Billboard proclaims "Nobody is born gay"

[robvalue]

Yeah, one thing that does puzzle me is being overly camp. I'm sure that some people are just that way, and my wife even says I am a bit. But when people have this outrageous persona, talking really loudly and doing all these ridiculous things, I think that this can't be how they naturally are. Can it? It seems like they desperately want you to know beyond a shadow of a doubt they are gay. I don't get that. If I did the heterosexual equivalent, I doubt people would take kindly to it.

I mean, do what you like, of course. But anyone who is being unecessarily loud or in my face is annoying, whatever their pretext.

---

It does interest me how much camp is natural, and how much is an act. I tried looking it up, and found it to be inconclusive.

[Alex K]

You may have a point about who represents them as a public face (and atheists can relate, I don't want Richard Dawkins to be the public face of my atheism for instance),

but really - how can you seriously complain that *they* make their sexuality everyones business too much when in recent memory society as a whole was obsessed with it to the point of torturing and shunning them for their sexuality? That's very cynical.

Thing is, who knows what chad's definition of moral is. Certainly nothing like any of ours I feel.

I haven't slapped anyone down this hard since joining and it's rather sad someone went so badly out of line for me to feel it's appropriate. I usually try and be polite and use snarky sarcasm when someone is being a dick, but this is a new level.

---

I'm amazed someone could think that what consenting adults do in the bedroom is anyone's business but their own.

I kinda feel like that's one of the problems with the gay community though. They make it a point to try to make their sex life EVERYONE'S business. I don't have a problem with somebody being gay, I just think that their activism is executed poorly. One of the reasons that the civil rights campaign finally had success was because MLK was such a great speaker and figure for the cause. When one of the most visible activists for gay rights is Rosie O'Donnell, the cause is bound to have a certain degree of failure. Just my opinion.

[Ryantology]

I kinda feel like that's one of the problems with the gay community though. They make it a point to try to make their sex life EVERYONE'S business.

I don't agree with this in the slightest. I never see gay people explaining their sex lives in any more detail than straight people. If you're referring to the fact that they're open about being with a person of the same gender, isn't that an understandable reaction to all those years where the same sort of Christian hatred Wooters displays in this thread was socially-acceptable? When, for so long, the Christian religion made it dangerous to their life and property to even be passively open about their same-gender attraction?

On the contrary, I'm more than thrilled to see gay people be open and public. If nothing else, the total lack of response from their god just makes the whole farce all the more apparent. It makes people like Wooters uncomfortable and disturbed, and that makes me happy, because still try their hardest to put those people through exponentially worse than mere discomfort.

[robvalue]

I conclude that if you try to hurt something that is not affecting anyone in an adverse way, it is because you are fundamentally scared of it. Hence homophobia. People fear difference and the unknown, and pre emptively strike it, I guess. I mean, I got bullied at school for loads of reasons, all of which involved not copying what everyone else was doing. That made me different, and in some way scary to them. Didn't help that I had no self confidence and was an easy target who they knew wouldn't fight back.

[rexbeccarox]

Thing is, who knows what chad's definition of moral is. Certainly nothing like any of ours I feel.

I haven't slapped anyone down this hard since joining and it's rather sad someone went so badly out of line for me to feel it's appropriate. I usually try and be polite and use snarky sarcasm when someone is being a dick, but this is a new level.

---

I'm amazed someone could think that what consenting adults do in the bedroom is anyone's business but their own.

I kinda feel like that's one of the problems with the gay community though. They make it a point to try to make their sex life EVERYONE'S business. I don't have a problem with somebody being gay, I just think that their activism is executed poorly. One of the reasons that the civil rights campaign finally had success was because MLK was such a great speaker and figure for the cause. When one of the most visible activists for gay rights is Rosie O'Donnell, the cause is bound to have a certain degree of failure. Just my opinion.

Generalize much?

Seriously, your post makes me hopping mad. I think you're a reasonable person who really needs to read what he just posted and re-think it.

[Rob216]

You may have a point about who represents them as a public face (and atheists can relate, I don't want Richard Dawkins to be the public face of my atheism for instance),

but really - how can you seriously complain that *they* make their sexuality everyones business too much when in recent memory society as a whole was obsessed with it to the point of torturing and shunning them for their sexuality? That's very cynical.

I kinda feel like that's one of the problems with the gay community though. They make it a point to try to make their sex life EVERYONE'S business. I don't have a problem with somebody being gay, I just think that their activism is executed poorly. One of the reasons that the civil rights campaign finally had success was because MLK was such a great speaker and figure for the cause. When one of the most visible activists for gay rights is Rosie O'Donnell, the cause is bound to have a certain degree of failure. Just my opinion.

My issue is that they literally bring up sex in their activism. Nobody can stop them from performing sexual acts (although I suppose some people do actually try) but they want the same rights as straight married couples. When a sign you are holding up says stuff like "Lick Bush in 2001" it takes away from the message and points the mind towards a sexual act and not the actual issue at hand.

[robvalue]

Um, are you saying they shouldn't have the same rights as regular married couples? What's wrong with gay marriage?

Or are you saying they are going about getting those rights badly?

[Violet]

'I was made to live a freak when I was denied my rights as a psychopath, and imprisoned for what I am. That box made me... now people die, and who's fault is it really....? It's yours. YOURS!'

Or something else that spawns the psychophobia in plebs... I mean, even if it DOES hurt someone: it doesn't matter who chose what or when or whether why how...

All that matters is how you will judge what is, because what could have been has never been and will never be until it is. Judge it 'right', judge it 'wrong', judge it 'good', judge it 'bad', judge is 'disgusting', judge is 'sexy'... you are your own decider, and you will own what you have wrought through the judgements you have made... or:

They will own you.

[robvalue]

Yes! I support... That!

[Alex K]

You may have a point about who represents them as a public face (and atheists can relate, I don't want Richard Dawkins to be the public face of my atheism for instance),

but really - how can you seriously complain that *they* make their sexuality everyones business too much when in recent memory society as a whole was obsessed with it to the point of torturing and shunning them for their sexuality? That's very cynical.

My issue is that they literally bring up sex in their activism. Nobody can stop them from performing sexual acts (although I suppose some people do actually try) but they want the same rights as straight married couples. When a sign you are holding up says stuff like "Lick Bush in 2001" it takes away from the message and points the mind towards a sexual act and not the actual issue at hand.

Ok so there's this tendency to use sexual imagery to provoke and you find it distracting and not useful. Hmkay. Shrug. I've read opinions by gay people who thought the same. Tastes differ. What does it at all have to do with which rights they deserve? Your post is still terrible as it stands.