So, What Is It That The Anti-Gay Groups Actually Fear?

Aug 17, 2012 Full story: lezgetreal.com 18,015

What makes hate, well, hate? Given that today is something of a quiet news day, it may be nice to give ourselves a breather and think about some things.

Full Story

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#14975 Dec 10, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
"Coined in the pre-HIV era, the term "gay bowel syndrome" comprised a rather unselective potpourri of unusual anorectal and GI symptoms experienced by homosexual males... with better understanding of the underlying causes, this term is outdated: the derogatory terminology should be abandoned and more specific entities and terms recognized and used."
McGraw-Hill Manual of Colorectal Surgery. pp. 205
"In 1976, a group of physicians in private proctologic practice in
New York City coined the illness "Gay Bowel Syndrome" in reference to a constellation of gay male anorectal disorders. Through analysis of biomedical discourse and popular media, it is apparent that Gay Bowel Syndrome is an essentialized category of difference that is neither gay-specific, confined to the bowel, nor a syndrome. The use and diagnosis of Gay Bowel Syndrome must be abandoned before it further lends itself to the formation of social policies and governing practices that seek to force gay male bodies into positions of social, cultural, and political subordination."
Scarce M (1997). "Harbinger of plague: a bad case of gay bowel syndrome". J Homosex. 34 (2): 135.
The explanation of "Gay Bowel Syndrome" is that it is proof that you are a ridiculously malinformed fool.
"ridiculously malinformed fool" ? Ya mean he's a Democrat.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14976 Dec 10, 2012
MadMares conscience wrote:
<quoted text>
No marriage in the broadest definition never was. I was referring to the institution of marriage requiring a legal document and not traditional pair-bonding ceremonies which pre-date the bible and are still relevant in some cultures today.
Is SSM not a public proclamation of love? PLEASE....!
I think that I recall reading that the whole "legal document" aspect of marriage originally became a necessity to ward off contesting claims of right-of-ownership of a deceased's possessions by surviving family members over that of the deceased's surviving spouse, so I'm sure you can understand the necessity.

As for "traditional pair-bonding ceremonies", I don't see why they aren't enough for couples of unconventional/non-traditional couple schemas such as those we're discussing in this thread, afterall, hasn't anyone ever heard of "Wills"?
very interesting

AOL

#14977 Dec 10, 2012
Marengo Jon wrote:
Oh look, the Loner Gunman appears after Kimare takes a whooping. How entirely predictable.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Smile.
You had to tell me I have no affect on you.
That is 'a whooping'?
I doubt you ever believe yourself.
Smirk.
How many personalities are stashed in that body? We know of the inner lesbian - not sure if that is Samatha or Blair. Samatha and KiMares wife both "bear a striking resemblance to a younger Ann Margaret", but I'm not sure a wife even exists. WTF Sybil! No wonder you need a piece of paper stating you are not a harm to yourself or society. It needs to be revoked! What a sick and twisted game you play.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14978 Dec 10, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Marriage is a legal contract.
Yes, it is.
Rose_NoHo wrote:
No, stupid, it's not.
Actually, yes, it is...And don't call people stupid, it's impolite and serves little but demonstrate that the one calling people names lacks the intellectual acumen to devise an intelligible response and so, has resorted to belittling them with a slur when, in reality, all that they are actually doing is displaying their own ineptitude and uncertainty.

Think about it.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#14979 Dec 10, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that I recall reading that the whole "legal document" aspect of marriage originally became a necessity to ward off contesting claims of right-of-ownership of a deceased's possessions by surviving family members over that of the deceased's surviving spouse, so I'm sure you can understand the necessity.
As for "traditional pair-bonding ceremonies", I don't see why they aren't enough for couples of unconventional/non-traditional couple schemas such as those we're discussing in this thread, afterall, hasn't anyone ever heard of "Wills"?
Except that ALL citizens are GUARANTEED equal protection of the laws by the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. When that amendment was ratified, there was no federal income tax, nor state income taxes, and thus married couples and unmarried couples were treated equally as far as tax laws are concerned. But for many decades, married couples have been treated differntly in myriad ways, under state and federal tax laws. Now one reason always cited for this is that the government[s] want to encourage marriage. Which I think is a goood thing.

But IF a gay or lesbian couple is legally married, WHY should they be treated differently, under federal tax laws or ANY federal laws or state laws, than a married heterosexual couple ? What is the rational basis for that different treatment under the laws ? And "We just don't like you" is not a valid legal reason (Even though that ultimately IS the real reason).

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14980 Dec 10, 2012
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, you didn't read the article on which this discussion was based (which referenced gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people)...
You dodged the question...
And you're only obsessed with gay men.
Got it.
Actually the article, written by a Bridgette P. LaVictoire (Bridgette), was authored in an effort on their part to rationalize the issue of the ignorance they faced while growing up during their childhood and the negative interactions they experienced in their social circles, all of which soon enough dissolved into a rather blatant attempt on their part to erroneously define what they had experienced as "hatred", going on to insist that the reason for this 'hatred' was that "[t]he problem with those who are hateful of others is that they feel threatened."

http://lezgetreal.com/2012/08/so-what-is-it-t...

It is a well known fact of Human psychology that being "threatened" does not give rise to "hatred", only fear, and while fear isn't real, danger is, but that is not an aspect of the issue we're discussing.

Bridgett mistakenly attributed the bullying they experienced to others being threatened by them when, in fact, the other children were likely only lashing out at them because they didn't fit within modern cultures' pre-defined mode of what is acceptable which, of course, is due ONLY to ignorance, NOT "hatred" or feeling "threatened", just ignorance, which can be easily resolved with education.

I assure you that not only am I NOT "threatened" by the gay community, my and other heterosexuals' feelings/beliefs/perspectives regarding the practices/behaviors of gays are NOT derived from being "threatened" or "hatred", as I've tried to illustrate with my comments here, but are instead only the result of a rationale and logical review of the various/contributing factors surrounding the issue of gays.

Oh, and for the record, while they DO make one(1) reference to "LGBT Americans", they do so only in passing, in the last paragraph I think, although they DO specifically mention "gays" on more than one occasion throughought the dialogue, just so you know.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#14981 Dec 10, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
"Marriage" was NEVER merely a biblically defined "socio-cultural constraint on breeding"...This is merely your way of quantifying the reality of the bond of marriage by marginalizing it as a happenstance of social convention when it is, has, and will always be, a public proclaimation and celebration of a mans' and womans' bonding vow of eternal Love for one another that is more an acknowldegement of our inherent genealogical predisposition for one another and the proliferation of Humanity than some "socio-cultural constraint", PLEASE...!
I like this post very much.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#14982 Dec 10, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
"ridiculously malinformed fool" ? Ya mean he's a Democrat.
Enough with the off-topic opinions...it's getting tedious.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#14983 Dec 10, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is.
<quoted text>
Actually, yes, it is...And don't call people stupid, it's impolite and serves little but demonstrate that the one calling people names lacks the intellectual acumen to devise an intelligible response and so, has resorted to belittling them with a slur when, in reality, all that they are actually doing is displaying their own ineptitude and uncertainty.
Think about it.
Please provide proof that it is INHERENTLY harmful, or even harmful at all. See, there's a difference between harm and the RISK of harm. On top of that, explain how anal sex is demeaning while providing a source to back you up.

You will never do so because it is an invalid claim and the fact is that they are uneducated opinions, not backed by facts.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14984 Dec 10, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
"Coined in the pre-HIV era, the term "gay bowel syndrome" comprised a rather unselective potpourri of unusual anorectal and GI symptoms experienced by homosexual males... with better understanding of the underlying causes, this term is outdated: the derogatory terminology should be abandoned and more specific entities and terms recognized and used."
McGraw-Hill Manual of Colorectal Surgery. pp. 205
"In 1976, a group of physicians in private proctologic practice in
New York City coined the illness "Gay Bowel Syndrome" in reference to a constellation of gay male anorectal disorders. Through analysis of biomedical discourse and popular media, it is apparent that Gay Bowel Syndrome is an essentialized category of difference that is neither gay-specific, confined to the bowel, nor a syndrome. The use and diagnosis of Gay Bowel Syndrome must be abandoned before it further lends itself to the formation of social policies and governing practices that seek to force gay male bodies into positions of social, cultural, and political subordination."
Scarce M (1997). "Harbinger of plague: a bad case of gay bowel syndrome". J Homosex. 34 (2): 135.
The explanation of "Gay Bowel Syndrome" is that it is proof that you are a ridiculously malinformed fool.
Great! Now could you give me the unbiased version, you know, one from an authority that is NOT gay, an activist and gay men's health advocate like the author of your referenced source, Michael Scare, is?

Thanks in advance!

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#14985 Dec 10, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the article, written by a Bridgette P. LaVictoire (Bridgette), was authored in an effort on their part to rationalize the issue of the ignorance they faced while growing up during their childhood and the negative interactions they experienced in their social circles, all of which soon enough dissolved into a rather blatant attempt on their part to erroneously define what they had experienced as "hatred", going on to insist that the reason for this 'hatred' was that "[t]he problem with those who are hateful of others is that they feel threatened."
http://lezgetreal.com/2012/08/so-what-is-it-t...
It is a well known fact of Human psychology that being "threatened" does not give rise to "hatred", only fear, and while fear isn't real, danger is, but that is not an aspect of the issue we're discussing.
Bridgett mistakenly attributed the bullying they experienced to others being threatened by them when, in fact, the other children were likely only lashing out at them because they didn't fit within modern cultures' pre-defined mode of what is acceptable which, of course, is due ONLY to ignorance, NOT "hatred" or feeling "threatened", just ignorance, which can be easily resolved with education.
I assure you that not only am I NOT "threatened" by the gay community, my and other heterosexuals' feelings/beliefs/perspectives regarding the practices/behaviors of gays are NOT derived from being "threatened" or "hatred", as I've tried to illustrate with my comments here, but are instead only the result of a rationale and logical review of the various/contributing factors surrounding the issue of gays.
Oh, and for the record, while they DO make one(1) reference to "LGBT Americans", they do so only in passing, in the last paragraph I think, although they DO specifically mention "gays" on more than one occasion throughought the dialogue, just so you know.
You are obviously obsessed with men having anal sex with each other, even though the majority of those participating in anal sex are straight. Also, how do you misspell "throughout" so badly?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#14986 Dec 10, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Enough with the off-topic opinions...it's getting tedious.
No. It's EXACTLY on point. And not only that, it is, as ALWAYS, Fair. And Balanced.

:)

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14987 Dec 10, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that ALL citizens are GUARANTEED equal protection of the laws by the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. When that amendment was ratified, there was no federal income tax, nor state income taxes, and thus married couples and unmarried couples were treated equally as far as tax laws are concerned. But for many decades, married couples have been treated differntly in myriad ways, under state and federal tax laws. Now one reason always cited for this is that the government[s] want to encourage marriage. Which I think is a goood thing.
But IF a gay or lesbian couple is legally married, WHY should they be treated differently, under federal tax laws or ANY federal laws or state laws, than a married heterosexual couple ? What is the rational basis for that different treatment under the laws ? And "We just don't like you" is not a valid legal reason (Even though that ultimately IS the real reason).
I think that the distinction lies in defining what constitutes a "legal" marriage, which has traditionally/historically been defined as being between a man and a woman/a heterosexual couple, whereas members of the homosexual community are pushing to have the definition revised to account for their persuasion, so you've got inherent physiological predisposition versus individual persuasion/inclination and an effort to lend legitimacy to a persons' sexual preference on a level equal to that of actual genealogically predisposed sexuality.

IMHO, the homosexual community should have NEVER pushed the issue to the level of the United States Supreme Court who are charged with reviewing the matter from a purely objective perspective which, I'm guesssing, is NOT going to be good for the same-sexers.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14988 Dec 10, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
I like this post very much.
Thank you...I have my moments.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#14989 Dec 10, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that the distinction lies in defining what constitutes a "legal" marriage, which has traditionally/historically been defined as being between a man and a woman/a heterosexual couple, whereas members of the homosexual community are pushing to have the definition revised to account for their persuasion, so you've got inherent physiological predisposition versus individual persuasion/inclination and an effort to lend legitimacy to a persons' sexual preference on a level equal to that of actual genealogically predisposed sexuality.
IMHO, the homosexual community should have NEVER pushed the issue to the level of the United States Supreme Court who are charged with reviewing the matter from a purely objective perspective which, I'm guesssing, is NOT going to be good for the same-sexers.
The FACT of the matters is that THOUSANDS of American coouples have been LEGALLY MARRIED in the states that allow it, as well as D.C.

Now you may not like it, but it is a FACT that those gay and lesbian couples who are legally married are JUST AS LEGALLY MARRIED AS ANY MARRIED HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE.

And religion has NOTHING to do with it.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14990 Dec 10, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide proof that it is INHERENTLY harmful, or even harmful at all. See, there's a difference between harm and the RISK of harm. On top of that, explain how anal sex is demeaning while providing a source to back you up.
You will never do so because it is an invalid claim and the fact is that they are uneducated opinions, not backed by facts.
Though those 'moments' are, apparently, fleeting.

Just remember, you asked for it:

Gonorrhea is but one face of a many faceted pattern of anorectal and colon diseases which are encountered with unusual frequency in homosexual patients termed the "gay bowel syndrome" (as coined in '74) which include, but are not limited to anal fistulas, perirectal abscesses, anal fissures, irritable bowel syndrome(IBS), incontinence, viral hepatitis, polyps, syphilis, rectal ulcers, chlymydia, shigellosis, HIV, AIDS, etc., etc.

In otherwords, basically every STD known to Man.

(Covering the variety of diseases):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez...

(A little more detail on same):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez...

(Noting the connection between HIV/AIDS and other diseases):
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

(How having the one breeds the other):
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/transmiss...

Further, with all of the pushes to develop and strides made in the concoction and manufacture of so-called 'anti-retroviral' drugs designed to treat the symptoms (AS THERE IS NO CURE, ONLY TREATMENT), each one more powerful than the last, is it any wonder that the diseases they were designed to treat have developed/are developing tolerances to combat the treatments that are surpassing them at a rate we are unable to keep up with in those who simply refuse to refrain from the type of practices that led to their illnesses to begin with?

What I'm getting at is that it seems like simple matter of common sense to me in that, if a certain type of behavior has led to your contracting an incurable disease from your practice of it, then you should refrain from engaging in it and live out your life under care, or risk becoming a carrier that wantonly and heinously spreads the disease(s) to each and every person you engage in the manner that is conducive to the transmission of the disease(s) while your concocted cocktails and treatment options strenghten the diseases' immunity to them beyond our ability to even handle.

So, stop butt sex, problem solved.

(NWS Gay Bowel Disease vid, Part 1):
www.youtube.com/watch...

(Part 2):
www.youtube.com/watch...

Again, remember, YOU asked!

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14991 Dec 10, 2012
Lacez wrote:
You are obviously obsessed with men having anal sex with each other, even though the majority of those participating in anal sex are straight.


Yet more derogatory, belittling commentary intent on demeaning me instead of responding to the actual subject matter under discussion...Pitiful.

Your sort really should leave the intelligent discussions to the educated adults...Really!
Lacez wrote:
Also, how do you misspell "throughout" so badly?
Lol! Finger dyslexia...It happens sometimes. Seriously, I think that my fingers were having trouble keeping up with my thoughts.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14992 Dec 10, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
Great! Now could you give me the unbiased version, you know, one from an authority that is NOT gay, an activist and gay men's health advocate like the author of your referenced source, Michael Scare, is?
Thanks in advance!
Sweetie, are you seriously suggesting that the McGraw-Hill Manual of Colorectal Surgery, you know, the first source that I gave you proving what a malinformed fool you are, is some sort of biased source? Give me a break. How about this cupcake, you give me your source for your "education" on the subject?

Reality check dumpling, no legitimate medical professional believes in the existence of "gay bowel syndrome", quit before you make a complete ass of yourself.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14993 Dec 10, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
The FACT of the matters is that THOUSANDS of American coouples have been LEGALLY MARRIED in the states that allow it, as well as D.C.
"LEGALLY MARRIED" as defined by individual State-level legislation, but now we're talking about the homosexual community having pushed the issue to the level warranting FEDERAL judicial review.

FEDERAL > STATE...FACT!
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Now you may not like it, but it is a FACT that those gay and lesbian couples who are legally married are JUST AS LEGALLY MARRIED AS ANY MARRIED HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE.
Point of clarification...It is irrelevant what I like or dislike as I, much as is the case with everyone else in the U.S., am not positioned to influence judicial decision one way or another based solely upon my 'opinion' alone, which is the point I was making about the U.S. Supreme Court and their intrinsic responsibility of adherence to the Letter of the Law.
Fa-Foxy wrote:
And religion has NOTHING to do with it.
I've never mentioned "religion", not once, in ANY of my responses...YOU DID!

Remember that!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#14994 Dec 10, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
"LEGALLY MARRIED" as defined by individual State-level legislation, but now we're talking about the homosexual community having pushed the issue to the level warranting FEDERAL judicial review.
FEDERAL > STATE...FACT!
<quoted text>
Point of clarification...It is irrelevant what I like or dislike as I, much as is the case with everyone else in the U.S., am not positioned to influence judicial decision one way or another based solely upon my 'opinion' alone, which is the point I was making about the U.S. Supreme Court and their intrinsic responsibility of adherence to the Letter of the Law.
<quoted text>
I've never mentioned "religion", not once, in ANY of my responses...YOU DID!
Remember that!
DOMA is obviously unconstitutionla. The federal government has no right to pick and choose which marriages to legally ricognize and which marriages no to legaly recognize. And numerous federal courts have ruled exactly this.

Now if you are going to maintain that they DO have that right, then what is to stop the federal government, or particular administration from time to time, from not legally recognizing marriages because of age ? Or ethnicity ? Or them simply saying we're not going to legally recognize ANY marriages from "State X" because we don't want to and that's our right as the federal government." ?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Eminem Gay? 'The Interview' Clip of the Rapper ... 3 min Knob Jockey 2
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 10 min Winchester 68,614
Supreme Court Has 'Tipped Its Hand' In Favor Of... 11 min Newt G s Next Wife 38
Ukip candidate: 'Gay donkey tried to rape my ho... 19 min Belle Sexton 55
What Would You Like Two Do With NE Jade 19 min Winchester 8
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 21 min NorCal Native 5,300
Nickelodeon cartoon reveals lesbian characters 25 min Belle Sexton 9
Prison Sex, Nude Selfies, Science, and Scandals... 29 min Belle Sexton 2
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 1 hr Newt G s Next Wife 3,125
More from around the web