RECENT  POSTS:  » GOP pollster Luntz to Heritage Foundation's Anderson: 'Gay marriage is harmless' » Read: Federal court judge rules against Colorado's discriminatory marriage ban » You guys, will you please pipe down so Sen. Rubio can dismantle your deserved freedoms? » 'Mask is coming off' LGBTs, says man who vowed to export and/or criminalize LGBTs » Exxon, infamous holdout on fair and decent employment protections, could be running out of options » Oregon baker who refused same-sex wedding cake bakes for 'ex-gay' org » PFOX rebrands; into group play, seemingly » Audio: Listen to this ADF spinmeister and his anti-gay spin » Report: US District judge won't deny justice to gay Coloradans; might delay it, though » AFA to POTUS: End your 'love affair with homosexuality,' give anti-gay Christians entitlement instead  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

11/03/2008

Culture truce

by Jeremy Hooper

The bad news? We at G-A-Y might be on the verge of running out of people to write about.

The good news? There is growing opinion among politicos (including us) that the long, national nightmare known as the "culture war" is virtually dead:

"Although she seems like a fresh face, Sarah Palin actually represents the end of an era. She may be the last culture warrior on a national ticket for a very long time."
Last of the Culture Warriors [WaPo]

Our contingency plan? To add an extra "s" to our middle word and evolve this website into one that rates celebrity derrieres.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

ha! While I love to believe that Sarah Palin is the last of the Scare Bears, I'm just a little leary about that assesment.

But, on the bright side, if true and this particular breed of hater dies down, just remember there are always ignorant morons in this world to write and rant about!

Posted by: dickie | Nov 3, 2008 1:14:40 PM

Part 1:

I hope all of you had a Happy Halloween & I hope that I can help you with topics to write about. This will be a long rant but here it goes regarding history & in part 2, I'll discuss other topics you can raise.

1st of all, history from this straight observer. I don't know how old you are, but back in 1992, if you had raised the topic of Gender Dysphoria (GID), many homos would have said that it's wrong to compare them with people who surgically maim themselves. OK, there were those who sided with the transexuals, but many homosexuals & lesbians would have said that it's just the extremist radicals & that it's wrong to generalize. Many if not most wouldn't have given much thought about GID. It has been since the 2000s that the term LBGT has been commonly used. Since the 2000s, the mainstream homosexual groups have accepted transexuals. In other words, in 1992, many H&L would have told you that you can't generalize but since 2000, mainstream homosexual groups have no problem accepting them.

Sex change maimings happen because the knowledge is there to do it. If Drs. knew how to change skin color, psychologists would advise those with Racial/Ethnic Dysphoria (a Black person who thinks they're in a White person's body or vice versa) to change the skin color & Drs. would change the skin color. If they find the cure for GID, psychologists & Drs. will call for abolishing sex change maimings & they'll then talk about as I currently am about how science is being sadly wasted surgically maiming people to make them what they're not.

With homosexuality, in the past, mainstream psychologists offered repair therapy to homos & lesbians who want to be straight. But beginning in the late 1980s & esp. in the mid 1990s following Researcher Simon LeVay's 1991-92 brain study, mainstream psychologists have abandoned repair therapy. When I was in college in 1989, in my class Abnormal Psychology, they mentioned that psychologists were still offering repair therapy, but that the trend was to affirm live as homosexuals rather than seek lives as heterosexuals, though the position of Psychologist GC Davison (who since 1974 has called for banning repair therapy even if H&L want it) was still regarded as extreme by mainstream psychologists.

By 1998, all mainstream psychologists abandoned repair therapy altogether & since that time have called for banning it. In other words, Psychologist GC Davison's position which used to be regarded as extreme by mainstream psychology has since been accepted by the mainstream.

Psychologists have lost neutrality on the topic of homosexuality. How many Michael Glatze's (former editor of a gay magazine) are out there-homos&lesbians who want to be straight but are told by psychologists that repair therapy to cure or @least better treat homosexuality is to be discarded ? I don't know any stats but if they discover the vaccine, pill or surgery which can change homos&lesbians to straight missionary activity only, I have no doubt that there would be a business. Could they eventually find the cure for homosexuality? Given that science has discovered cloning, they could eventually discover the vaccine, pill or surgery which can change them. Science is always evolving.

Posted by: missionaryway | Nov 3, 2008 1:15:55 PM

Part 2:

Here's an idea for Good at You & hopefully you'll consider. You already know that the topic of homosexuality has been discussed so many times. Do you think that you could raise other topics to discuss? For eg. not to redo another discussion of the Matthew Shepard case, but he's comparable to a drowned zebra. What I mean is that zebras will often swim in crocodile infested waters in Africa's Serengeti, taking the risks that they'll drown or get killed & eaten by crocodiles just to cool down on a summer day. Usu. the zebra will make it to safety, but if the crocodiles are hungry, they'll kill the zebras, or any other animals be they antelope, deer, etc., by sinking their teeth in them, drowning them & eating them.

Matthew Shepard took the same risks as the zebras only that in his case, the crocodiled infested waters is the drug trade. Sooner or later you're going to get robbed, beaten or killed by the seller, or the seller will get robbed,beaten & killed by the buyer. Matthew Shepard is comparable to a zebra-what is the zebra thinking when it swims in a water of crocodiles, knowing full well that if the crocodiles are hungry, they're going to try to kill &
eat them ?

Do you think that Good @ you, could discuss wildlife & other topics? I've been a vegetarian since 2003-the last time I ate fish was on Sept. 29, 2003, when I was in Paris France. I'm not an animal rights activist, but I do believe in animal welfare. If people want to hunt animals for food, I don't have a problem as long as it's swiftly killed, though I would rather that people be vegetarians. I do find the positions of many AR activists to be selective. I would rather see a hunter kill hares & rabbits with high powered rifles than to see a python strangle a rabbit/hare, though it's the python's nature to do so.

It's your decision, but could you expand to other topics starting with wildlife. How many things can be said about homosexuality without rerunning what has been discussed so many times? Could you also discuss other things such as nice places to visit, the fun of snow (I like cold weather, etc. I've been to 26 states & other nations, incl. Canada-Niagra Falls & Agawa Canyon. If you want to see wildlife & natural beauty, the places that I could recommend if you haven't already been there are the Great Lakes Aquarium in Duluth Minnesota, Amnicon Falls Wisconsin, Isle Royale National Park (moose & wolves here) in the Michigan UP-along with Porcupine Mountains & Pictured Rocks National Lake Shore.

If you want to see dangerous wildlife such as snakes & crocodiles, the place that you could visit as I did in Jan. 2002 are the Snake Farm & the Samphran Zoo which has the Crocodile Farm in Thailand (near Bangkok). I personally don't understand why people would keep snakes as pets. The Samphran zoo once had an incident where a woman committed suicide by jumping into the crocodiles. Your thoughts are welcome.

Posted by: missionaryway | Nov 3, 2008 1:37:27 PM

Does one ever run out of things to say? Mind you, post-election I expect an interesting dip. Which is good, because I need to do more work and haven't actually done anything for ages because I've spent my day reading posts...

Posted by: Janek | Nov 3, 2008 6:49:48 PM

HI:

I've thought of a new topic you may discuss. It deals with why are so many STRAIGHT people offended by the idea of repair therapy to cure or @least better treat homosexuality. I know what homos&lesbians will say on this. But as you know, there are straights who share the same views.

While I have a layman's knowledge, it can be said that the homos&lesbians who want to be straight do so because they want the ordinary things in life-marry & have sex with a member of the OPPOSITE sex & raise children. Yet they've been told by mainstream psychologists since the late 1990s esp. since Researcher Simon LeVay's studies of 1991-92 that repair therapy to go straight is an idea to be discarded. In 2001 (if there's an updated view by him since then please state it) Researcher Simon LeVay said that while he has a dim view of repair therapy, if homos&lesbians want repair therapy to go straight or if they want to find the cure for homosexuality, he would support their right to do so.

Predictably people ask "why not cure lefthandedness then?" when I raise the topic of curing homosexuality. With lefthandedness, it just doesn't generate the same controversy. If they found the cure for lefthandedness, most people wouldn't care. While many people would say "well I don't see the reason why they needed to cure that", most people won't be offended by the cure for lefthandedness, though most wouldn't see the reason why it needed to be cured. Yet why are so many people, incl. straights (esp. straight women by my personal observations) offended by the idea of curing homosexuality? If you're pro-choice on the topic of engaging in homo&lesbian sexual activities, then why the anti-choice to free will when it comes to curing homosexuality, if the homos&lesbians want to change to straight sexual activities only?

Posted by: missionaryway | Nov 10, 2008 8:24:51 PM

These are my last comments surrounding the Simpson case, as he & a codefendant have been sent to prison for the Las Vegas robbery case. As known, I believe that he is innocent of the 1994 double murder of Nicole Brown Simpson & Ron Goldman & that I don't believe the prosecution's theory of why it happened.

If anything, he had lost interest in his ex-wife & during the last 5 weeks preceding the double murder. He didn't see her, except as it related to the kids. Yes, Nicole Brown Simpson's beautiful but in 1994, she was older (35 years old) with lines on the face & she just didn't have the same beauty as she did in 1981 when she was in her 20s. He was already seeing women who were a few years younger & prettier than Nicole.

In many marriages, when couples get older, they just don't see their spouses with the same beauty as they did when they were younger. Many people with age get fatter, along with white hairs, wrinkles, etc. It can be said that Nicole Brown Simpson had also lost interest in him when it came to attraction but she still had interest in him as he could financially help her.

Nicole Brown Simpson after their divorce would sometimes had sex with men who were a few years younger than her to feel that she still got it & she frequently would tell him about this with the hope that he would take her back. From 1993-1994 he periodically did take her back but in the last 5 weeks, he had lost interest in her, as he was seeing women who were a few years younger & prettier than Nicole Brown Simpson, who in her 30s, just didn't have the same beauty in 1994 as she did in 1984.

I believe that the double murder was committed by the mob & Ron Goldman was the intended target, as he had been involved with them. Nicole Brown Simpson was killed trying to stop the killer(s). It's now my belief that Fred & Kim Goldman perhaps deep in their minds know that Ron Goldman was the intended target. Fred Goldman didn't help his son when he was having financial problems & as his son wanted to continue having the good life of living in California, he was involved with the Mob, but didn't realize that the dangers of the Underworld. It can not be ruled out that Ron Goldman was a drug seller. The cops never investigated others who would have a motive to kill them, because they had already decided who did it.

The Las Vegas robbery is a different case & yes he was guilty, but the punishment that he got was disproportionate to the crime. Most of the things did belong to him. No, you don't have the right to take the law into your own hands & they were guilty of armed robbery, but the fact that he owned most of the things are mitigating factors. There's a difference between robbing a bank clerk @ gunpoint & taking money which isn't yours & pointing a gun & taking back what is yours. Even the prosecutors don't deny that most of the memorabilia belonged to him but said that he didn't have a right to take 4 men with guns to do it.

The 2 memorabilia dealers didn't want them prosecuted & they didn't want them to go to prison but it's not up to the victims to dismiss the charges. Though Judge Jackie Glass repeatedly denied being influenced by the 1995 acquittal, she actually was influenced by it & that's the reason that they got long prison sentences, even if Judge Glass denies it.

Posted by: missionaryway | Dec 10, 2008 1:39:40 PM

Actually these are my closing comments on OJ Simpson, along with other topics. As you know, I believe that OJ Simpson is innocent of the 1994 double murder as it was done by the Mob targeting Ron Goldman & I believe that 2 people committed the killing. As far as the Las Vegas robbery, while OJ Simpson did do this, his punishment was disproportionate to the crime committed & they should've been given leniency but weren't because Judge Jackie Glass was influenced by the murder case, even if she denies it. She gave them more time (33 & 27 years) than even what the prosecutors had asked for (18 years respectively with parole possibility).

As I was in kindergarten to 2d grade when he was a star, I 1st saw OJ Simpson play football in 1979 (his final year) when I was 9 years old. I also recall the Hertz commercials he did. I didn't see any of the movies that he starred in.

The whole thing has become about money. The prosecutors Christopher Darden & Marcia Clark along with Detective Mark Fuhrman have all gotten rich from it. 2 of his former friends such as Kato Kaelin who was given a guest house to live in & who had a dog named after him by OJ Simpson along with Mike Gilbert have trashed him by saying that he is guilty for money. Tom Scotto who has remained OJ Simpson's friend criticized Kato Kaelin & Mike Gilbert on Greta Van Susteren's show for showing no gratitude to a man who helped them.

Geraldo Rivera critiqued OJ Simpson for speaking @ Black churches after his acquittal & accused him of trying to make himself a civil rights leader. Addressing Geraldo Rivera's charge, it was the Black community leaders & ministers who believe in OJ Simpson's innocence. He spoke there to thank them for believing in his innocence & standing by him, when most others had made him a pariah. Doesn't sound like trying to make himself a civil rights leader to me. What will become of OJ Simpson from this point on? How has he dealt with the stress after all these years? Going from being cheered in stadiums during the 1970s to what has become of his life from 1994 onwards?

Does Fred & Kim Goldman know in their minds that Ron Goldman was the intended target? Does Fred Goldman feel guilty over the fact that he did not help his son financially when he asked him for his help & later got himself killed by rivals in the Underworld after he got involved with the Mob ? Only Fred Goldman knows, though he'll deny any guilt that he may have over his son's death.

I have also last thoughts on talk show hosts Bill Maher & Tom Leykis. Both men have attacked religion esp. Christianity over the years. Now while I will agree with Tom Leykis that in the workplace, if an employee discusses religion & another employee tells him or her to stop it, then the discussion must end. People must not push their religious beliefs on you, esp. not in the workplace. Bill Maher also did a documentary called Religulous. But attacking religious faith or fanaticism is easy to do.

I don't believe that the workplace should be used to push any beliefs. But it has been my observation that homos&lesbians push their views of sex in the workplace & I haven't heard Bill Maher nor Tom Leykis decry this. When I worked for 1 company, there was a homosexual man who consistently pushed his views of homosexuality & on 1 occassion he even graphically discussed sexual details.

Now how people live their sex lives is their matter, but what about the people who don't want to hear about homosexuality during work hours ? There's a time & place for everything. Why doesn't Tom Leykis decry this fanaticism? I didn't think much about it until I've come to realize that while homosexual groups consistently use words such as intolerant, Bigots, etc., when describing their opponents the homosexual groups are often the 1s who don't tolerate opposing views. If they did, then people who express opposing views of homosexuality wouldn't lose their jobs for opinions that they give outside work hours.

Since it's about religion, attacking religious fanaticism is easy to do & justified. However, it's not politically safe to decry fanaticism by homosexual groups. Bill Maher once hosted a TV show called Politically Incorrect, but most of the views expressed by him were not Politically Incorrect, incl. his views of homosexuality.

Posted by: missionaryway | Dec 11, 2008 12:35:19 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails