Gay Republican elected lawmaker from Pennsylvania comes out

[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 [STRIKE]know[/STRIKE] 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.