So difficult to keep up! (Re: Memeber of the religious right running morally amuck)

Hrm, really? Because as often as you pop up with the same old misinformation about sex between men - which you give with such obvious glee - I really rather doubt you're so straight and narrow.It's almost axiomatic, at this point, that the most adamant attackers of homosexuality in public are on the down-low in private. Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Tommaso Stenico, Mark Foley, that guy in Florida, the kid who runs College Republicans (arrested for fellating guys in their sleep - probably wasn't using the teeth), it just goes on and on with you people.So, you know, you can proclaim your exit-only butthole all you want but you're not convincing anybody. Are you just maybe trying to convince yourself?

Effing Christ. The list I did before was just what I had from memory, but I pop up Pandagon to read the day's blogging and there's another two or three of the "family values" crowd doing things that we never heard of in my family.Brown County Wisconsin GOP chair charged with fondling boy, exposing self

quote:

---

The chairman of the Republican Party in Brown County faces criminal charges for allegedly fondling a 16-year-old Ethan House runaway and providing the boy with beer and marijuana late last year.

​

Donald Fleischman, 37, of Allouez, was charged last month with two counts of child enticement, two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a child and a single charge of exposing himself to a child.

---

Illinois: ”Christian’ clown busted for molestation, child porn

quote:

---

The 57-year-old Carlock, who’s myriad of jobs includes performing locally as “Klutzo” the clown, was charged in federal court Tuesday with possessing child pornography and traveling to engage in sexual conduct with a minor.

​

. Until this week, however, Carlock had never been arrested or charged with any crime involving a child.

​

As Carlock was being released from a psychiatric facility Tuesday, federal authorities arrested him on charges that he went to the Philippines to photograph naked boys and that he had sexually abused three boys there.

---

NJ, seriously - maybe you ought to concentrate a little less on your sniggering fantasies about Ian McKellen filling his Depends and ask yourself "what the fuck is wrong with us?" a little more often. Do you simply see this parade of moral hypocrisy and pedophilia and wave it off? "Oh, it's just as bad on the left, if not worse?"Because it's not. Gay people over here on our side don't have to fellate sleeping college students and take "wide stances" in men's rooms, generally, because of all the work we've done opposing the closet and the social opprobrium that necessitates it. What the hell is wrong with you people?Edited by crashfrog, : Corrected grammar - this sentence no verb.

Gandalf? He's gay. He's old. If anybody would have "gay bowel disease", as though that even existed, wouldn't it be him? Gay-bashing like you've been doing is pretty exclusively conservative. This whole thread is about the gay-bashing hypocrisy of the right. Of all the sex acts I can think of, anal sex is hardly the most ridiculous or gross. I'm not into it, but I hardly see the utility in divying up sex acts into "natural" and "unnatural." I mean, what's the use of that? Isn't "fun" and "not fun" a much more useful category?If you're so concerned about "unnatural sex", why don't you have a big hard-on about, say, whipped cream? (As part of a sex act.) For one thing, whipped cream shouldn't come from a spray can. For another thing, the human body is not capable of producing its own whipped cream. Isn't that just as "unnatural" as anal sex?How about sexy lingerie? Rayon is a fundamentally unnatural cloth. It doesn't come from any kind of natural plant fiber. If my wife puts on the stockings and heels, aren't we having "unnatural sex"?Golden showers? That's gotta be unnatural, right? But you're telling me you've never made a girl come so hard that she pees a little bit? (You're not doing it right otherwise.) Did you just do something "unnatural"?Like I said. Surely you can't think the "unnatural/natural" categories are going to take you anywhere, right? The sole purpose of this conversation is so that you can say, as loudly as possible, "I don't want to be fucked in the ass."Which is funny, because none of us said we were going to, which makes me wonder why you found it so important to insist on voicing your disapproval about anal sex. It kind of makes me wonder exactly who you're trying to convince. And it's axiomatic, these days, that homosexuality's loudest opponents are all gay, themselves. Your people. Conservatives. Republicans. Bush-voters. Opponents of "the gay agenda." Never, that I know of. You've just simply completely ignored them, and refused to make any sort of connection between their behavior and their public condemnation of homosexuality - the same condemnations you've been making here.I mean, to the rest of us, nothing was more obvious than the connection between Larry Craig voting in "defense of traditional marriage" and trying to suck a guy's cock in the men's room. I mean we all said "duh!" when that happened, because its so obvious how many of homosexuality's attackers are themselves closeted gays.You're saying you never made the obvious connection? Why on Earth not?

Nothing makes an actor more happy than to be the public face of a disease. Do you know how much money Bob Dole got from shelling Viagra? If there's this "gay bowel disease" - which Rrhain has already explained doesn't make any sense from a medical perspective - why isn't the Super-Powerful Gay Agenda Lobby or whatever making it the male version of breast cancer? Where's Ian McKellen's brown ribbon?It's a non-existent "disease." It's just homophobia dressed up in the DSM IV. Don't agree what? That it exists? That's pretty hard to argue. Don't agree that you want to be gay? Nobody said that you did, NJ, at least not until you made it clear how obsessed you are with teh buttsecks. Don't agree that other people should be gay? They disagree, so who cares what you think?I don't understand what you think you're doing, I guess. The folks that buy camping toilet seats so they can poop on each other? That's pretty gross. Plus there's the panoply of "legendary" sex acts (the Dirty Sanchez, the Cleveland Steamer) that all the frat guys talk about but I don't believe anybody actually does.Honestly if anal sex, which is usually pretty clean, is the grossest sex thing you know about, you've lead a remarkably sheltered (and boring) life. I don't see how that makes "fun" and "not fun" not useful. Can you explain? Because "fun" and "not fun" is the only category I break sex acts down into. Why would I break them down into "what NJ thinks is kosher" and "what he doesn't"? Why on Earth would I want to think about you during that time?Some people put "pooping on each other" into the fun category. I don't. I still don't see why it's not a useful category, you'll have to explain further.Or, just maybe, since I'm not starting from the position of having to develop a series of categories just so I can belittle people for having sex in a way I don't enjoy, maybe I'll never understand. What the fuck are you talking about? It's a sex act when you do it as part of sex, obviously. How can it not be? When you're shooting whipped cream all over your lady's naked body and licking it off, you're telling me that's not a sex act?Are you just pretending to be stupid, or what? What the hell do you think it is, genius? It's a sex act if she's doing it as a part of sex, obviously. By your idiot logic we might as well say that anal sex isn't a sex act, and that pretty much makes your whole point irrelevant, doesn't it? Why not, NJ? What could possibly be more unnatural than a synthetic fiber? Sure. He's wrong, of course, and so are you. The only problem here is that you've confused "doesn't sound fun" or even "sounds fun but I'm ashamed to admit it to myself" with "unnatural."Here's a hint; the terms are not synonymous. We all get it, NJ. You've loudly proclaimed your desire not to be fucked in the ass by a man. You've said it so often, in fact, that I'm now quite sure it's just a front, like it was for Larry Craig (who still won't admit to being gay, even after the whole fucking world knows, it's hilarious) and Mark Foley. And now you too. You've included yourself by ideological association. You don't like it? Change your ideology. Nobody's twisting your arm to make you bash gay people. Although if you hate them so much, you might ask yourself why you're voting for the party that seems to contain so many, and in secret. It's because liberals are simply better people, Democrats are usually better people, and quite simply, the scandals you're referring to are almost always conservative inventions.It's the Honesty Gulf, and it's very wide. Democrats and liberals simply are a lot more honest and law-abiding than conservatives, Republicans, and the rest of you right-wing authoritarian follower types (as described, scientifically, by Altemeyer) and as a result there's a great deal less actual scandal. In prison? In prison for what?Precisely what do you think he should go to prison for, NJ? Being gay? If that's true in so many cases, which it is, why shouldn't I assume it's likely to be true about you? It's certainly not normal, NJ, to get on the internet and complain about homosexuality this much. Anal sex between men just isn't on the minds of most people as often as its on yours. What on Earth is the deal with that? Don't you ever ask yourself why you're thinking about anal sex between men so much more than everybody else is?

Seems like we did that years ago. I can't imagine what you're waiting around for. How would you classify the behavior of "spending too much time on the internet obsessing about whose dick is in whose ass"?

Well! Finally something we agree on. Enough to make it worth the embarrassment of admitting, on national television, to erectile dysfunction. I'd assume that's quite a bit. Please refresh your memory - the GLBT movement isn't comprised entirely of gay men. Even if the gay men are working as hard as they can to jam radio transmissions about "gay bowel disease", presumably the bisexual ladies, lesbians, and MtF trannies would have no particular stake in propping up the Thin Brown Line, or whatever.The idea that there's some kind of secret conspiracy to hide "gay bowel disease" from an unsuspecting populace is just absurd, especially considering how medically absurd the supposed syndrome is, in the first place. As Rrhain said, when you work out a muscle, it gets stronger, not weaker. It's the finding it erotic that they have no choice over; it's the finding it erotic that makes them gay.That's rather the point. They're obviously not "queer by choice", if they didn't find it erotic - which they don't choose to do, they just do - they wouldn't be queer. No, just the conditions that appear to be fixed at birth. Unfortunately, I think pedophilia is one such condition, as is sociopathy; we nonetheless restrict the acting out of those desires because of the cost to their victims. In fact probably everybody with a paraphilia was born that way.Two adult gay men having sex is victimless when they both consent to it. As you've been reminded in the past, consent is the key. I'm not disallowing you anything. You can say how gross it is, all you want. That you're obsessed with doing so even when it's not remotely on-topic is interesting to me, but I wouldn't claim to stop you.But "gross" doesn't mean "unnatural", and "gross" doesn't mean "there should be a law against it", either. If you intend to defend either of those positions, you need to use some evidence aside from "grossness." As clean as a vagina or mouth, two other things that penises commonly are put into. (Apple pies being a third? I dunno.) What, NJ, you think the people that are having anal sex are crapping all over their penises and dildoes? Jesus, how much do you think they must spend on sheets?Did it ever occur to you to find out about the practice before you decided to condemn it? You know, from people that actually do it and enjoy it? Oh, my apologies, NJ. I didn't realize you saw yourself as the great potentate, descending from On High to gift us all with your sage opinions and advice.How dare the rest of us peons speak in the presence of your holy sun! Oh? It's not?So if your wife was with some other man, dressed only in her sexiest lingerie, getting whipped cream spread all over her and being licked off by the other guy, you'd have no problem at all with that because it isn't a sex act?I doubt it, somehow. Obviously the whipped cream thing is a sex act. You're just being deliberately obtuse to avoid having to respond to my point. You can stop at any time, please. Either they both are or they both aren't. Shooting whipped cream onto somebody's naked body and licking it off is clearly a sex act. Anal sex is clearly a sex act.You're the one who needs to explain to me how, in your view, one is and the other isn't. I don't see how you can draw a line in between them. If you can pay a hooker to do it, it's probably a sex act, I'm just saying.But, you know, if you don't think the whipped cream thing is sex, by all means send your wife over here, I just bought a new can. Using the prop as part of sex is what makes using it a sex act. It's pretty fuckin' simple, NJ. I don't understand why you're so wrapped up in whether or not it's "good." How about whether or not it's harmful to a non-consenting person? Two gay men having sex consensually have accepted the risks of their behavior, just like anybody who consents to sex must, so I don't see what makes what they're doing any different than what my wife and I choose to do. What they're doing wouldn't be good for us. What we're doing wouldn't be good to them. Both of us couples are having the sex we think is "good", and the only people getting hurt are the people who agreed to.What's the problem with that? I don't see it. "Fun" and "not fun" makes a lot more sense here than "natural" and "unnatural", which gets us nowhere useful - just somewhere judgmental. Who gives a crap about judging others? I simply don't have the time. I can only call it like I see it. Don't confuse the fact that your arguments don't make any sense and aren't convincing for some kind of recalcitrant stubbornness on my part. I can't help it if you can't put an argument together, or say a single thing that is true. ...what? Pointing out how obsessed you are. Obviously.