Con Pundit evidently is considering toe-tapping

C

Cypress

Well-known member
This is weird.

When homophobes tell us that being gay is a choice, and that everyone is potentially capable of choosing to be gay, it makes me wonder if they're afraid they might try gay sex themselves if societal taboos were torn down.


Consevative "Pro-marriage" (and twice divorced) pundit Dennis Prager says:


"Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality.

Much of humanity -- especially females -- can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction -- until now, accomplished through marriage".


via americablog
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/california_decision_will_radic.html
Click to expand...


Evidently, some homophobic Cons are afraid that if societal taboos against being gay weren't there, they might be prone to considering toe tapping in the men's public bathroom.

I think you're either born gay or your not.

I think this says a lot about what goes on inside Cons heads.

Dennis Prager certainly seems obsessed with "sexual polymorphism". I honestly haven't heard that term, and I wonder why Prager is thinking and writing about it. If you think being gay is a choice, and you're afraid that you and others might be prone to engaging in homosexual activity if society and the government doesn't strongly condemn homosexuality, then that says a lot about what's going on in your Con head. It doesn't say much about whether gay marriage will destroy america or not.
 
The parts you quoted aren't in your link, but they're considerably more reasonable than what is there.

He is right when he says that sexuality is a spectrum between exclusively homosexual and exclusively heterosexual. This is what the Kinsey studies famously confirmed, and it's what the Kinsey Institute continues to explore to this day.

I believe that people are born gay, but I also know that a portion of undetermined size of all gay people have chosen that lifestyle.

The stuff in the column you linked is actually way more absurd than what you quoted. He calls it the single greatest change in human history.
 
Last edited:
Sexuality is never cut and dried.

Sex could be divided into two parts. First is what attracts or arouses you, and the second is how you have sex.

The nerve endings do not differentiate between being stimulated by your own gender or the opposite gender.

What attracts you or arouses you is often determined by your life history.

But the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality is not about who diddles your goodies. Its about who makes your heart flutter.

Its about who you love, not about who you fuck.
 
Having gay marriage, tolerance, and equal rights for gays isn't going to make me think about having sex with a man. Or wanting it.

Maybe Dennis Prager has a problem in that area. Maybe some people are worried that gay marriage will make them want to have gay sex.

I can only speak for myself. I'll be exactly the same, whether or not gays get married.
 
I believe everyone is born with a sexual desire. Some of us like one gender or the other and some of us are more maleable. I have found in my lifetime that women tend to be able to more readily move from male to female and back again. I have known lots of homosexual men and even more heterosexual men and I have met only 2 men that identified as bi-sexual. I believe that at some point we will find that the area of the brain that decides sexuality is larger in women and therefore not as focused in their wiring. I mean IF sexuality is truly a choice then everyone lay on me the day you chose which gender you wanted shag. For me it has been girls since before I knew what it is was that I wanted to do with them.
 
WTF is it with wingnuts and sex of any type? I mean, is it all they think about (besides bombing Iran I mean)?
 
Diuretic said:
WTF is it with wingnuts and sex of any type? I mean, is it all they think about (besides bombing Iran I mean)?
Click to expand...

I think a lot of the GOP obsession about writing about the evils of gay marriage, is driven by electoral politics and concern trolling.

There may indeed be a subset of the GOP populated by Larry Craigs: closet gays who are afraid their most secret and base desires for homosexual sex will bubble to the surface, if societal taboos against homosexuality are removed.

I don't know anything about the twice divorced Dennis Prager. But, he may be one of the dozens of GOP pundits who spend an inordinate amount of time on the evils of gay marriage, in an attempt to drive the wingut base to the polls.

What are they else are they going to talk about? McCain's healthcare plan? 100 years in Iraq?
 
Cypress said:
This is weird.

When homophobes tell us that being gay is a choice, and that everyone is potentially capable of choosing to be gay, it makes me wonder if they're afraid they might try gay sex themselves if societal taboos were torn down.





Evidently, some homophobic Cons are afraid that if societal taboos against being gay weren't there, they might be prone to considering toe tapping in the men's public bathroom.

I think you're either born gay or your not.

I think this says a lot about what goes on inside Cons heads.

Dennis Prager certainly seems obsessed with "sexual polymorphism". I honestly haven't heard that term, and I wonder why Prager is thinking and writing about it. If you think being gay is a choice, and you're afraid that you and others might be prone to engaging in homosexual activity if society and the government doesn't strongly condemn homosexuality, then that says a lot about what's going on in your Con head. It doesn't say much about whether gay marriage will destroy america or not.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO.... the above is brought to you by the village idiot that believes calling someone gay is an insult.

the irony is quite amusing given gumby's obvious obsession with calling people gay.... he is quite obviously either homophobic... or perhaps looking at doing a bit of toe tapping himself???
 
Socrtease said:
I believe everyone is born with a sexual desire. Some of us like one gender or the other and some of us are more maleable. I have found in my lifetime that women tend to be able to more readily move from male to female and back again. I have known lots of homosexual men and even more heterosexual men and I have met only 2 men that identified as bi-sexual. I believe that at some point we will find that the area of the brain that decides sexuality is larger in women and therefore not as focused in their wiring. I mean IF sexuality is truly a choice then everyone lay on me the day you chose which gender you wanted shag. For me it has been girls since before I knew what it is was that I wanted to do with them.
Click to expand...

Or, a greater number of women have same-sex experiences because it is culturally more acceptable for women. For example, how many women wouldn’t become very alarmed and possibly disgusted if a man she were involved with or thinking of becoming involved with, shared a past, or several past, same-sex experiences? Compare the average reaction to that disclosure to the average reaction to a woman making the same disclosure to a man.

My guess is that this is cultural.
 
Calling someone gay is not an insult unless you think there is something wrong with being gay.


What you cons keep failing to realize its you guys who think there is something wrong with being gay and not the liberals.


When we point out the trend of closeted homosexuality in the conservative ranks its not the gay element that is being insulted it the hypocracy. Why do you always seem unable to get that?
 
Desh said:
Calling someone gay is not an insult unless you think there is something wrong with being gay.


What you cons keep failing to realize its you guys who think there is something wrong with being gay and not the liberals.


When we point out the trend of closeted homosexuality in the conservative ranks its not the gay element that is being insulted it the hypocracy. Why do you always seem unable to get that?
Click to expand...

So if two people get in an argument on this board and call each other gay or just one calls the other gay it is not meant as an insult it is meant as a factual 'you are gay because you cannot get any women'?

Or do you need to know the political beliefs of each person to thereby categorize then successfully?
 
cawacko said:
So if two people get in an argument on this board and call each other gay or just one calls the other gay it is not meant as an insult it is meant as a factual 'you are gay because you cannot get any women'?

Or do you need to know the political beliefs of each person to thereby categorize then successfully?
Click to expand...

I vote for this one, because Republicans are generally, sneakier, more mendacious, vindictive, duplicitous, vicious and contemptible than anyone else in the room. Generally, they do not make "innocent mistakes" the way others may. So you are, statistically speaking, safer when you assign them the most malevolent motivations you can think of.
 
Desh said:
Calling someone gay is not an insult unless you think there is something wrong with being gay.


What you cons keep failing to realize its you guys who think there is something wrong with being gay and not the liberals.


When we point out the trend of closeted homosexuality in the conservative ranks its not the gay element that is being insulted it the hypocracy. Why do you always seem unable to get that?
Click to expand...

That was my point Desh. Yet you seem to have it a bit backwards... it is a few on the LEFT that seem to think it is an insult... ie... Toppy and Cypress.

That said, I do agree that there are many on the right that are of the same mindset as toppy and gumby.
 
There is the name calling use of "gay" and there is the label as a homosexual use of the word "gay".

Its like we use the word "sucks". If I say "Desh sucks", I am not being complimentary. But a woman who sucks should be quite popular.

We like it when its done to us, but we use the word to denote something bad.

They just mean two different things in modern terminology.
 
Desh said:
Calling someone gay is not an insult unless you think there is something wrong with being gay.


What you cons keep failing to realize its you guys who think there is something wrong with being gay and not the liberals.


When we point out the trend of closeted homosexuality in the conservative ranks its not the gay element that is being insulted it the hypocracy. Why do you always seem unable to get that?
Click to expand...
This might make sense if it was the conservatives using the word as an insult. Instead it is just more incoherent babbling based on an assumption without a prayer of finding itself standing anywhere near reality, let alone getting reality's autograph.
 
It does no good to insult someone with calling the gay if they do not care.


I only care about myself not being gay anyone else that wants to be can be or not.
But calling me gay will do you no good as I know what I am :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top