Michael Henry Adams: The Gay Man in the Mirror: How Homophobia ...

[DustyShadow]

What a crock of pure conjecture! Maybe he truly was a pedophile and suppressed that, ending up sexless. What I just said has just as much basis in fact as the article has.

[stopbadpress]

What about Tatum O'Neal and other women along the years that say MJ sexually propositioned them?

Even his makeup artist he would try to lift up her skirt. He did a book signing and had a fling with one of the girls at the book signing and him getting her number was recorded and she showed photos of them and people say she would come to his house often but he threw her out after she acted a ho and tried to get with a member of his staff. If you want to say he was bisexual, I could possibly believe but flat out gay after numerous reports of women are stupid.

People talk just to be talking...

[Chas]

Accept it or not, from an unbiased perspective, Michael Henry Adams' article contains a seemingly plausible explanation and basis for the turmoil of Jackson's emotional rollercoaster through life.

It's sad Mr. Jackson didn't meet an advisor in his youth that could have helped him - it might have saved a whole lot of messin' up later on.

[DustyShadow]

Chas wrote:

Accept it or not, from an unbiased perspective, Michael Henry Adams' article contains a seemingly plausible explanation and basis for the turmoil of Jackson's emotional rollercoaster through life.
It's sad Mr. Jackson didn't meet an adviser in his youth that could have helped him - it might have saved a whole lot of messin' up later on.

Oh, so said adviser could have persuaded him he was gay? Is that what is happening to youth today? They enter their teens years, which are tumultuous and confusing for almost every teen. The adviser persuades them them they are gay, and all their problems are solved. You are delusional, but thanks for the revealing look at how the gay agenda works to increases the number of gay people in the world.

[Rick in Kansas]

DustyShadow wrote:

(see above)

The reality you are missing is that children are raised to be heterosexual as the default assumption, even those who make it rather obvious early on that they aren't and if that heteronormative is coupled with an environment that is also homonegative, it almost guarantees failure as an adult for a child coming to terms with their not being completely heterosexual. For those of us growing up aware of of our non-heterosexuality, homosexuality is enough of a challenging curve ball to deal with without the crowd being hostile against us. We grow up learning how to be heterosexual, but since we know we're not, learning how to be the homosexual we really are is pretty much a self-education process. For those non-heterosexual children growing up in a clearly hostile environment, the learning process of how to deal with that curve ball almost always ends up seriously f*cked. Why do you imagine that there are such high rates of depression, drug and alcohol abuse, inappropriate and unsafe behavior and suicides especially among young Lesbians and Gays? It's not the homosexuality that's leading them down self-destructive paths, but the homonegativity they learn while growing up. If all you hear about who you know yourself to be, while you are trying to come to terms with being it, is negative, unless you have an amazingly strong sense of self and able to discern that what you are being taught is crap, you're going to grow up with an extremely negative view of yourself which can only lead to self-destructive escape mechanisms.

Personally, while I grew up at a time when society was far more homonegative than it is today, my family weren't adding into that and so, when I made the transition from being the heterosexual child they assumed they were raising to the homosexual I knew myself to be, I didn't lose any of the love and acceptance that I already had. As a result, I had no need to turn toward the potentially self-destructive in an effort to cope with my homosexuality, it simply wasn't needed because there was no need to try to deny who I was. Although I still had to learn on my own how to be the homosexual that I am on my own, I was at least taught the lesson that being homosexual wasn't necessarily in and of itself, a bad thing to be. I'll admit that I made my fair share of mistakes and really dubious choices along the way, but we're talking late 70s early 80s Kansas here and good gay role models weren't real easy to come by. But even with an occasionally clumsy trial and error process, knowing that my homosexuality didn't make me a bad person was enough to help me learn from my bad choices and encouraged me to make better ones.

Young Lesbian and Gay people, especially those growing up in homonegative environments, have an advantage today that simply didn't exist just a few decades ago and that is access to information and people to teach them the lesson of despite what you are having to hear at home, being not heterosexual isn't a bad thing to have happened to you. You may not agree with this, but for us, it is necessary to ensure the very survival, as well as the health and happiness of the future generations of Lesbian and Gay young people that are going to come along whether you want them to or not...

[Chas]

So you're looking at his pictures, listening to his interviews, learning about his legal problems and you're thinking "No, being gay could not possibly be the root of his problems."

Duh, maybe he's simply like John Wayne, allegedly investing too much money in the Pananma rice paddies instead of buying up California real estate....bingo!

There are reportedly many gay people in the entertainment industry who go through life without losing their fortunes, being arrested, destroying their faces and winding up dead with needle marks covering their torso.

Jackson obviously needed help for some reason and chances are it didn't have to do with rice paddies...

Again, very insightful article by Mr. Adams.

[DustyShadow]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>The reality you are missing is that children are raised to be heterosexual as the default assumption, even those who make it rather obvious early on that they aren't and if that heteronormative is coupled with an environment that is also homonegative, it almost guarantees failure as an adult for a child coming to terms with their not being completely heterosexual. For those of us growing up aware of of our non-heterosexuality, homosexuality is enough of a challenging curve ball to deal with without the crowd being hostile against us. We grow up learning how to be heterosexual, but since we know we're not, learning how to be the homosexual we really are is pretty much a self-education process. For those non-heterosexual children growing up in a clearly hostile environment, the learning process of how to deal with that curve ball almost always ends up seriously f*cked. Why do you imagine that there are such high rates of depression, drug and alcohol abuse, inappropriate and unsafe behavior and suicides especially among young Lesbians and Gays? It's not the homosexuality that's leading them down self-destructive paths, but the homonegativity they learn while growing up. If all you hear about who you know yourself to be, while you are trying to come to terms with being it, is negative, unless you have an amazingly strong sense of self and able to discern that what you are being taught is crap, you're going to grow up with an extremely negative view of yourself which can only lead to self-destructive escape mechanisms.
Personally, while I grew up at a time when society was far more homonegative than it is today, my family weren't adding into that and so, when I made the transition from being the heterosexual child they assumed they were raising to the homosexual I knew myself to be, I didn't lose any of the love and acceptance that I already had. As a result, I had no need to turn toward the potentially self-destructive in an effort to cope with my homosexuality, it simply wasn't needed because there was no need to try to deny who I was. Although I still had to learn on my own how to be the homosexual that I am on my own, I was at least taught the lesson that being homosexual wasn't necessarily in and of itself, a bad thing to be. I'll admit that I made my fair share of mistakes and really dubious choices along the way, but we're talking late 70s early 80s Kansas here and good gay role models weren't real easy to come by. But even with an occasionally clumsy trial and error process, knowing that my homosexuality didn't make me a bad person was enough to help me learn from my bad choices and encouraged me to make better ones.
Young Lesbian and Gay people, especially those growing up in homonegative environments, have an advantage today that simply didn't exist just a few decades ago and that is access to information and people to teach them the lesson of despite what you are having to hear at home, being not heterosexual isn't a bad thing to have happened to you. You may not agree with this, but for us, it is necessary to ensure the very survival, as well as the health and happiness of the future generations of Lesbian and Gay young people that are going to come along whether you want them to or not...

Time was you went to a counselor for help with your problems. Following the self-esteem movement, it seems you now go to a counselor to have your problems confirmed as A-OK!

[Rick in Kansas]

DustyShadow wrote:

<quoted text>
Time was you went to a counselor for help with your problems. Following the self-esteem movement, it seems you now go to a counselor to have your problems confirmed as A-OK!

What you aren't grasping is that being not heterosexual is not our problem, our problem is having to deal with people like you. Whether you want to believe it or not and whether you like it or not, being homosexual is simply another normal and natural variation of being human. While we aren't the norm, that does not make us not normal and certainly doesn't make us abnormal, any more so than being born to be left handed in a world predominantly filled with those who are born to favor their right.

[DustyShadow]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>What you aren't grasping is that being not heterosexual is not our problem, our problem is having to deal with people like you. Whether you want to believe it or not and whether you like it or not, being homosexual is simply another normal and natural variation of being human. While we aren't the norm, that does not make us not normal and certainly doesn't make us abnormal, any more so than being born to be left handed in a world predominantly filled with those who are born to favor their right.

Normal apparently is a matter of opinion - or how willing one is to change the defintion to fit the discussion at hand. In my opinion, normal means the norm. Saying you are not the norm to me says you are not normal.

[Dasein9]

DustyShadow wrote:

<quoted text>
Normal apparently is a matter of opinion - or how willing one is to change the defintion to fit the discussion at hand. In my opinion, normal means the norm. Saying you are not the norm to me says you are not normal.

This has been explained to you already. You're misusing the term here.

Besides, since when was there a requirement that one be normal to be entitled to basic human decency.

Furthermore, whether Michael Jackson was gay or not, he was certainly perceived by many to be gay, and was thus a target of homophobia. One needn't be gay to suffer from the willful ignorance and just plain meanness of people like you.

[Rick in Kansas]

DustyShadow wrote:

<quoted text>
Normal apparently is a matter of opinion - or how willing one is to change the defintion to fit the discussion at hand. In my opinion, normal means the norm. Saying you are not the norm to me says you are not normal.

That would be your problem, not ours. You can have whatever definition you want, but it doesn't change the reality that being homosexual is perfectly normal for those of us who are homosexual. Not being the societal norm whether it is in terms of sexual orientation or any other categorization you want to give does not necessarily mean that one is not normal. You're not being required or even asked to accept homosexuality as "normal", in the grand scheme of things, as long as you're not causing harm to others with your non-acceptance, you simply don't matter.

[Belle Gunness]

I can't wait till they bury this poor guy and we can move on to more important things like Obama's golf score.

[DustyShadow]

Dasein9 wrote:

<quoted text>
This has been explained to you already. You're misusing the term here.
Besides, since when was there a requirement that one be normal to be entitled to basic human decency.
Furthermore, whether Michael Jackson was gay or not, he was certainly perceived by many to be gay, and was thus a target of homophobia. One needn't be gay to suffer from the willful ignorance and just plain meanness of people like you.

I promise you, I never did a single thing to Michael Jackson. I even once danced all night to his Thriller album, though I wouldn't claim to be a fan.

Frankly, I've never heard of anything done to Michael Jackson other than be charged with being a pedophile. If anything was done to him, it was because he was weird not gay. I never heard one mention of him being gay until this news story.

[DustyShadow]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>That would be your problem, not ours. You can have whatever definition you want, but it doesn't change the reality that being homosexual is perfectly normal for those of us who are homosexual. Not being the societal norm whether it is in terms of sexual orientation or any other categorization you want to give does not necessarily mean that one is not normal. You're not being required or even asked to accept homosexuality as "normal", in the grand scheme of things, as long as you're not causing harm to others with your non-acceptance, you simply don't matter.

Precisely! I don't matter here or on the street or anywhere except the voting booth. I matter a lot there because there are soooo many of me. We will all vote for what we think is for the overall good of our nation, not to give you and other gays special privileges.

[Rick in Kansas]

DustyShadow wrote:

<quoted text>
Precisely! I don't matter here or on the street or anywhere except the voting booth. I matter a lot there because there are soooo many of me. We will all vote for what we think is for the overall good of our nation, not to give you and other gays special privileges.

Lest you forget, there is a check on that kind of tyranny of the majority and that is the guarantee of equal protection under the law as found in the US Constitution. In the end, the passage of discriminatory amendments and laws will not be allowed to stand. They will all eventually go the way of anti-miscegenation laws and amendments, either the people will come to their senses and end them on their own or they will be nullified by the courts but their end destination is the same, the ash heap of embarrassing moments in democracy from our country's past.

[DustyShadow]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Lest you forget, there is a check on that kind of tyranny of the majority and that is the guarantee of equal protection under the law as found in the US Constitution. In the end, the passage of discriminatory amendments and laws will not be allowed to stand. They will all eventually go the way of anti-miscegenation laws and amendments, either the people will come to their senses and end them on their own or they will be nullified by the courts but their end destination is the same, the ash heap of embarrassing moments in democracy from our country's past.

Marriage for gays has nothing to do with equal protection in the constitution. If it doesn't protect marriage for straights, and it doesn't mention marriage at all, then using it to protect marriage for gays would be a special privilege. BTW, I'm seeing reports that support for marriage for gays is eroding, not increasing. People really are coming to their senses.

[Rick in Kansas]

DustyShadow wrote:

<quoted text>
Marriage for gays has nothing to do with equal protection in the constitution. If it doesn't protect marriage for straights, and it doesn't mention marriage at all, then using it to protect marriage for gays would be a special privilege. BTW, I'm seeing reports that support for marriage for gays is eroding, not increasing. People really are coming to their senses.

Time for your lesson in civics for today. Although marriage is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, that is far from meaning that there is no right to marriage. The federal courts in this country for more than a century have recognized that marriage as a right of the people is very much fundamental to our Constitution. While the states are delegated the power to regulate that right, any regulation or denial of our right to marry must be in concordance with greater guarantee of rights as found in that federal constitution and must show a reasonable state purpose, or if held to the highest standard, serve a clear and compelling state interest in the denial of that right. Marriage for same sex couples is not a special right, but a guarantee of equal protection for those, who save for their sex are qualified to marry. For the state to claim the power to say who you may or may not marry based on their sex serves no reasonable governmental purpose let alone a clear and compelling state interest in enacting a prohibition against same sex couples. If the people do not come to their senses in removing these patently unconstitutional restrictions, they will eventually be nullified by the courts, whether you like it or not...

[DustyShadow]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Time for your lesson in civics for today. Although marriage is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, that is far from meaning that there is no right to marriage. The federal courts in this country for more than a century have recognized that marriage as a right of the people is very much fundamental to our Constitution. While the states are delegated the power to regulate that right, any regulation or denial of our right to marry must be in concordance with greater guarantee of rights as found in that federal constitution and must show a reasonable state purpose, or if held to the highest standard, serve a clear and compelling state interest in the denial of that right. Marriage for same sex couples is not a special right, but a guarantee of equal protection for those, who save for their sex are qualified to marry. For the state to claim the power to say who you may or may not marry based on their sex serves no reasonable governmental purpose let alone a clear and compelling state interest in enacting a prohibition against same sex couples. If the people do not come to their senses in removing these patently unconstitutional restrictions, they will eventually be nullified by the courts, whether you like it or not...

Exactly what Thomas Jefferson did not want to happen. I believe there is compelling state interest in denying gays the right to pervert the meaning of the word marriage. Becoming perverted changes the meaning and undermines the purpose. As marriage and family are the first building block of society, the state should be compelled to protect it from being damaged. You cannot build a stable society from blocks that are made with unstable materials.

[Rick in Kansas]

DustyShadow wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly what Thomas Jefferson did not want to happen. I believe there is compelling state interest in denying gays the right to pervert the meaning of the word marriage. Becoming perverted changes the meaning and undermines the purpose. As marriage and family are the first building block of society, the state should be compelled to protect it from being damaged. You cannot build a stable society from blocks that are made with unstable materials.

But your argument is based on the false assumption that same sex couples do not have families. Many same sex couples do have or will have children during the course of their marriage. Either from previous relationships, through surrogacy or adoption, if marriage and family are the building blocks of society, how is denial of the right to marriage to those who have or will have families serving a compelling state interest? As far as "unstable building blocks" are concerned, there are far too many opposite sex couples who already have that market cornered. Sorry, but bolstering a false assumption of a non-existent heterosexual privilege isn't a clear and compelling state interest, you're either going to have to do better (which is unlikely given your track record thus far) or finally give in to reality...

[DustyShadow]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>But your argument is based on the false assumption that same sex couples do not have families. Many same sex couples do have or will have children during the course of their marriage. Either from previous relationships, through surrogacy or adoption, if marriage and family are the building blocks of society, how is denial of the right to marriage to those who have or will have families serving a compelling state interest? As far as "unstable building blocks" are concerned, there are far too many opposite sex couples who already have that market cornered. Sorry, but bolstering a false assumption of a non-existent heterosexual privilege isn't a clear and compelling state interest, you're either going to have to do better (which is unlikely given your track record thus far) or finally give in to reality...

By definition, same-sex marriage would be unstable for children. It would not provide a mother and a father. Both are necessary for a stable family.