START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rant

Anti-Gay Republican Senator doing the DUI at Gay Nightclub

Posted 23 months ago|76 comments|1,764 views
Senator Ashburn's Mugshot
VIDEOS
Written by
markbyrn
 Moderator
Perhaps this might be a case of a broken record or Deja-Vu but we must report another fetid case of GOP social-conservative hypocrisy. Roy Ashburn is a noted anti-gay Republican State Senator from the Eureka land of California and and it is now reported that Ashburn was arrested for drunk driving after leaving a gay nightclub in a state-issued vehicle. Senator Ashburn is married and the father of four children.

http://tinyurl.com/yjna2gm

So yet again, we have another teabagging right-wing Republican who is now drowning in the sewer of 'family values' hypocrisy that he himself sewed so religiously.

In fact, Senator Ashburn voted against an assembly bill that prohibited discrimination against gays in public places including bars, no on assembly bill which required full implementation of school safety standards regarding harassment and discrimination, no to a bill recognizing same-sex marriages contracted outside of California (even with the exception of not calling it marriage), no to a resolution that opposed Proposition 8, and no to a resolution recognizing the first openly gay elected in California.

I suppose one could say that some homosexuals are often their own worst enemy in the sense that conservatives like Roy Ashburn are often self-loathing & lead duplicitous lives; condemning gays by day and cavorting with gay lovers by night. While I only play a psychologist here on RantRave, perhaps the genesis of Ashburn's behavior is really a society at large that shuns and stigmatizes homosexuals, often with the thump of a blood curdling Bible to give the hate mongering a public seal of approval.

In the end, Mr. Ashburn's real crime if convicted is drunk driving and misusing taxpayer funded vehicles for personal use. These are not trivial crimes to be sure, especially when committed by an elected official who is suppose to be serving the public trust. If convicted, here's hoping that Senator Ashburn will have the opportunity for self-reflection and perhaps he can proudly come out of the closet and dispense with his shameful life of hypocrisy and self-loathing.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
amishking
amishking
 Moderator
 Auburn, NY
23 months ago: I don't know how this is settling with me. I want to point fingers at this guy, but something is telling me that he can be gay and still vote against gay issues if he thinks that is what his voters want. Or am I wrong?
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: Perhaps, but since he was elected based on these beliefs as a platform, and the voters elected him based on the beliefs it is unlikely that he was just voting to hold his constituents.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
23 months ago: Asbburn stated the excuse himself - he was voting the way his constituents wanted. But did his constituents want him to drive tax funded government vehicles while drunk for personal pleasure and to cavort with gays?

What if his constituents wanted him to make a law to kill homosexuals according to the Bible? Would he work hard to get the law passed and than kill himself? Come on - it's just spineless spin and since Jesus can't cure him of being gay, maybe he do the next best thing and give him a spine.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: He SAID he was voting for his constituents....no way. LOL
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: Just an observation here guys, but people who show the most animosity towards others tend to be the most insecure in their beliefs. They often grew up around people of strong convictions in something but they themselves are not so sure and so to drown out the voices of doubt that echo in their cerebellums they tend to take it out on those that their peers supposedly have marked as worthy of derision. This can go on for generations creating a complete cycle of society that does what they do because that is what they have always done! Reason be dammed in such circles because it no longer is needed to justify action or intent. It is often the most vicious of cycles to break because any decenter are viewed as worthy of excommunication from their circle and any outsiders no matter how kind may seem as interlopers or even enemies out to destroy them. This type of cycle often continues to gain momentum and speed until it has reached a critical level and either implodes upon itself or explodes into its suroundings in which case society at large is left to pick up the pieces. Examples of this can be found in cults and religions but social clicks, cultures and even entire ethnic groups have been found at fault of such behavior. Intellectualism is no safe haven either. Less you think that it could be remember how bloody the french revolution was. It came in the cusp of reason being crowned the sole moral force and G-d and Royalty being declared dead! Just a thought folks!
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: It's true that my above comment is a repost from another rant but I felt that it was applicable here as well. So repost it I did! As for AmishKings observation. I think he is right. He could be trying to represent those that elected him but chances are there is more of selfloathing going on. The worst kind of desire one could have is for that which has been forbiden from us. This is why you don't see as much drunk liberals being busted having gay sex!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: Amishking

That is probably one of the most profound thoughts I have read lately.

Imagine, a religious man voting against his religious beliefs because he is doing the will of the people he represents. He would be lauded as a hero by the left.

Now imagine a gay man voting against the gay issues, because he is voting according to the beliefs of his constituents. Now he's a freakin' hypocrite.


So who is the real hypocrite, the POT OR THE KETTLE?
amishking
amishking
 Moderator
 Auburn, NY
Content Removed by amishking
amishking
amishking
 Moderator
 Auburn, NY
23 months ago: I was thinking along the same lines. Substitute gay with black, christian, muslim, any group, and the thought would be the same. As an elected official, I should vote the will of the people, not my beliefs. That is what is wrong with our government today. Politicians vote to better themselves and thier career, not for thier voters. I am not saying that is the case with this situation, far from it, but you in theory can't fault the guy for not voting for gay issues while being gay. Just saying.
By the way, my best friend is gay, and will kill me when he reads this!
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
23 months ago: The sad part here is that the anti-gay religious mindset will thump the Bible of barbarism and say that being gay is an (immoral) choice condemned by their god even though this 'family values' Senator was driven to put his reputation, family and career on the line in order to live the gay life in secret that he's meant to live.

He's gay in the same way that I'm straight, and I didn't choose to be straight anymore than the Senator or Ted Haggard chose to be gay - they simply are and the only god that's foaming at the mouth about it is purely imaginary.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
23 months ago: ..Ashburn said he votes the will of his conservative constituents...

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x1...

That explanation didn't fly with Charles T. Moran, spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans, which advocates within the GOP for equal rights for all people including gays and lesbians. He pointed to Ashburn's key vote in February 2009 for a controversial state budget deal that included tax increases.

"I can pretty much guarantee his constituents did not want him to vote for a tax increase," Moran said. "So here we have an example of a double standard."

Yep, looks like the religious right spin excuse machine went off the tracks on that one, eh?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
23 months ago: ...but something is telling me that he can be gay and still vote against gay issues if he thinks that is what his voters want...

Something didn't tell you that - that's what Senator Ashburn used an excuse in his 'apology' and and it rings ever so hallow.

That a closeted gay legislator would steadfastly do the will of his constituents to ensure that his fellow gay citizens would continue to be treated as pariahs and second class citizens is laughably absurd. To coin a racial description, he's the equivalent of an Uncle Tom as well as a shyster who pretended to be a straight family values man. He lived a lie to his family & constituents, and that the religious right would rise up to his defense only continues to expose the naked hypocrisy that defines them.

As for pot or kettle, when a man wallows in a web of lies and preaches so called family values while personally doing the exact opposite, it is nothing less than the scorched bottom of the kettle shrilly calling the pot black.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: And yet you expect a Christian to completely disregard his belief structure and impartially vote according to the will of his constituents, provided, (of course) that the majority of his constituents are not also Christians with a strong moral belief structure, in which case, he should not let the majority opinion influence his actions. Is that about right?
THE RONBOT HUNTER
THE RONBOT HUNTER
23 months ago: Those of you that believe him are not aware, that a politician is trained to say what you want to hear.

A politician that does not know how to lie, does not last long in this corrupt government.

He is swimming with sharks and behaving like a minnow, will get him nowhere.

I for one am not surprised to him a politician with no Morals or ethics.

Take Back America and start over with politicians that will respect our constitution.

A RAT IS ALWAYS A RAT -- GAY OR NOT.

THE RONBOT HUNTER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

http://freedom-school.com/law/prison_tre...

http://freedom-school.com/keating/how-a-...
23 months ago: Okay Mark.

You got him. He's a hypocrit.

Why does the conservative gay always float your boat?

Honesty, integrity, fiscal responsibility, liberty, freedom, etc. are other conservative principals.

Why don't you rant about liberal crooks? Gov. David A. Paterson of New York, or congressmen, Charles B. Rangel and Eric J. Massa have some serious problems?

What about the Breck girl, what's his name, Edwards? Sleeze scum bag.

Are they not gay enough?

Are gay conservative (loud mouth) politicians your tipping point?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
23 months ago: RSG, you keep forgetting that I don't reserve my criticisms to the far right - I regularly hammer on hypocritical eco-liberals like Al Gore and I didn't give a respectful eulogy to the 'liberal lion' murderer who was replaced by Scott Brown. BTW, I was laughing at the teabagger suckers when Brown demonstrated his non-teabagger credentials right out the gate.

In another post, you called me an enigma when in fact, it's the one-eyed loons on the left and right who are the enigmas - I just try to be a rational two-eyed pragmatist who doesn't entertain religious fairy tales or pseudo-science as fact, doesn't stooge for the left or right, and I don't naively swallow EZ partisan political answers to complex problems.

In any event, it doesn't matter if I only attacked the religious right; they're the ones who claim to have GOD on their side and as such, I'm holding their feet to the fire. There's nothing more entertaining than seeing yet another intolerant & sanctomious religious zealot come crashing down from the stench of his own hypocrisy, especially an elected zealot.

Seems to me that the fastest way to find a gay man these days is to find a religious zealot who spews the most anti-gay rhetoric. Likewise, if you want to find a man who's a prostitute's best customer, go find a preacher who's railing against it like Jimmy Swaggart did and he's still soaking suckers for money.
23 months ago: Mark:

You missed the point on Scott Brown. Nobody in my neck of the woods ever claimed he was a patriot or conservative or etc. What we were crowing about was a repube was elected in the people's republic of kennedy. That is extraordinary, and it shows Massachusetturchins were fed up with Amabo and socialism. Period.

As far as calling me a teabagger, kiss mine.

I agree there are loons all over the place.

You call yourself a two-eyed pragmatist. I call you a non-principaled, rudderless soul, obviously well educated, but rudderless.

And I have some very special, equally religious friends who I would trust my children with who are liberal, socialist, Amabo fools, as anybody.

And I'll light the fire under the intolerant & sanctomious religious zealots. But, how is it your business? You sure find it easy to judge everybody else. Do you ever look in a mirror?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
23 months ago: First, you call me out for only criticizing conservatives and since that was an obvious miscue, you resort to calling me rudderless. Being as your somebody who is steered by an imaginary deity, it's rather rich of you to call me rudderless but I'll tell you what.

Let's go fishing and I'll jump in my boat with it's balanced universal rudder and you jump in your boat with an imaginary deity rudder. Now while I'm steering my way to the fishing hole, you just sit back at the dock with your rudderless boat and pray for Jesus to rain some fish down on you - after all, didn't he miracle up some fish back in the day?

As for Scott Brown and your sudden realization that's he not a teabagger, see how the 'patriots' are enraged and frothing about him over the jobs bill:

http://tinyurl.com/yeev7ck
23 months ago: Is honesty not a family value?
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
23 months ago: Some good points. A representative should always vote as their constituents want - unless it is a matter of morality taking precedence over the mob mentality.
On the one hand the religious folk say that homosexuality is a moral evil and should be opposed, on the other hand discriminating on the basis of what one does in their bedroom is a clear violation of constitutional rights.
These decisions are made on the basis of one's own conscious. In this case the representative through his own experience should have known that all of the anti gay legislation he supported was patently unfair and unconstitutional and he should have had more empathy towards the gay people he helped persecute. On the other hand as Seimpre stated he was probably molded by a conservative religious upbringing to loath gays and thus his own behavior, and he over compensated by being even worse than what his constituents wanted to deflect suspicion of his true nature. He certainly was not being honest with himself. His constituents were probably pretty evenly divided (this is California) and would have preferred an honest leadership role based on the real constitutionality, to a hypocritical vote based upon fear of discovery.
23 months ago: Al.

You say we people say homosexuality should be opposed.

This person says that homosexuality is that homosexuals own business. And none of this person's business.

Homosexuality itself should not be opposed. What should be opposed is homosexuals insisting on throwing it in those religious person's children's faces.

We religious persons, no matter how screwed up, biased, bassackwards, butt ugly, racist, etc, we are, are trying to teach our children to live their lives according to what Jesus said.

And Jesus said a man and a woman are to be married.

So, homosexuals can go to town on pink armadillos if they want, but keep it out of our children's faces.
23 months ago: I see an opportunity here to start disagreeing with Siempre again.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: Ummm, when are they shoving anything into children's faces?

If your oppressive religion doesn't want to marry gay couples then that is the churches problem. This has no impact on the laws of the United States (this is a secular country, and for your simple mind, this means that churches don't get to influence policy). The funny thing is that there are churches willing to marry gay couples, and beyond that gay couples should be allowed to be married by a judge.

As a religious institution it should be up to the churches to decide if they will marry gay couples, but as a legal institution the churches have absolutely no power what so ever, I want the churches and religious whack jobs in this country to stop trying to force their oppressive close mindedness on me.
23 months ago: No Perfect.

This is and always has been a Christian Nation.

Do you really want me to remind you of that?

Why do gay couples have to be "married" per se? Can't they have some other type of union? Why hijack "marriage"?

You have it backwards Perfect.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: This is not, has never and will never be a Christian Nation...you think the framers who were desperately trying to escape the oppression of the church would make this nation the same...Get real.

Not to mention the fact that most of the founders were not Christian, but were Deists.

The wording of the constitution and the deceleration of independence were worded very carefully to not be religious.

Why can't they get married...because you hate America...because you hate freedom that doesn't line up with your oppressive views?

You sir, are the backwards one.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: Find the word "God" or "Jesus" in the Constitution...
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Treaty of Tripoli Signed by George Washington
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Constitution of the United States of America
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There was little to no controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: While your looking for "God" and "Jesus" go a head and try to find "Christian" or "Christianity"
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: And when you get around the Declaration of Independence keep in mind that they say "Natures God" and "Natural Rights" etc...which implies a link to Paganism.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
23 months ago: ...This is and always has been a Christian Nation...

Of course this is in contrast to Article VI of the US Constitution: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Ever since the days of Jimmy "Born Again" Carter, every serious candidate for President right up to Obama has been forced to pay obeisance to the religious right in the form of born again nuttery litmus tests and thus making a mockery of the Constitution.

I'm just waiting for the day when the Christian Reconstructionists will come clean and truthfully admit that the Constitution is nothing more than a toilet paper convenience to exploit for the purpose of replacing it with a evangelical based Christian Constitution and fulfilling their wet dream of making the Christian nation mantra a reality.

Actually, that secret wish was prematurely let out of the bag by Governor Mike Huckabee when he stumping for President:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2...

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And thats what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than trying to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."

At least Huckabee is a honest religious fascist in admitting that the Constitution doesn't meet the Christian standard, at least the standard as imagined by conservative Christian Dominionists.
23 months ago: Somewhere......over the rainbow...............
23 months ago: Perfect, you're either a liar or ignorant or blinded by something.. The letter to the Danbury Baptists said the "wall of separation" WAS A 1 WAY wall. His letter specifically said religion should influence government.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: You are completely wrong...Jefferson felt that religion was between a Man and himself in his own home and no further. Religion according to Jefferson was to be a private matter only.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
23 months ago: We should always do what is best for the children, and a loving gay couple raising kids is just as healthy as a loving hetro couple raising kids. A married gay couple in a loving relationship is much better for the kids than a dysfunctional hetro relationship, and much better than single parent households.

So the question is, if marriage is good for kids why is everyone so dead set against gays getting married? Stable relationships are always better than promiscuity so it is in the best interests of society as a whole to encourage stability by allowing couples to pledge to be true to each other. What is the harm in that?
23 months ago: Al.

I know homosexuals who are dear, honest, trustworthy and that I would have no problem caring for my children.

The problem is telling my children to follow Jesus' rules, except those that are inconvenient. Jesus said man and woman are to be married. CLEARLY.

I have problem with homosexuals. It's their life to do as they see fit. Just don't hijack the institution of marriage. Marriage is a Christian, Jesus think.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: Marriage is an invention of the state...if you have to get a state issued marriage liscence then the state controls marriage...if you want to get married in an oppressive hateful church then more power to you...for the rest of us who enjoy freedom and feel that ALL MEN were created equal then you can take those oppressive views and keep them to yourself I am not interested in you telling me that I have to follow the word of an invisible made up all knowing "God"
23 months ago: Christian, Jesus thinG.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: Don't worry Red ole buddy, it seems these dang blasted backwards ask liberal nut jobs are trying to gang up on you! I'll handle them! I've got years experience speaking their jargon. Take a step back and watch how its done bud!

Altruist, Horizon, Mark

To address a person as a homosexual as if it is a trait like skin color or gender or ethnicity is like referring to someone by what foreign object they shove in their ear to clean them with. Nobody would say, I'm a Q-Tiparian. Would they? People don't do that because using Q-Tips is a private affair. Even the term heterosexual is redundant. What else am I supposed to stick my____ in? It is a biological process like eating, defecating and breathing. Why else would I want to get married? Marriage is synonymous with a male and female union. Do people who have shoe fetishes and want to mate with shoes get to marry their footwear? What about people who do it with dolls? Do they get to marry their plastic dolls?

Some people use all kinds of non opposite sex things to get off with. Should they marry them too? It seems rather silly doesn't it? Yet because two people consent to do an unnatural act and they are both human as apposed to shoes, plastic, fruits, etc. then it is not only okay but worthy of marriage? We don't even allow multiple women to marry one man because it is what? Unnatural right? Exactly, so what do people with a same sex fetish do ? They blame Christians! No surprise there! I guess we deserve it because we blamed Jews for killing Jesus and we burned a whole bunch of accused witches in Salem and we persecuted people who wanted to read the Bible during the middle ages...did I leave anything out?

But it is not Christianity that points a dirty finger at same sex fetish, it is the natural biological process that all dual sex organisms experience that say, "Nasty" So don't blame Christians for doing the normal thing and finding a compatible partner that we can make babies with. We are doing what comes natural.
But I suppose that saying this and putting it out there as I did makes me somehow homophobic? Hardly, because I'm not allergic, afraid or in anyway bothered by the presence or friendship or companionship of people with same sex fetishes. I simply don't care what they do or don't do to get off in private. So tell me then if it doesn't bother me then why are they so disturbed ?

How's that Red? Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? Sorry but we agree here too!
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: Ummm, you are either very good at sarcasm or insanely ignorant.

Homosexuality is not a choice...deal with.
23 months ago: Yup!
23 months ago: Yup! I couldn't have said it better Siempre.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: If a man can have fulfilling sexual relationships with women before he comes out as being gay then one of two things are going on here. Either he became gay during his adult life, which would explain his prior relations with women but would also imply that homosexuality is not something a person is born with but something someone becomes or that he is not actually gay but bisexual implying that he can choose who and what turns him on sexually. Eitherway it's very damming evidence against the whole "not a choice, we're born with it myth." You can yell till your blue in the face but the facts are the facts. Men do declare their "gayness" long after they have had sexual and productivly so relations with women. Here is a clue. Rocks don't turn me on. I can't preform sexually for rocks. I suspect that if a gay man was born gay and did not choose this that women would be something that he could not be turned on by. Yet for the vast majority of suposedly gay men this has not always been the case. Why not! Hmm?

Do you see? I've got nothing to deal with. The ball's back in your court.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
23 months ago: Now that the guy has admitted that he is gay I wonder if he will change his votes on gay amendments, or if he will be drummed out of the party since he is clearly as red and Siempre claim an abomination?

This guy lived a life of dishonesty and duplicity because his religion and his party and probably everyone he works with, would have condemned him if he came out, and now that he has, they probably will. He will no doubt get divorced. So Siempre and Red just think of him as being sick and no doubt think that a session with the Christian deprogramming group will "cure" him of his gayness.

What I don't understand is how you guys can think that this is just a choice when making that choice puts them through hell. Why would they choose that?

Marriage is nothing but making a public pledge to stick with your partner. Those that make that pledge have more rights than those that don't. It is clearly better for everyone if people pledge to stop being promiscuous, Everyone should be allowed to make that pledge, and everyone that makes that pledge should receive the same rights.

I don't understand why gay marriage threatens hetros that much. There is no way that one couple pledging to be true will effect another.

You have the right to tell your own kids whatever nonsense you want to tell them but how does that give you the right to deny others their freedom and constitutional rights?

As for hating gays because the bible tells you to, there are all kinds of horrible things in the bible like the command that you stone your kid to death if he gives you any lip. If you can ignore all of that terrible stuff why can't you ignore this terrible advice?
23 months ago: Al.

Open your eyes man.

You are the only person talking about hating gays. We don't hate gays. Period.

The Bible says love everyone. Period.

Come on for crying out loud. Try to listen....... even though I may not........
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
23 months ago: ...We don't hate gays...The Bible says love everyone...

This is the tiresome religious canard of 'loving' the person while hating what they are - it's actions not flowery sentiment that defines your love or hate for somebody.

When a gay Christian comes out of the closet, the evangelical/fundamentalist Christians will kick them out of their Churches unless they 'repent' of their 'evil', and even exile them to another state like they did to Ted Haggard. If a conservative Christian politico comes out of the closet, he has committed political suicide because his gay hating, err loving constituents will no longer vote for him. The religious right 'lovingly' demands that gays be treated as pariahs and second class citizens who must be denied the same privileges and even responsibilities such as serving in the military.

Of course they'll continue to moon their eyes and say "We Love You" or to quote the disgraced shyster televangelist Jim Bakker while he was soaking the suckers, "God Loves You, He Really Does"

Spare us the shyster 'love'
23 months ago: And, homosexuality may or may not be a choice in my mind. There is one line of thought that homosexuality is involuntary, and it is a birth control mechanism.

Just don't hijack marriage.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: Who is hijacking marriage? Nobody wants to hijack marriage. I want freedom for all, not just some. I am not forcing your church to marry gay couples. I am saying that churches that are willing to ought to be allowed to. And beyond that, if you need a marriage license from the state to get married, then the state should also marry gay couples (you can get married in a courthouse as a straight couple). Getting married by a public official has nothing to do with church or religious views.

So I guess the only response to hijacking marriage is: Stop forcing your oppressive religious views on me.

P.S. You can't claim to love freedom and then not let people be free.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: Altruist? Did you read the word abomination anywhere in what I wrote, or is that your word? I've written that same sex fetishes are chosen behavior because the people that participate in such behavior have almost always had successful sexual relationships with the opposite sex. Why do advocates for same sex fetishes call the prior hetero relationships a lie? Is that not attacking heterosexuals? Is that not being a heterophobe? You say that the self imposed ostracizing that same sex fetish participants inflict upon themselves is proof that their behavior is involuntary. So should other adulterers like Tiger Woods be excused from their promiscuous behavior as well because they, can't control their urges either? Because I can assure you that heterosexuals that have sex outside of marriage also self inflict a slew of problems upon themselves much like their gay counter parts.

I don't feel threatened by the act of marriage. Nor do I feel threatened by people who have same sex fetish syndrome. I don't even care if they go get help or not. What they choose to get off on is there business. They are not hurting others if you discount the increased rates of sexually transmitted diseases among that segment of population and if you discount the physical abuse they put their own bodies through. People with an illness in this country are given allowances. I feel America has given this type of illness enough allowances now those with same sex fetish syndrome are seeking legalization not just acceptance of their unhealthy and unnatural act. Would you compare a healthy person to someone born with out limbs or someone born with cancer or a genetic disorder? No right? You wouldn't pass laws to hinder them from living full healthy lives.

Instead you would make sure that laws exist to ensure that the person with that disability, illness or genetic disorder has access to all of society's services, within their capability to use those services. So explain to me how a wedding vow designed to establish public commitment for those that are planning to reproduce and raise a genetic lineage some how stands in the way of those that not only are capable of marrying and making babies as they often do but that choose after having done so to leave their vows to live a life that up to that point they had not entertained. Modifying the basic definition of marriage to include people with sexual psychosis and fetishes is counter productive for them and society at large.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: Abomination is in the book you claim is the word of God, the God that you believe in, the God that you want to live your life according to...
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
23 months ago: Siempre you consider all gay relationships to be sexual fetishes that are harmful to society because of the cost of increased disease, and that it is an aberration because they can't have children.

What about Lesbian relationships? They actually have less disease than hetro relationships.

Why should a lesbian couple, perhaps with children from a previous abusive hetro marriage, or perhaps with adopted children, not be allowed to declare their love and commitment to each other in a marriage ceremony? Such a marriage would be best for the children and this bond should receive all of the protections and rights as a hetro marriage.

How does that hurt society and how does that threaten traditional marriage? It can't!
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
23 months ago: By the way Roy Ashburn is already divorced and has 4 kids. This indicates that he was capable of "performing" as a hetro, but that he divorced because it was unnatural to him.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: Altruist,

I use the words same sex sexual fetish to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a quality but a behavior. It is important for society to understand that the term homosexual, unfairly categorizes a willful act as a trait or characteristic. I've singled out male homosexuals so far because men have to have an erection in order to preform the act of coitus and in order to get and maintain said erection that man has to be sexually turned on. Therefore it is not illogical to conclude that a man who has preformed sexually with women to completion is not or has not always been a full fledged homosexual. He may be bisexual or he may have develop homosexual desires later on in life. But being born that way is obviously out of the question. So it is not only erroneous to say that being gay is an unchanging condition one is born with but it is malicious in as much as it type casts and stereotypes individuals with changing sexual interests as something that they are not. As for marriage I said this before. Marriage is not a ceremony to establish families. It is a ceremony that celebrates fertility and reproduction. There are many nontraditional families that don't get the benefit of marriage certificates. Grand parents and the grandchildren they raise is just one example so lesbian couples who have children are in good company. Marrying people based upon their sexual fetishes just doesn't ring of an intelligent choice.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: same sex fetish...are you high? I would like you to provide some real evidence that homosexuality is a choice as you outline it.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
23 months ago: The only evidence a religionist needs is whatever their religion tells them to think. In the case of SS on homosexuality, I believe that would be:

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/stateme...

Is that correct SS?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: Here's proof from the mouth of a homosexual I knew. I say knew because he's dead now, from HIV.

My close friend in high school was a ladies' man. Every week he had a new girlfriend, every week he was in love with some new hottie, and every week he would come around in his beat up green Dodge Dart which was filled to overflowing with a bevy of buxom beauties.

Fast forward five years. I hadn't seen this guy in a while, had pretty much lost touch with him. An openly gay co-worker tells me one night that someone he knew has a crush on me. He uses the gender game, never using he or she, only them and they, so I have no idea who he is talking about, and my hetero mind can only picture females, and I know that a lot of women like to hang out with gay guys, so I figure "What the heck?" He says that this mystery person would be coming to the job at a certain time, so I take up a discreet position, and wait to see who it is.

Imagine my surprise when Mr. Ladies' Man walks through the door. I didn't talk to him that day, but I called him later to see what the freakin' deal is.

I met him at a public place, to belay any notion that I was interested in a date, we caught up on old times for a moment, and I asked him the question that was burning in my brain. "What the Hell happened to you?" I reminded him how he had the best and most beautiful women in high school, how we would sneak girls out of their windows at two in the morning, and Jesus, what the Hell happened? Are you Bi-, what the Hell Happened?

He told me he was at a party one night, got very drunk, and a guy talked him into going upstairs with him. He told me that the feeling, the thought of getting caught was just so much more exiting, that being hetero was just not as appealing any more. Basically, it was just so bad, so wrong, that it made it great. After that he was incorrigible. He propositioned his sister's husband at her wedding. He was Jack on Will and Grace. He died a few years after I talked to him that last time, a miserable man.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: So, what your saying is that you have no real proof...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: That's proof that for at least one homosexual, it was a fetish, not a natural predisposition.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: OH, well if one is then they all are...thanks for clearing that up
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: Did you not read my last few comments? I suggest you go back an read them in detail because in them I emphatic gave very clear proof that for some at least it very much is a choice. Here is just one instance of proof:
If a man can have fulfilling sexual relationships with women before he comes out as being gay then one of two things are going on here. Either he became gay during his adult life, which would explain his prior relations with women but would also imply that homosexuality is not something a person is born with but something someone becomes or that he is not actually gay but bisexual implying that he can choose who and what turns him on sexually. Either way it's very damming evidence against the whole "not a choice, we're born with it myth." You can yell till your blue in the face but the facts are the facts. Men do declare their "gayness" long after they have had sexual and productivly so relations with women. Here is a clue. Rocks don't turn me on. I can't preform sexually for rocks. I suspect that if a gay man was born gay and did not choose this that women would be something that he could not be turned on by. Yet for the vast majority of supposedly gay men this has not always been the case. Why not! Hmm?
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: Do you have sources other than your pastor or some religious book? I mean real proof not "I said so".
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: Oh Marky, are we on that again? I've mentioned religion ZERO times in my commentary on this rant. Why do YOU bring it up? Were you that brain washed when you were a Seventh Day-Adventist youth?Because I wasn't raised in that church. I was raised Catholic and I was agnostic bordering on Atheist in my own personal views till my late teens. Besides A p-e-n-i-s and a v-a-g-i-n-a go together very naturally, where as two v-a-g-i-n-a-s or two p-e-n-i-s-e-s don't. So who needs religion to prove what nature has already given ample proof of. As for same sexual fetishes and psychosis that is not a biological problem that is a mental condition.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: There are an equal number of cases where men and women never had a heterosexual relationship. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you get to say "its a fetish"
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: Au contraire PH, I do get to call it a fetish because according to the Encarta Dictionary the definition of a fetish is: something that arouses sexual excitement in somebody, e.g. an inanimate object or nonsexual part of the body. And people that engage in same sex sexual fetish behavior exibit just that type of sexual behavior.

And the point is that if I used to be turned on by women but now I am not then that means a CHANGE has taken place, and if there was a change then I couldn't have been born that way. See what I mean?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
23 months ago: ...are we on that again? I've mentioned religion ZERO times in my commentary on this rant...

Of course you haven't because you fully know the bible of fables and barbarism won't convince us rational 'liberals' but the source for your animus is still religion. All you're doing is spouting psycho-babble about it being a psychosis, unnatural, fetish, yada, yada. Cite me the current medical journals that support your points and no, we won't accept religious "science" journals.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: It would be funny if it weren't so sad that you bring up religion, the bible and G-d and then accuse me of having a religious angle. Grow a pair Mark ole boy and admit to yourself if to one else that you have a personal issue to resolve with your own Adventist religion.

This maybe a religious issue to you Marky, Mark but it isn't to me. Because unlike you I don't mix religion with government. I don't support the passage of religious based laws by my secular government. I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state. Marriage is a secular ceremony as far as I'm concerned and I want to keep it that way.

This is why I resent Neo-Non-Religious-Secularist-Liberal views like your own with your supposed open-mindedness hijacking traditions that are thousands of years old without so much as a valid explanation. You think misusing your sexual organ makes you part of a culture? Do you think misplacing your gentiles makes you part of an ethnic group? You are not gay. You participate in gay behavior. It is an action, a sexual action, a sexual action that is inconsistent with the obvious purpose of the genitals you were born with. It doesn't matter if you clothe it with supposed marital values or family rights or social justice or love or whatever else you think will make it palatable or culturally acceptable. What you are doing is trying to force your own unnatural behavior by federal laws on the rest of the American people and just so you know it is not just religious people that think you are doing that. The Christian right is the most vocal about what you are doing but they are not the only ones that feel you are trying to hijack and redefine marriage and society so that you don't have to deal with your own issues.

Why don't you or PH or Altruist address the point I brought up? I made it clear enough so that a child could understand. A real gay man can't be turned on by a woman. Just like a real straight man can't be turned on by a man. Anything else is bisexual which implies a duality of choice that either is inherent or was brought about by social conditioning. Either way same sex fetish is an acquired behavior not a genetic characteristic. So what's up? Why don't any of you address that? If I've been having fulfilling sexual relations with women up until I'm 42 and then I start doing it with men, how then can you say that I was born gay and that all the relationships I had with women were a lie? Answer me that! Huh? Feel free to use any source you want too. Unlike you I'm not biased.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
23 months ago: When you say "Hijacking Marriage" you are using religious arguments. Marriage in this country is an invention of the state. The state issues marriage license and should also marry homosexual couples. I am not saying that any oppressive, bigoted church has to marry anyone (ironically there are plenty of churches that will marry homosexual couples).

Do you have any evidence from medical journals or science journals that support your choice claim?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
23 months ago: Okay Simple Solo, you thoroughly vented on why your animus against homosexuality is not religious based yet you failed to answer my key request - cite me the current medical journals that support your 'non-religious' points. You can take a Bible and wrap it in secular dust cover it to make it palatable but you're still thumping the Bible.

Let's try a different tact though. If homosexuality is unnatural, is a fetish and a psychosis, than so is the behavior of being single and chaste yet we don't treat singles as pariahs and say they can't serve in the military or rain down the condemnation of imaginary gods. Now Scot asked me an excellent question on a related topic:

"Mark can I lock you up with another man for the rest of your life and see what sexual gratification you will revert too?"

Yes but only if I can lock up Scot and Simple by themselves in single solitary confinement for the rest of their lives and see what happens psychologically and what gratification they will revert to as they sit by themselves 24/7. Perhaps insanity & auto-erotic asphyxiation? Maybe they'll fantasize about pedophilia considering that the malady affects chaste Catholic priests who 'unnaturally' repress their sexual nature.

Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement:

http://www.prisoncommission.org/statemen...
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: Are you seriously that dense? A man has fulfilling sexual relations with women for years and then declares that he has always been gay! This is not possible. Gay means that he can't have a fulfilling sexual relation with a woman. What part of that sounds biblical to you? What part of that is not simple plain biology? He was not gay! Maybe he was bisexual, in which case he could choose one or the other. Maybe he was straight. In which case he chose men later on in life. The obvious observable fact that you are willfully overlooking is that he was able to choose!

Why are you ignoring this? I've written it down now more than five times. Please, answer me why you are treating his entire straight relationships as if they don't count. Why? Why are you so bigoted against his straight relationships? Are they somehow not scientific enough for you? Do you need a PHD to go and measure his erection and check it for ejaculatory proof? He got off to women. This is not imaginary. It is not religious. It is a biological fact that most men who develop fetishes for other men have had fulfilling sexual relationships with women. Stop ignoring this fact! answer it once and for all.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: Are you seriously that dense? A man has fulfilling sexual relations with women for years and then declares that he has always been gay! This is not possible. Gay means that he can't have a fulfilling sexual relation with a woman. What part of that sounds biblical to you? What part of that is not simple plain biology? He was not gay! Maybe he was bisexual, in which case he could choose one or the other. Maybe he was straight. In which case he chose men later on in life. The obvious observable fact that you are willfully overlooking is that he was able to choose!

I'll tell you same thing I told Mark. Maybe one of you will quit ignoring me and answer me. Why are you ignoring this? I've written it down now more than five times. Please, answer me why you are treating his entire straight relationships as if they don't count. Why? Why are you so bigoted against his straight relationships? Are they somehow not scientific enough for you? Do you need a PHD to go and measure his erection and check it for ejaculatory proof? He got off to women. This is not imaginary. It is not religious. It is a biological fact that most men who develop fetishes for other men have had fulfilling sexual relationships with women. Stop ignoring this fact! answer it once and for all.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: Who mentioned pastor, religious book or I said so? My proof is the thousands of men who have had functional relations with women and then gradually separated themselves from something they practiced and enjoyed to practice same sex sexual fetish behavior. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that is learned behavior not innate natural born tendencies.
scotmanster
scotmanster
23 months ago: Homosexuality is our business when we have the right to vote for it or against it. If it was considered normal behavior we would not be sitting here having this argument because it would be the norm but guess what nature creates the laws we don't Mark. And before you go and say their are gay animals I would have to say it is so rare of a behavior trait that is has never been photographed in the wild...They probably mistake it for animal behavior of a young animal that mounts anything to act it out.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
23 months ago: Dateline 8 March:

http://www.bakersfield.com/news_alerts/x...

"Roy Ashburn should resign," Randy Thomasson, president of the Christian-based SaveCalifornia.com, said in a statement released Tuesday. "His lying, cheating ways have boiled over and the public's trust has been shattered."

"Now that he has openly identified with the 'LGBT' lifestyle, Ashburn is dramatically out of step with his constituents, has lost their trust, and is in danger of voting against their conservative family values," Thomasson wrote."

What happened to the "he was just voting the way his constituents wanted" spin and Christian forgiveness and lahhhhhhhhhhv? Yep, as long as he was in the closet and doing the work of the Lawd, all was good but now that he's out, the religious right is throwing him under the bus and moving on - no doubt they're looking for a new gay in the closet Uncle Tom.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
23 months ago: Siempre it is difficult for me to defend male homosexuals and their sexual habits because I don't know anything about it and it makes me uncomfortable. But many if not most homosexuals are pressured by society to "perform" in a hetrosexual relationship even if it is unnatural for them, and many are able to do it. This guy was able to get it up at least 4 times since he has 4 kids but we don't know how fulfilling that was for him or his wife. Being a politician he is probably a good actor. But since his wife divorced him that may be an indication that she was not too fulfilled.

Yes there are bisexual people but there are also those who are totally unmoved by the opposite sex. There is a broad spectrum and you can't generalize and say that it is all one way or the other. There are some that it is all choice and some where there is no choice and many where it is a mixture.

You still haven't answered my question. Why would so many choose something that gets them hated and ostracized by society, that would cost them their jobs, and careers, if it was not there nature forcing them to do it?

I do know several lesbians however who seem to have great relationships and their kids seem to be OK. They would strenuously object to your considering them to be fetishists.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: Thank you for a frank and honest response Altruist. I suspect you despise evasiveness as much as I do and for that I thank you and will reciprocate in kind. I will address each one of your points individually for best clarity.

Siempre it is difficult for me to defend male homosexuals and their sexual habits because I don't know anything about it and it makes me uncomfortable.

I'm not asking for anyone to defend or explain their sexual behavior. It is clear that someone who engages in same sex sexual gratification doe so because they find it gratifying

But many if not most homosexuals are pressured by society to "perform" in a hetrosexual relationship even if it is unnatural for them, and many are able to do it. This guy was able to get it up at least 4 times since he has 4 kids but we don't know how fulfilling that was for him or his wife. Being a politician he is probably a good actor. But since his wife divorced him that may be an indication that she was not too fulfilled.

It seems like you are confusing two or three separate forms of performance: 1)Sexual with 2) Emotional or 3) Social. I personally am only referring to sexual performance, which requires very specific stimuli to be successful. Because it could very well be that he wasn't satisfying his wife emotionally for other reasons too. This happens to heterosexual people as well and is no indication that he was a "struggling" homosexual.

Yes there are bisexual people but there are also those who are totally unmoved by the opposite sex. There is a broad spectrum and you can't generalize and say that it is all one way or the other. There are some that it is all choice and some where there is no choice and many where it is a mixture.

Unfortunately this is a point that the Homosexual Lobbyist Groups like to ignore. That sexual PREFERENCE is just that preference. Some people truly do have no sexual preference and it has been shown to be a hormonal or in some instances a genetic abnormality. The same could be said for Bisexuals or homosexuals who developed their desires later on in life but the Lobby Groups fight this tooth and nail.

You still haven't answered my question. Why would so many choose something that gets them hated and ostracized by society, that would cost them their jobs, and careers, if it was not there nature forcing them to do it?

Why should it surprise you that some people put themselves intentionally in the line of fire? There are all types of thrill seekers and adventurers and people who seek conflict. But even for those that are not adventures by nature the pull of a desire as deep seated as sexual preference is reason enough. Ever heard of Closet Pork eaters in the Jewish community? Same thing!

I do know several lesbians however who seem to have great relationships and their kids seem to be OK. They would strenuously object to your considering them to be fetishists.

Women seek out female companionship for different reasons then why men seek out male companionship. That is why you see gay men seeking out gratification in public bathrooms where as women try to form long term social bonds. Even in women's prison's this is obvious. This quality of stability is likely to make them reliable parents as well. I also suspect that this means that same sex relations among women are more than if not for a vastly different reason than just sexual gratification. Women view intimacy as an extension of a healthy relationship. Where as men see sex as sex. Woman also thrive on caressing and other intimate non sexual behavior. Coitus is usually the next to last act on a woman's list towards a fulfilling sexual experience. For a woman it begins weeks if not months in advance as the man or in the case of your friends her female partner woos her with behavior that demonstrates genuine c
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
23 months ago: ...concern. For a man that is just looking to blow his load this is pointless but for women who put love into the act of making a sandwich this just shows where her partners head is at.

I hope these answers helped you understand my point of view.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave