Gay Republican elected lawmaker from Pennsylvania comes out

[xbuzzerx]

No, I'm not talking about THEIR double standards, those go without saying. I meant OUR irrational instinct to pay the doggie on the head every time it's not trying to bite our hand off and does a trick instead, forgetting that the doggie is supposed to be a rational human being. It seems the standards we have for them are so low that every time they actually get even a bit above, it's such a surprise that we feel compelled to congratulate them...

The way all these threads have played out, it's more like "Hey guys, here, look at this rare instance of a Republican doing something remotely positive... now if you don't fall over yourselves to concede we do as much for progress as everyone else, you're just a hater."

[chance1]

There's no reason to celebrate in this thread:

1. A gay man spends his whole life in the closet because of the homophobic Republicans around him raised him to be.
2. He marries a woman that he later has to divorce when he realizes he can't live a lie anymore.
3. He was ONLY elected as a state representative for the GOP ticket with the assumption that he's straight. Mike Fleck would have never been elected as a Republican state representative in rural Pennsylvania had he been an open homosexual.
4. He still believes in the Republican party with a platform that publicly states that he is a second-class citizen incapable of marrying a man or be protected equally under the law. So he can have a farce marriage with a woman, but can only fuck men behind closed doors.

Nothing to celebrate here.

no it appears that derision and condemnation are the default

thinking maybe there's somewhere in between ?

silly me

i guess u vote for derision and condemnation and support your fellow deriders ?

[xbuzzerx]

no it appears that derision and condemnation are the default

thinking maybe there's somewhere in between ?

silly me

i guess u vote for derision and condemnation and support your fellow deriders ?

We support gay politicians or gay issues-friendly politicians who are NOT part of an overall political cabal that is deadset against gay rights at every turn.

Not hard to understand.

[Mariatenebre]

Many gay men DO identify as conservative Christians. Some accept they are gay, but also believe that their faith calls on them to choose a life of celibacy. Other gay conservative Christians believe that gay sex is permissible (not sinful) only as long as it is within a monogamous, committed relationship with another man. This is called "Argument A" vs "Argument B", and you can read more on the Gay Christian Network (http://www.gaychristian.net/)



Why not? Other posters pointed out that Rep. Mike Fleck has never made a public statement, or taken a vote on a gay rights issue or measure. So he has no record of anti-gay votes or actions. There is no hypocrisy.



His wife has known for over a year, and they chose to end the marriage one year ago. The article says they are still close friends. So your accusation holds no water.



Coming out is a personal decision. That was up to him when he wanted to come out. If he wanted to remain closeted, that would have also been his choice. And again, he never rallied against gay people or voted on anti-gay measures so there was no hypocrisy to expose.



Rep. Mike Fleck NEVER said he is going to be a "social liberal". Just because he is gay, he must now share all of your political views??

Newsflash: there are openly gay men who believe in God, paying off the deficit, the right to bear arms (2nd amendment), oppose affirmative action, oppose abortion, and believe we should be drilling for oil in the US..

This shows the depravity of Christianity in that some gay men choose to live lives of celibacy based on this religion. It is immoral to force someone into a miserable state of no companionship, and sexual gratification. Psychology has shown that it is not mentally healthy to live lives of deprivation. We are sexual creatures and it has been proven that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. The Abrahamics need to get over themselves.

On the things you mentioned that gays support one thing you mentioned was abortion which you should know that science has shown that fetuses/embryos/clusters of cells are not sentient lives and as such do not deserve protection.

I disagree. I think gay men who are promiscuous and have sex with random men they find on Manhunt or Grindr or Scruff are far more "self-hating" and have other personal issues than a man who accepts his sexual orientation and willingly chooses not to have sex.

This is not true psychologically. Gay men who are permiscuous are rightfully expressing their healthy sexuality. Someone who chooses to suppress their innate sexuality by avoiding sex and living lives of deprivation most certainly are self hating. It is not in everyone's nature to be monogomous and no would should have to be that isn't

[archive]

I remember (sorta) a line re Pennsylvania and their electorate

In between Philly (far east) and Pittsburgh (far west) is Alabama

This. I don't see how you state this then call everyone who disagrees with you a hater. PA is a weird state. You can go to four cities (Erie, Allentown, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia) and be relatively accepted. Everywhere else is Alabama. While I applaud him for coming out and finally dealing with his own internal struggle, it is quite hard not to imagine some external force. You will not see an out and proud Republican elected in the spaces between. Why is that so hard to understand? Or are you just riling feather's on purpose.

[Laufey]

Do you mean the old testament which also says all the straight people who eat lobster are going to hell too?

Yes that one.

[Jack Springer]

Well ......

What I got out of this discussion

- republicans/conservatives are not allowed to be gay
- gays have to think and behave a certain way, e.g., it's honorable to be a slut and screw around with one-time hookups
- only democrats can be gay -- because they are right
- Christianity is evil, morals are evil
- liberals are rude and arrogant .... and always correct ... ask them -- they will tell you -- mainly because they are right and anyone who disagrees with them or points out their errors is wrong, stupid
- if liberals are "caught" they call the other person a troll and make it personal
- only certain people are allowed to evolve

Just where is the book that sets out all the rules for being gay? Roloyo85 and xbuzzerx please loan me and the others here the copies you are using.

[Laufey]

Random trivia on the note of sexual repression/abstinence: prostate cancer used to be called "priest's disease" back in the middle ages because your chances to develop early life-ending prostate cancer after a life of willfully avoided sexual activity is much higher than normal.

You also decrease your chances of prostate cancer even more by getting fucked in the butt

[chance1]

This. I don't see how you state this then call everyone who disagrees with you a hater. PA is a weird state. You can go to four cities (Erie, Allentown, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia) and be relatively accepted. Everywhere else is Alabama. While I applaud him for coming out and finally dealing with his own internal struggle, it is quite hard not to imagine some external force. You will not see an out and proud Republican elected in the spaces between. Why is that so hard to understand? Or are you just riling feather's on purpose.

LOL

I HEARD someone else say it - as in the electorate is sorta southern-like when u exclude the two major cities

it surprised me - it was confirmed by a gay friend from philly who now lives in nyc

how is that hate on my part ?

i don't even know what your point is

[chance1]

Well ......

What I got out of this discussion

- republicans/conservatives are not allowed to be gay
- gays have to think and behave a certain way, e.g., it's honorable to be a slut and screw around with one-time hookups
- only democrats can be gay -- because they are right
- Christianity is evil, morals are evil
- liberals are rude and arrogant .... and always correct ... ask them -- they will tell you -- mainly because they are right and anyone who disagrees with them or points out their errors is wrong, stupid
- if liberals are "caught" they call the other person a troll and make it personal
- only certain people are allowed to evolve

Just where is the book that sets out all the rules for being gay? Roloyo85 and xbuzzerx please loan me and the others here the copies you are using.

the rules are fluid dear jack

and on a need to know basis - LOL

[Ninja108]

His niece has already refered to him being gay as a lifestyle choice. Want to bet that's how his own party views him now?

[Kulindahr]

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/co...t.html?nav=742

Uh.

Gee.

Interesting that he waited until after the election to be 'honest' with his constituents.

This tells me everything that I need to know about this Republican politician.

It tells me that he preferred to have a gay Republican actually present in the legislature, showing other Republicans there's nothing wrong with being gay. Sure, only a fraction will get it, but that fraction will be change.

[archive]

LOL

I HEARD someone else say it - as in the electorate is sorta southern-like when u exclude the two major cities

it surprised me - it was confirmed by a gay friend from philly who now lives in nyc

how is that hate on my part ?

i don't even know what your point is

I'm from PA, so i was saying you were correct in saying that. The point is why celebrate the fact that the guy came out (after he was elected) and he is a republican. No one said you were hating. I don't see why you, Palbert, etc keep trying to make it something else. The guy just destroyed his political career.

[chance1]

I'm from PA, so i was saying you were correct in saying that. The point is why celebrate the fact that the guy came out (after he was elected) and he is a republican. No one said you were hating. I don't see why you, Palbert, etc keep trying to make it something else. The guy just destroyed his political career.

i'm not celebrating anything

i think its good he came out and he's hopefully at peace

have you read the posts by 1/2 dozen here who consistently condemn anyone who doesn't pass their proper gay test

did u read?

i did

i think it sucks

i would think it sucks even if they weren't gay and supposedly have been through the hatred that some gays have experienced

i think the gay litmus test sucks

i think not recognizing the good of someone finding their way in their time ..... sucks

if the guy destroyed his career, shame on the voters - but some things u gotta do - and he did

[JayQueer]

Random trivia on the note of sexual repression/abstinence: prostate cancer used to be called "priest's disease" back in the middle ages because your chances to develop early life-ending prostate cancer after a life of willfully avoided sexual activity is much higher than normal.

Random trivia on the note of sexual promiscuity: anal warts, anal cancer and STDs (HIV, herpes, HPV, syphilis, gonorrhea, chylamdia, etc) are much more common in gay men who have sex with many men, compared to gay men who are in monogamous relationships.

[xbuzzerx]

Random trivia on the note of sexual promiscuity: anal warts, anal cancer and STDs (HIV, herpes, HPV, syphilis, gonorrhea, chylamdia, etc) are much more common in gay men who have sex with many men, compared to gay men who are in monogamous relationships.

So by your logic the human race should end because not catching an STD is preferrable to risking sex.

Great, balanced, sane mindset.

P.S. STD's are 100% preventable. Prostate cancer isn't.

P.P.S. Promiscuity is also 100% preventable. Being gay isn't.

[chance1]

Random trivia on the note of sexual promiscuity: anal warts, anal cancer and STDs (HIV, herpes, HPV, syphilis, gonorrhea, chylamdia, etc) are much more common in gay men who have sex with many men, compared to gay men who are in monogamous relationships.

you're bringing your "A" game baby

[JayQueer]

This is not true psychologically. Gay men who are permiscuous are rightfully expressing their healthy sexuality. Someone who chooses to suppress their innate sexuality by avoiding sex and living lives of deprivation most certainly are self hating. It is not in everyone's nature to be monogomous and no would should have to be that isn't

Okay, from your argument (and Rolyo's), you believe that gay men who are promiscuous are being healthy, and that gay men who are in monogamous relationships are "suppressing their innate sexuality" and "living lives of deprivation."

It logically follows then, you (and Rolyo) DO NOT support marriage equality for gay men. The purpose of a marriage is to unite two adults who wish to share their love and commitment (and that includes sex) together by making their union a covenant or agreement between the two parties.

If a gay man is busy hooking up with different men every night, there is no point to being tied to down to just one man. Why be married when it is only living a "life of deprivation" and being "self-hating" when one could just have sex with as many men as possible?? Why would you want the government to legalize gay marriage when it is so harmful to gay men??

So once again, all of you who believe that "gay men who are promiscuous are rightfully expressing their healthy sexuality" MUST also be opposed to marriage equality for gay men. If not, you are a hypocrite.

[Kulindahr]

Yes that one.

Unless you're a conservative Jew, it isn't relevant.

[Kulindahr]

The guy just destroyed his political career.

Or maybe he's making a gamble with more knowledge than we have.

Personally I find it intriguing that the timing may be strategy. If he'd come out before the election, he would have been sunk. By coming out after, he now has until the next election to attempt to show that a gay Republican can still be the man they want.

I'll be interested in seeing if he manages it. If a gay Republican can get re-elected there, hope for the future is stronger than it seems now.

[chance1]

You hit all the buttons and proved my points.

However, when will I be receiving the Official Rule Book for Gays? UPS or FedEx it to me please.

don't u love it when that happens ?

it happens a lot

just remember Jack

"occasionally right ...... never in doubt"

LOL

[Rolyo85]

Okay, from your argument (and Rolyo's), you believe that gay men who are promiscuous are being healthy, and that gay men who are in monogamous relationships are "suppressing their innate sexuality" and "living lives of deprivation."

I am sorry, you have obviously misread this, so let me explain. Promiscuous men are more healthy than CELIBATE men. There is NO "slutty VS monogamous" argument, as much as you'd wish it to be so, because then you can go in your usual homophobic rant about the evil WeHo sluts who don't want a "conservative brown boi"...

It logically follows then, you (and Rolyo) DO NOT support marriage equality for gay men. The purpose of a marriage is to unite two adults who wish to share their love and commitment (and that includes sex) together by making their union a covenant or agreement between the two parties.

Let me take you through a crash course of "Smart Sexual Interaction for Dummies". For those of us, not burdened by SCD (Severe Christianity Disorder), sexuality is something to be celebrated, not feared and be ashamed of. Sex is not sacred, it is a physically and (if you have personality) emotionally intense experience that is very pleasurable. It is special when it's with a special person, but that doesn't make it somehow shameful when it isn't with one. Furthermore, while I personally function better in a relationship, I don't jump into those at the tip of a hat, so as long as I am single, I see nothing wrong in having adult sleepovers with people I have sexual chemistry with. The Judgment Brigade is very prude in Gay Land some times, but the truth is, if you are intelligent and you have no commitment issues, you can be EXACTLY as promiscuous as your heart desires, and yes, it IS healthy. It is an expression of your personality, and a strong one. And EVEN when in a relationship, there are no Absolute Rules Of Successful Relationships other than "honest and open communication". If a couple's relationship is strengthened by extra curricular sex with third parties (rarely, on occasion or even often), and both sides recognize that and have no problem with it, then THAT is what the best thing for this couple is. And while some boys, who are only satisfied with perfection and nothing less than their personal (property) Prince Charming - who literally doesn't see other men and is perfect in every way - will do, might be bitter with being single, and begrudge others who see the world as it truly is, instead of the bitter-pink fantasy they wish... well, that's their problem. Grow the fuck up and understand that judging people who have more partners than you shows nothing but sour grapes.

If a gay man is busy hooking up with different men every night, there is no point to being tied to down to just one man. Why be married when it is only living a "life of deprivation" and being "self-hating" when one could just have sex with as many men as possible?? Why would you want the government to legalize gay marriage when it is so harmful to gay men??

Ignoring your wrong premise (see my response to the first quote), the human behavior has more than only two settings - "full on Change-Em-Every-Night fuckfest" and "devoted church-going monogamy". I hook up a few times a month, and usually with the same people, who I have gotten to know through chatting long before actually meeting them. I hang out with them, go to bars, watch movies, have wine all classy-ass like, AND I have sex with them. And that's only when I'm single. Really, you need to get out of your parents' home for a spell and meet some actual gay people. It will do you a world of good.

So once again, all of you who believe that "gay men who are promiscuous are rightfully expressing their healthy sexuality" MUST also be opposed to marriage equality for gay men. If not, you are a hypocrite.

This is teenage girl logic - "If you say you are my friend, you MUST hate Cindy, because she is a bitch, and so if you don't hate her, you are a hypocrite".

Sex and relationships are NOT the same thing. Ultimately, I wanna find ONE person to spend my life with. And I want to share my entire existence with him, and yes - maybe some times play with others together with him. But I sure as hell am not going to live on sad jerk off sessions in the mean time, just because JayQueer isn't getting any.

[xbuzzerx]

Okay, from your argument (and Rolyo's), you believe that gay men who are promiscuous are being healthy, and that gay men who are in monogamous relationships are "suppressing their innate sexuality" and "living lives of deprivation."

It logically follows then, you (and Rolyo) DO NOT support marriage equality for gay men. The purpose of a marriage is to unite two adults who wish to share their love and commitment (and that includes sex) together by making their union a covenant or agreement between the two parties.

If a gay man is busy hooking up with different men every night, there is no point to being tied to down to just one man. Why be married when it is only living a "life of deprivation" and being "self-hating" when one could just have sex with as many men as possible?? Why would you want the government to legalize gay marriage when it is so harmful to gay men??

So once again, all of you who believe that "gay men who are promiscuous are rightfully expressing their healthy sexuality" MUST also be opposed to marriage equality for gay men. If not, you are a hypocrite.

You are the sole person who has drawn the stark dichotomy between self-repressed abstinence out of a backwards medieval moral code and being a total slut who sleeps with everything with no protection.

Yes, the intentional decision to forego normal and healthy sexual activity can be detrimental to your health--- and no, the "health benefits" of never having sex are not equal, and all of them are preventable 100%.

If you are incapable of envisioning life as a gay male that doesn't involve frequent meaningless unprotected sex and nothing else, that is a flaw with you, not with gay people or the state of being gay.

You hit all the buttons and proved my points.

However, when will I be receiving the Official Rule Book for Gays? UPS or FedEx it to me please.

What good would a rulebook do you when you don't even follow self-preservation?

Supporting the party that advocates codifying AGAINST your rights into laws or even into the Constitution is incomprehensible.

[maxpowr9]

I'll be interested in seeing if he manages it. If a gay Republican can get re-elected there, hope for the future is stronger than it seems now.

Yeah, Massachusetts would rather reelect the husband of a felon than a gay Republican. That says a lot right there. Reckon state offices are a tad different but he will probably be out after this term anyways.

[Ninja108]

As it stands,no matter how many conservative gays like Tammy Bruce or Richard Grenell try to say otherwise,the GOP as a whole is still anti-gay.
The ones that aren't get shoved out of the party. The official GOP platform still has outlawing gay marriage in their platform. ANd until that changes,I'll be damned if I vote Republician.

[Mariatenebre]

Well ......

What I got out of this discussion

- republicans/conservatives are not allowed to be gay
- gays have to think and behave a certain way, e.g., it's honorable to be a slut and screw around with one-time hookups
- only democrats can be gay -- because they are right
- Christianity is evil, morals are evil
- liberals are rude and arrogant .... and always correct ... ask them -- they will tell you -- mainly because they are right and anyone who disagrees with them or points out their errors is wrong, stupid
- if liberals are "caught" they call the other person a troll and make it personal
- only certain people are allowed to evolve

Just where is the book that sets out all the rules for being gay? Roloyo85 and xbuzzerx please loan me and the others here the copies you are using.

First of all you don't have to screw around with various people. However you should not hide your sexuality nor suppress it. You certainly shouldn't hide it because of primative religious beliefs. Celibacy has no positive benefit and inr eality is negative.

Next Christianity is evil however so is Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism etc. Morals are not evil however morals must be logical and reasonable.

Though it is honorable to be a slut. In ancient times even there were sacred prostitutes.

Okay, from your argument (and Rolyo's), you believe that gay men who are promiscuous are being healthy, and that gay men who are in monogamous relationships are "suppressing their innate sexuality" and "living lives of deprivation."

It logically follows then, you (and Rolyo) DO NOT support marriage equality for gay men. The purpose of a marriage is to unite two adults who wish to share their love and commitment (and that includes sex) together by making their union a covenant or agreement between the two parties.

If a gay man is busy hooking up with different men every night, there is no point to being tied to down to just one man. Why be married when it is only living a "life of deprivation" and being "self-hating" when one could just have sex with as many men as possible?? Why would you want the government to legalize gay marriage when it is so harmful to gay men??

So once again, all of you who believe that "gay men who are promiscuous are rightfully expressing their healthy sexuality" MUST also be opposed to marriage equality for gay men. If not, you are a hypocrite.

I don't believe that monogamy is suppressing sexuality. Monogamy is a way of expressing sexuality but it is only for some not for all. What I am against is people who say that gay men can not have sex and must be celibate. There is a difference between no sex and sex with only one person.

As for marriage, there is such a thing as an open marriage. IE people who are committed to one another yet who also have sex on the side. Each partner is aware of this, such as the swingers phenomena.

I am for marriage for all people regardless of their gender, however monogamous marriage is not for everybody. However what I am vehemently against is celibacy for gays or anyone as it is not psychologically healthy.

[rareboy]

My words like many
Republican lies
fall softly like snow upon
dead rational thought

...and that is the way to do it properly.

Brilliant.

[Jack Springer]

I am sorry, you have obviously misread this, so let me explain. Promiscuous men are more healthy than CELIBATE men. There is NO "slutty VS monogamous" argument, as much as you'd wish it to be so, because then you can go in your usual homophobic rant about the evil WeHo sluts who don't want a "conservative brown boi"...



Let me take you through a crash course of "Smart Sexual Interaction for Dummies". For those of us, not burdened by SCD (Severe Christianity Disorder), sexuality is something to be celebrated, not feared and be ashamed of. Sex is not sacred, it is a physically and (if you have personality) emotionally intense experience that is very pleasurable. It is special when it's with a special person, but that doesn't make it somehow shameful when it isn't with one. Furthermore, while I personally function better in a relationship, I don't jump into those at the tip of a hat, so as long as I am single, I see nothing wrong in having adult sleepovers with people I have sexual chemistry with. The Judgment Brigade is very prude in Gay Land some times, but the truth is, if you are intelligent and you have no commitment issues, you can be EXACTLY as promiscuous as your heart desires, and yes, it IS healthy. It is an expression of your personality, and a strong one. And EVEN when in a relationship, there are no Absolute Rules Of Successful Relationships other than "honest and open communication". If a couple's relationship is strengthened by extra curricular sex with third parties (rarely, on occasion or even often), and both sides recognize that and have no problem with it, then THAT is what the best thing for this couple is. And while some boys, who are only satisfied with perfection and nothing less than their personal (property) Prince Charming - who literally doesn't see other men and is perfect in every way - will do, might be bitter with being single, and begrudge others who see the world as it truly is, instead of the bitter-pink fantasy they wish... well, that's their problem. Grow the fuck up and understand that judging people who have more partners than you shows nothing but sour grapes.



Ignoring your wrong premise (see my response to the first quote), the human behavior has more than only two settings - "full on Change-Em-Every-Night fuckfest" and "devoted church-going monogamy". I hook up a few times a month, and usually with the same people, who I have gotten to know through chatting long before actually meeting them. I hang out with them, go to bars, watch movies, have wine all classy-ass like, AND I have sex with them. And that's only when I'm single. Really, you need to get out of your parents' home for a spell and meet some actual gay people. It will do you a world of good.



This is teenage girl logic - "If you say you are my friend, you MUST hate Cindy, because she is a bitch, and so if you don't hate her, you are a hypocrite".

Sex and relationships are NOT the same thing. Ultimately, I wanna find ONE person to spend my life with. And I want to share my entire existence with him, and yes - maybe some times play with others together with him. But I sure as hell am not going to live on sad jerk off sessions in the mean time, just because JayQueer isn't getting any.

Big tent party. Open mindedness. Welcoming to all people. Democrats ... what a bunch of hogwash.

[rareboy]

^ Hey. No one expects you to embrace the Democrats.

I think it is great that this homo politician got there in the end.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for other homos to question motivation and timing when it is a conservative politician coming out.
I don't happen to like his timing. He decided to withhold this information until after he was elected even though he had reached the decision that he would be coming out. Whatever.

The defining criterion, I believe, is whether the individual did any damage directly to homo rights and dignity before they came out, or were they just silent and did not vote or crusade actively against the homosexuals. At least it is the defining criterion for me.

Apparently this guy, unlike folks like Ken Mehlman, does not have a soiled record.

So as sad as I am that he has wasted so much of his life and along the way, has then probably hurt the woman he married, at least he has reached an apotheosis. And he now has the opportunity to do good.

[xbuzzerx]

Big tent party. Open mindedness. Welcoming to all people. Democrats ... what a bunch of hogwash.

Because we do not ask people to suppress their physical needs or their healthy life in order to fit our narrow an outdated moral code in order to fit in with us?

*And punish them rather viciously in high office if they don't?

[Jack Springer]

^^

Not everyone has the same needs.

It appears you have your own very specific moral code. One that you expect all gay guys to abide by.

[xbuzzerx]

^^

Not everyone has the same needs.

It appears you have your own very specific moral code. One that you expect all gay guys to abide by.

Oh and what is that moral code? That you shouldn't unhealthily suppress yourself for no good reason?

We're closedminded for that?

Next up: people who think bulimics should get professional help are closedminded.

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

^ Hey. No one expects you to embrace the Democrats.

I think it is great that this homo politician got there in the end.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for other homos to question motivation and timing when it is a conservative politician coming out.
I don't happen to like his timing. He decided to withhold this information until after he was elected even though he had reached the decision that he would be coming out. Whatever.

The defining criterion, I believe, is whether the individual did any damage directly to homo rights and dignity before they came out, or were they just silent and did not vote or crusade actively against the homosexuals. At least it is the defining criterion for me.

Apparently this guy, unlike folks like Ken Mehlman, does not have a soiled record.

So as sad as I am that he has wasted so much of his life and along the way, has then probably hurt the woman he married, at least he has reached an apotheosis. And he now has the opportunity to do good.

Well said. I can't help but be suspicious and cynical about his timing. That being said, I wish him the best... I too will be interested in how he tackles gay issues and impending public backlash. Regardless, an openly gay Repub politician is a unique case study indeed... we don't get many of these... hopefully the bulk of us are wrong about what we know highly suspect is going to happen.

[White Eagle]

I disagree. I think gay men who are promiscuous and have sex with random men they find on Manhunt or Grindr or Scruff are far more "self-hating" and have other personal issues than a man who accepts his sexual orientation and willingly chooses not to have sex.

Are you saying that you are not promiscuous and choose not to have sex? You sure know where to find the promiscuous ones. I've never heard of Manhunt or Grindr or Scruff. Thank you!

[White Eagle]

I am sorry, you have obviously misread this, so let me explain. Promiscuous men are more healthy than CELIBATE men. There is NO "slutty VS monogamous" argument, as much as you'd wish it to be so, because then you can go in your usual homophobic rant about the evil WeHo sluts who don't want a "conservative brown boi"...



Let me take you through a crash course of "Smart Sexual Interaction for Dummies". For those of us, not burdened by SCD (Severe Christianity Disorder), sexuality is something to be celebrated, not feared and be ashamed of. Sex is not sacred, it is a physically and (if you have personality) emotionally intense experience that is very pleasurable. It is special when it's with a special person, but that doesn't make it somehow shameful when it isn't with one. Furthermore, while I personally function better in a relationship, I don't jump into those at the tip of a hat, so as long as I am single, I see nothing wrong in having adult sleepovers with people I have sexual chemistry with. The Judgment Brigade is very prude in Gay Land some times, but the truth is, if you are intelligent and you have no commitment issues, you can be EXACTLY as promiscuous as your heart desires, and yes, it IS healthy. It is an expression of your personality, and a strong one. And EVEN when in a relationship, there are no Absolute Rules Of Successful Relationships other than "honest and open communication". If a couple's relationship is strengthened by extra curricular sex with third parties (rarely, on occasion or even often), and both sides recognize that and have no problem with it, then THAT is what the best thing for this couple is. And while some boys, who are only satisfied with perfection and nothing less than their personal (property) Prince Charming - who literally doesn't see other men and is perfect in every way - will do, might be bitter with being single, and begrudge others who see the world as it truly is, instead of the bitter-pink fantasy they wish... well, that's their problem. Grow the fuck up and understand that judging people who have more partners than you shows nothing but sour grapes.



Ignoring your wrong premise (see my response to the first quote), the human behavior has more than only two settings - "full on Change-Em-Every-Night fuckfest" and "devoted church-going monogamy". I hook up a few times a month, and usually with the same people, who I have gotten to know through chatting long before actually meeting them. I hang out with them, go to bars, watch movies, have wine all classy-ass like, AND I have sex with them. And that's only when I'm single. Really, you need to get out of your parents' home for a spell and meet some actual gay people. It will do you a world of good.



This is teenage girl logic - "If you say you are my friend, you MUST hate Cindy, because she is a bitch, and so if you don't hate her, you are a hypocrite".

Sex and relationships are NOT the same thing. Ultimately, I wanna find ONE person to spend my life with. And I want to share my entire existence with him, and yes - maybe some times play with others together with him. But I sure as hell am not going to live on sad jerk off sessions in the mean time, just because JayQueer isn't getting any.

I wouldn't have even tried to say this any better than what you did. Congrats.

[MisterB]

Are you saying that you are not promiscuous and choose not to have sex? You sure know where to find the promiscuous ones. I've never heard of Manhunt or Grindr or Scruff. Thank you!

Oh snap! One of the best posts I've seen on JUB--You Rock Sir!

[TX-Beau]

I see the judgment posse rode into town.

[archive]

Or maybe he's making a gamble with more knowledge than we have.

Personally I find it intriguing that the timing may be strategy. If he'd come out before the election, he would have been sunk. By coming out after, he now has until the next election to attempt to show that a gay Republican can still be the man they want.

I'll be interested in seeing if he manages it. If a gay Republican can get re-elected there, hope for the future is stronger than it seems now.

I think you missed the part where he ran unopposed.....for another term...

[archive]

i'm not celebrating anything

i think its good he came out and he's hopefully at peace

have you read the posts by 1/2 dozen here who consistently condemn anyone who doesn't pass their proper gay test

did u read?

i did

i think it sucks

i would think it sucks even if they weren't gay and supposedly have been through the hatred that some gays have experienced

i think the gay litmus test sucks

i think not recognizing the good of someone finding their way in their time ..... sucks

if the guy destroyed his career, shame on the voters - but some things u gotta do - and he did

So much of this this I agree with, except the he had to come out part. However, IMO, it is irrelevant to him coming out. I an just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Sure I read the thread. I just decided not to participate in the back and forth that was going on because I felt it strayed from the original topic.

[TX-Beau]

Somehow I really doubt he's crafted a clever strategy to test the waters of Republican acceptance of the gay.

FAR FAR FAR more likely he didn't come out before simply because he knew he'd become a leper - wanted to keep his job - and that's just about it.

[Ninja108]

Let's ask another question,could he have come out before the election and kept his job? I'll bet my house the answer would have been no.

[bankside]

I'm not a one-issue voter either. I'm sorry he was elected; his ideas will weaken the community if they were to carry the day.

[frankfrank]

Let's ask another question,could he have come out before the election and kept his job? I'll bet my house the answer would have been no.

I believe somebody said that he ran unopposed by a Democrat?? Ostensibly, that would have guaranteed him keeping his job.

But, depending on when he may have come out, I wouldn't be so sure. If he had come out before the Primaries, I have the feeling that the RNC would have come up with a competing candidate, to try as hard as possible to have him Primaried.

Of course when some of the Republican moderates (such as R. Lugar - Senator in Indiana) got Primaried, it came back to bite the Republicans in the ass.

[rareboy]

^ You and I know that this is exactly what would have happened.

[Ninja108]

I would LOVE not to be a one issue voter but when it's in the Republician party platform to make us second class citizens,hard not to be.

[Kulindahr]

I think you missed the part where he ran unopposed.....for another term...

Oops -- my bad.

[Kulindahr]

Okay, from your argument (and Rolyo's), you believe that gay men who are promiscuous are being healthy, and that gay men who are in monogamous relationships are "suppressing their innate sexuality" and "living lives of deprivation."

It logically follows then, you (and Rolyo) DO NOT support marriage equality for gay men. The purpose of a marriage is to unite two adults who wish to share their love and commitment (and that includes sex) together by making their union a covenant or agreement between the two parties.

If a gay man is busy hooking up with different men every night, there is no point to being tied to down to just one man. Why be married when it is only living a "life of deprivation" and being "self-hating" when one could just have sex with as many men as possible?? Why would you want the government to legalize gay marriage when it is so harmful to gay men??

So once again, all of you who believe that "gay men who are promiscuous are rightfully expressing their healthy sexuality" MUST also be opposed to marriage equality for gay men. If not, you are a hypocrite.

The problem here is that you don't understand liberty -- that's the only reason you can't see the point here.

That you don't understand liberty is shown especially by the fact that you have this urge to define marriage not just for yourself, but for everyone else. That rests on an attitude that you own other people and so can tell them what to do. That's not surprising, of course; much of the Republican party 'philosophy' rests on the proposition that some people can own others.

It's also that urge that makes you confused about what people have actually said: your anti-liberty view of other people twists things so it's doubtful you even are capable of seeing what others have actually said; those things have to be filtered through a lens where it's okay to exercise ownership over others, so you fail to see where people are arguing for liberty.

Gay men who are promiscuous are rightfully expressing their healthy sexuality -- just as are gay men who are living exclusively monogamously.

[xbuzzerx]

Even if the GOP completely reformed its stance on gay people it would still have absolutely dismal backwards attitudes as a party about women, blacks, hispanics, minorities in general, and people of non-faith or people of faith-other-than-Christianity. I would lose respect for anyone who was against the GOP on its gay stance but merrily switched if they became a gay-tolerant party, big time.

[xbuzzerx]

The most telling thing to me was that he immediately leapt from abstinence to the "alternative" of a promiscuous, STD-laden gay lifestyle.

Sounded really, really brainwashed to me to see only those two options.

[frankfrank]

Even if the GOP completely reformed its stance on gay people it would still have absolutely dismal backwards attitudes as a party about women, blacks, hispanics, minorities in general, and people of non-faith or people of faith-other-than-Christianity. I would lose respect for anyone who was against the GOP on its gay stance but merrily switched if they became a gay-tolerant party, big time.

ADDING to your post (and really I'm not done, I could add more):

They would still "LOVE THE FETUS, HATE THE CHILD." To hell with ANY kind of support programs for children, such as Head Start, family help with food stamps, subsidized school lunches, etc. In fact, SCREW public schooling...and if the parents can't afford to send the child to a private school (with vouchers not giving the parents enough help to afford it anyway), let the damned child ROT being taught by a drug-addicted gambling single parent who is trying to work three minimum-wage part time jobs with no health care.

Of course, if all the poor, the handicapped, the mentally incompetent, etc. just went off into their corners AND DIED from exposure or starvation or diarrhea, that's all fine...the Republicans would have fewer Democratic "useless eaters" to worry about.

The Republican Party is dead to me.