'll fine out that things are not as black and white as you currently think..best of luck ;)
I've got kids, and scarebear
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 11:10pm.
I've got kids, and scarebear is right. Limits need to be set at a young age, if you can't do this, you should really be taking some kind of parenting class. Allowing kids freedom because it's easier than conflict is not the answer. Parenting is tough.
Raising Kids is not for the Weak
Submitted by stunned on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 1:49am.
I have kids 12, 10 and 8 and we very involved in school, church, sports and scouting with them and they are all well behaved especially when compared to some of their peers. Parenting is a lot like being a responsible pet owner LOL you have to give kids a lot of love, time, attention and DISCIPLINE. Setting boundaries, standards and teaching appropriate behavior when they are very young make them and you happier and creates a calm home environment. It takes a LOT of time but if you put in the effort from the beginning it pays off as they get older. I see friends and family who did what we have done and all their teens are great kids and while there will be conflicts they aren't as severe when kids have structure and discipline in their lives. You also enjoy being a parent more.
tired of liberal lies
Seems I took a lot of flak
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 8:50am.
Seems I took a lot of flak for be a "weak" parent. I assure that was not the case. My girls are now 21, 23 and 25 all healthy and normal..(the oldest is now living in NYC) All I was trying to say is that I was that I wasn't able to control their entertainment 24/7...and in the end it appears not to have mattered.
mandrake you did make it
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 3:04pm.
mandrake you did make it sound as if you were advocating throwing in the towel. I'm happy your daughters are healthy and normal.
Apparently, Penny doesn't
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 4:29pm.
Apparently, Penny doesn't realize that there isn't anything that can't be made into a "gay rights" issue.
At one time, Ellen Degeneres was seen in the DWTS audience for several weeks, and I wondered if she was going to be on the show. My friend told me that wouldn't happen, because Ellen was the butch half of the relationship, and wouldn't dress up like the female stars do; they would have to have her dance with a woman.
Well, maybe her time is now. They can have her dance dress like a guy and dance with one of the woman pros. Actually I wouldn't be surprised; they seem to be running out of celebrities... this past season most of the "stars" were pretty much B-listers. Maybe they'll decide they need a new gimmick.
http://ellen.warnerbros.com/2
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 7:08pm.
http://ellen.warnerbros.com/2010/08/ellen_dances_on_so_you_think_you_can...
She kinda rocks :)
Not about dancing....
Submitted by tampamom25 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 4:38pm.
It's all about pushing that gay/lesbian agenda to make everyone think it's a normal lifestyle. Parents need to wake up to what's being shown on programs these days, turn off the tv and reclaim their children. And frankly, we don't watch Dancing With the Stars because it is extremely sexualized in the dance motions and the costumes (or lack of them).
tampamom, I agree.
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 5:29pm.
I have noticed, over the years, that the costumes get more and more...uh....skimpy (to put it mildly).
It used to be just Edyta Slwynska, whose costumes were not much more than some strategically glued fabric, but they've all gotten worse every year.
Ditto the dance moves. One dance a couple of years ago (I think it was the Apolo Anton Ono rumba), was nothing more than 2 minutes of simlutated sex. And it's become more and more the norm.
I didn't watch this year, not because of the costumes or dances, but because of their inclusion of the hateful, filthy comic Margaret Cho. How they could treat her as a "fun" personality was just beyond me. That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.
Unfortunately, it's not new
Submitted by mzk1 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 4:15am.
This isn't even new in the culture. Look at the clip of Ed Sullivan introducing Joey Heatherton as a wholesome American teenager - and look at the "dance" she does.
It's appealing to our basic drives and the lowest common denominator within each of us.
However, I'm Jewish and our rules are completely different. (We wouldn't allow heterosexual dancing at all, although I'm not going to argue about married couples.) I'm not quite clear about (non-liberal-) Christian thinking on the subject, and I'm certainly not about to force my values on the U.S., which is basically a Christian country. I suspect it varies.
P.S. Incest is next. It's only logical.
being gay/lesbian/transsexual
Submitted by charlesandy on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 7:23pm.
being gay/lesbian/transsexual is a healthy and normal lifestyle.
Not really but you are
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 7:46pm.
Not really but you are entitled to you wrong way of thinking.
Uh...no
Submitted by jdlybrand on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 3:35pm.
Omit healthy and normal and you might be on to something.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
Yeah, in Frisco and Key West
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 3:44pm.
Please provide an example of a healthy and normal transsexual.
And RuPaul doesn't count.
Snore...
Submitted by johnsonl on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 4:50pm.
who cares? Just homos, making sure they're "in your face." No story here.
I read on Yahoo! yesterday
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 5:48pm.
I read on Yahoo! yesterday that Dancing With the Stars is a favorite among conservatives.
Any truth to that?
http://tv.yahoo.com/blog/the-reign-of-rightwing-primetime--1740
Maybe it's popular among
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 6:54pm.
Maybe it's popular among conservatives this year because Bristol Palin is on it (if she hasn't been bounced yet).
Bristol doesnt have any
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 7:47pm.
Bristol doesnt have any moves, she stays on because of her "fan" base. Now Kyle, he has moves and skilllz to pay the billz.
A bit here from Israel
Submitted by mzk1 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 6:23pm.
First of all, with those costumes, would it have been wonderful if they were male and female? Either way it's licentious. It's the promiscuity, stupid; once we stopped insisting on waiting until marriage, objecting to homosexuality looked more like just discrimination. (Ironically, here in Israel, couples who live together are more-or-less monogamous, and generally then get married before having children.)
Also ironically, in Israel people (at least religious people) don't have the hang-ups about showing affection; by which I mean men will show (physical) brotherly affection here just as women show sisterly affection in the U.S. This is not because homosexuality is accepted; perhaps quite the opposite. We just don't have the fright of being suspected here as they do in the U.S. Call it lack of "not that there's anything wrong with that" syndrome. Takes some getting used to, though.
Or as my son and his army buddies say:
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 7:07pm.
Men alway thump each other on the back 3 times when they hug.
This is code for "I'm not gay." ;-)
Would We Be Talking About This If It Were A Heterosexual Couple?
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 10:44pm.
Jesus H. Christ, if I replaced all the slurs made here about homosexuals with slurs about other minorities, I wouldn't be out of place with the South in the 1950s. I don't even know why I even bother coming to the defense of homosexuals since I'm straighter than an inanimate carbon rod. Maybe it's just because I don't like being lied to. I have read enough scientific studies that proves that homosexuality is no more of a choice than being black or white or Asian or Latino or miscellaneous.
And I happen to believe that crying wolf over this so-called quote-on-quote "homosexual agenda" says more about your lack of brightness than it does about being genuinely afraid about some insidious agenda bent on taking away your rights. Tell me, what is the agenda of every homosexual in the world? Is it to sodomize every heterosexual with leather, "chips, dips, chains, whips...You know, your basic high school orgy type of thing." That's a quote from Weird Science, by the way.
Homosexual behavior is a
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 11:13pm.
Homosexual behavior is a choice.
It's not a choice?
Submitted by mzk1 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 4:06am.
You mean people are FORCED to sleep with each other? What scientific study proves that?
I think you are greatly simplifying. For example, a recent study showed a much higher incidence among children of homosexual couples. (Surprise!) Nothing is purely nature. Nothing is purely nurture. Everything is physical, and everything is psychological.
Nothing is either/or, even free will. But we have it. (And if we don't, there's no reason to try to convince anybody of anything, is there?)
If there is no homosexual
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 3:01pm.
If there is no homosexual agenda, why are groups like GLTB in existance?
If there is a "homosexual
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 8:43pm.
If there is a "homosexual agenda", it is just acceptance and a normal life, assuming that just about everyone wants that, gay or not. Plus, not every gay person is represented by LGBTQ groups, any more than you and I are represented by every women's advocacy group.
As usual, people who don't make an effort to expand their horizons lump outsiders together and fail to see distinction among them. "Us" is a nuanced and complicated melting pot of diverse and healthy ideas. "Them" is monolithic, possessed of only a single purpose or perspective and out to get you.
I realize it would be easier if the world was that simplistic, but it's not.
Maybe so...
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 8:55pm.
but it always seems like them is having to conform to us- even when us is a demonstratively small percentage.
Besides the fact that your opinion regarding what is diverse and healthy does not make it right. I would argue that healthy is almost always the exact wrong word to describe the issue of forced acceptance.
You've stepped into the elitism tunnel, mamabear. There's only two ways to go.
You've misunderstood me.
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 11:22pm.
You've misunderstood me. "Us" and "them" in this context are self-referential. You are always part of your own "us," and you and I are probably part of very different "us"'s. I am your "them" and you are mine.
So I'm not saying that my side of the debate is healthy and diverse and yours isn't. I'm saying that everyone, on both sides, thinks that their side is healthy and diverse and the other isn't. I am advocating for expanding your view of "them," which is the main reason I'm on NB.
Ah, I see, mamabear.
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 11:30pm.
That is less elitist- nice exit.
I, actually, don't always long for diversity or expansion of views. Sometimes I'm just more comfortable in my close-minded sickness -which is the main reason I'm on NB. ;-) In all seriousness though, always looking for another answer is simply the refusal to accept victory. Sometimes the answers are right, and don't need expanding. Sometimes diversity leads to discourse. And sometimes it okay to be confident and relaxed in your own skin, without acting on some unnatural assertion to assimilate into something you don't agree with, just for the sake of tolerance. Sometimes the minority is wrong.
Well said,
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 11:52pm.
Sometimes the answers are right, and don't need expanding.
Do we have tag capabilities again, yet?
I am, at heart, a scientist.
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 9:37am.
I am, at heart, a scientist. I've never seen a right answer that didn't also, in addition to being right, need expanding :)
But everyone should be relaxed and confident in their own skin. Without some tolerance and appreciation for diversity, only some people get to.
I understand wanting to know...
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 6:11pm.
the "why".
I've been in residential design and construction since I got out of the Corps in '92. I've done the work with the hammer and saw, as well as the pencil and paper (of course, it's actually the mouse and laptop -but you get my point...) Currently, I spend a lot of time in the field working with a friend who's also been in construction for some nearly 20 years, and I'm constantly teaching him things. He knows most of the time "what" to do, but not necessarily "why" he's doing it. When something out of the ordinary arises -something he hasn't been taught to do or isn't a variation of something else he's already done- he often struggles finding a solution. He has trouble rationalizing the "why" in the question "Why do I need to do something about this?"
Often, without the "why" we never really find the correct "what"...
You sound like you're a good
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 8:50pm.
You sound like you're a good teacher :)
There it is mamabear, you
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 10:46pm.
There it is mamabear, you want appreciation for diversity. There is no need for anyone to be appreciated to relaxed and confident in their own skin. If someone isn't "relaxed and confident in their own skin that is not anyone else's problem. Appreciation is not covered in our government. What is required is that I respect the rights of others, and that they respect my right, and this includes the right not to appreciate acts and behavior againt my religious beliefs.
It's really easy to sit among
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 8:57am.
It's really easy to sit among the majority and tell someone in a marginalized group that if they feel bad about themselves it's their own fault. Sure, you have the right to call homosexuality wrong, unhealthy, unnatural, perverse, whatever you want, but don't pretend you aren't affecting other people when you do.
If you want everyone to feel confident and relaxed in their own skin, you might have to let go of some prejudice. If you are only worried about your own skin, then you're obviously doing fine :P
mamabear, you are assuming
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 4:46pm.
mamabear, you are assuming that in every way I am in a majority and have never had to deal with any kind of prejudice. If that is your assumption, you are wrong. However, my happiness is my responsibility. Part of being an adult is to own my responsibility.
In this comment
you might have to let go of some prejudiceyou are now telling me I am not entitled to my religious beliefs. That is what this country is about, my freedom to worship. Again, this is my problem with the gay agenda. It interferes with my freedom.
I'm most certainly not
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 5:48pm.
I'm most certainly not telling you that you aren't entitled to your religious beliefs. All I am pointing out is that if you agree with BKeyser that people should get to be relaxed and confident in their own skin, your religious beliefs affect that.
We are social animals. People who are not affected in any way by social approbation are called sociopaths, and their behavior is considered unhealthy. All of us who are not mentally ill are affected by what others think of us. While no one is responsible for anyone else's happiness, you do have a choice in how you affect other people.
If you've had to deal with prejudice in the past, then I hope it would make you sympathetic to people feeling its effects today. There's a reason why women in the armed forces are much more supportive of repealing DADT than men-- I suspect it is because they empathize with the struggle for acceptance in the military.
mamabear the military is not
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 12:26pm.
mamabear the military is not relevant because they are a completely different issue. They have a unique job to do and are not bound by civilian rules, hence military courts etc.
The following are my individual thoughts of what my religion is to me. For me, religion is a way for me to get closer to God. In order to do this I must challenge myself to live according to his laws. In my religion, homosexual behavior is a sin. It doesn't require me to scream at people, or use hurtful slang words. But it does compel me to speak out against it, and not condone it by "appreciating" it. In the same way I speak out against cursing on television, abortion, or theft.
To go off topic a bit, I resent the focus on anti-gay bullying. It puts kids who are bullied for being gay above kids who are bullied for other reasons. The focus should be on not bullying at all.
But bullying is not simply disapproval or not being part of a group. Bullying is harrasing someone verbally or physically for a period of time. Not simply disapproving of their behavior.
In the same way I speak out
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 10:39pm.
In the same way I speak out against cursing on television, abortion, or theft.To my mind, there is an important difference between those opinions and anti-homosexual attitudes. You aren't just objecting to what people do, you are objecting to who they are. I try to respect religious beliefs, despite not holding any myself, but I really think the world could do with less condemnation of people's differences. To go off topic a bit, I resent the focus on anti-gay bullying. It puts kids who are bullied for being gay above kids who are bullied for other reasons. The focus should be on not bullying at all.
Recognizing that gay kids are bullied more than others does not put them above anyone. It just recognizes a problem that is obviously there. Gay kids are more likely to be bullied than their peers, and kids who aren't gay are even likely to be bullied for being gay! Pretending that something isn't going on there is just dishonest. While just disapproving of someone doesn't constitute bullying, it is pretty clear that parents have conveyed that disapproval to their kids, intentionally or not, and kids are cruel to people who are different.
Is a serial killer wired that
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 11:20pm.
Is a serial killer wired that way, or is a choice that person has made? I'm not buying into your "evidence" about gay being "who someone is".
As far as gay kids being bullied more, that is something else I don't believe. First of all, bullying begins before children are expressing their sexuality, often in kindergarten. At my kid's high school gay kids are very open. In fact they get away with more PDA action than straight kids, because it's not PC to correct kids for gay behavior.
If you comment about kids picking on others because of parental disapproval, they'd be bullying all the potheads and sexually active kids. That's not happening is it?
Well, do you consider your
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 10:27am.
Well, do you consider your own sexuality to be hard-wired? Or could you just choose one day to be attracted to your own gender? Go ahead and try switching right now. ... Did it work? I think that's a much better comparison than gay people to serial killers!
There are statistics to back up the claim that gay kids are bullied more often than straight kids. That doesn't mean ALL bullying is about sexuality! I'm sure kindergardeners don't usually call each other gay as an insult, but I can confirm that they do by the time they reach middle school. And as I mentioned, this isn't just about gay kids being victims-- plenty of non-gay kids are bullied for being gay! If we actually found a way to convey that it isn't okay to harrass someone about their sexuality (and no, I have no idea how to do that), bullying wouldn't end, but I bet many more kids than you think would be relieved not to have to deal with being called the f-word.
Parental disapproval of something that holds no attraction to most kids is probably stronger than parental disapproval of things they think are cool and dangerous and their friends have tried. Just a guess.
If outside influences had no
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 10:56am.
If outside influences had no effect on human behavior, we would have no advertising, and Pavlov would not have been succesful in causing a dog to salivate when a bell was rung.
As far as bullying, kids are called a variety of names, which I won't write here. Let's just say they pertain to intelligence, looks, ethnicity, and parental status. Why are these less hateful?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/08/ohio-school-bullied-teens-dead-hand/
http://www.examiner.com/parenting-issues-in-new-york/another-teen-suicid...
Are these kids less valuable because they aren't gay? NO kid should be bullied, for any reason. But putting gay kids above others is just wrong. They are not "more equal".
They aren't putting anyone
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:29pm.
They aren't putting anyone above anyone else! They are just recognizing that gay kids appear to be more at risk of bullying than others, based on statistics. That doesn't mean that anyone thinks it doesn't matter that other kids are bullied, it is just a sign that we need to address some underlying cause of increased bullying towards gay kids!
This is exactly where I
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:38pm.
This is exactly where I disagree, the root causes of bullying are the same, it's the expression that differs. Bullying someone because they're gay is, at it's root, the same as bullying someone because they have a learning disability, or any other perceived difference. It's not about hating gay people any more than hating kids with LD's. Making it about being gay harms ALL bullied kids, and does send a message that gay kids are more important.
I'm all for trying to stop
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:57am.
I'm all for trying to stop all bullying. There are some good programs out there trying to stop bullying before it starts, before kids understand anything about sexuality at all: this one is neat.
But I still think it is foolish to ignore data. If kids with learning disabilities are being called gay, which they are, then it means that somehow we've managed to do a better job of conveying that it isn't okay to make fun of people with learning disabilities (which is a good thing), but we haven't done as good a job of conveying that it isn't okay to make fun of kids for being gay.
Jumping back in this conversation- briefly...
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 10:39pm.
I'm not religious -at least in the practicing sense. I have my beliefs and I recognize the importance religion has played throughout history, and even in my own life. But I chose at this time not to practice with any organized religion. My upbringing is Lutheran.
But clearly, I'm not sympatehtic to homosexuals. And there's another reason why homosexuality has a negative connotation to certain people.
Much of it has to do with the image they -themselves- foist on the public. This doesn't happen in the hetero- community anywhere that I know of. If gays want to be accepted as normal in society, activities like that one aren't helping their cause. And that's not bigotry or oppression making gays act this way; this is purely a choice. Even if you disagree with me that most gays are so by choice, you cannot deny that everyone in those picture made the choice to attend that event. And they did so for the expressed purpose of making spectacles of themselves in an effort to advance their agenda.
The gay agenda is -in my view- a drive to force American society to accept deviant behavior to a much greater degree than has ever been contemplated. (To clarify- while I find the homosexual sex act to be -uh- let's say not what humans were built for, I'm not classifying all gays as deviant. What I'm saying is their over-the-top protest tactics (cross-dressers invading Mass, gay pride parades, etc) are deviant. The public face of their agenda is deplorable.)
That was exactly my point
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 11:08pm.
That was exactly my point about advocacy groups not representing everyone in the class they identify with. Wouldn't the women of NB be annoyed if everyone they met assumed they agreed with NOW because they were female? That's a group that is fighting for equality for women, right? So all women must agree with their agenda. Wrong.
Most gay people, including all the ones I know well, are not spending thier time coming up with ways to make you uncomfortable. They are trying to live quiet, normal lives and fit in without having to deny the most intimate part of themselves or the people they love. My friends are also all, incidentally, in long term relationships, ten years and up. We're in our thirties, so that's not nothing!
But if you don't think the over-the-top displays of sexuality that come to mind when you think of gay people are not a direct response to societal condemnation of that sexuality, I think you have a poor understanding of human psychology! If you push a group to the margins of society, some percentage of that group is going to push back. People who are bringing guns to public parks and town hall meetings aren't doing it because they usually carry their guns everywhere they go, or even because they think people should be running around city parks with large amounts of firearms. They are doing it as an expression of their freedom, in direct opposition to the sense that those freedoms are or are going to be oppressed. It shouldn't be that much of a stretch to see the parallel.
You don't have to like events like the Folsom Street Fair, but finding something aesthetically distasteful has never in this country been considered a valid excuse for denying people rights or privileges that others enjoy. Pride events are a great time, even for straight people! They aren't about trying to ruin your day.
aesthetically distasteful?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 11/16/2010 - 11:25pm.
aesthetically distasteful? You mamabear, are the master of understatement!
Your rationalization regarding the behavior at Folsom street is quite reminiscent of the psychobabble big in the 60's. That kind of reaction is really more like the reaction of a two year old than an adult.
I think you are contradicting
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 10:28am.
I think you are contradicting yourself here: I have yet to meet a 2-year old who was also a master of understatement!
I wasn't clear. I wasn't
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 10:48am.
I wasn't clear. I wasn't calling you a 2 year old. I was saying that your idea that the flagrant display on Folsem Street was not an adult reaction to repressed freedom of expression. I wasn't buying your theory about why people behave in such a way.
Ah, got it.
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:34pm.
Ah, got it.
Oh come on-
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 5:54pm.
Fulsom Street is not a reaction to societal condemnation of gays. That is a gross misrepresentation and an attempt to excuse utterly disgusting (not aethestically displeasing- utterly distasteful and disgusting; there were children present at that event!) behavior as a normal human response to other people's behavior. I'm a lot of things (and if you asked my ex-wife, she'd tell you they're pretty much all bad) but I'm not stupid.
Fulsom Street is quite the opposite. It the free expression of a group of people, unemcumbered by social pressures or moral fortitude. Nothing more, nothing less. It is deviant behavior allowed to rear it's ugly head in a public environment because an attempt to shut it down -there- will be met with extreme rebuttal.
So, you're denying that there
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 10:28pm.
So, you're denying that there is a gay agenda, but asserting that it is only to live a normal life? Sorry, but as Obama himself is aware, there is a gay agenda, pushing issues such as funding for AID's, gay marraige, and the repeal of don't ask don't tell.
I did not make any reference to "us" or "them" or anyone being out to get me. Strawman lady.
sticks-
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 9:06pm.
You think you're such a frickin genius and yet you throw out a staw man like this:
Every homosexual in the world? Are you so shallow as to think every homosexual is on the same page on any one agenda? I rather doubt it. I do suspect though that you're at best disingenuous in your argument, and at worse- too immature to engage reasonably on this issue.
Now, had you asked, "What is the common theme behind the organized homosexual element in America?" I would answer the systematic devaluing of traditional American society, in particular, reliance on the Judeo-Christian standard of morality.
Nice to know you rely on a B-movie line from the mid-80's to highlight your infantile point.
TV and Gays
Submitted by stunned on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 2:10am.
Nearly every show has a Gay storyline these days and most people aren't shocked or outraged but are just bored and the falling ratings for sit-coms show it. Glee even went Gay this season and was shut down in a couple of our friends homes. Dancing with the Stars which is a favorite has gotten risque this season and I turned it off without fanfare and just distract the kids when it's on. The biggest loser is another favorite of the kids (go figure). We are not holy rollers or prudes and have a gay inlaw as do two other families we are close to so our kids know gays (though only the 12 year old has only become aware of what gay means recently)
Denying that the media glamorizes and promotes homosexuality and sexuality in general on TV is foolish and hurts their ratings. If stupid Hollywood put on a wholesome well done show at 8pm the ratings would be great but I'm not sure the demographics needed for advertisers (18-35) would be there. I wouldn't be surprised to find a marketing niche is waiting to be filled by businesses who would love to place their business or products in a popular family show.
tired of liberal lies
Sorry Duplicate Post
Submitted by stunned on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 2:12am.
.
tired of liberal lies