Gay Republican elected lawmaker from Pennsylvania comes out

[xbuzzerx]

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

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

 

[chance1]

There's no reason to celebrate in this thread:

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

Nothing to celebrate here.

no it appears that derision and condemnation are the default

thinking maybe there's somewhere in between ?

silly me

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

 

[xbuzzerx]

no it appears that derision and condemnation are the default

thinking maybe there's somewhere in between ?

silly me

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

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

Not hard to understand.

 

[Mariatenebre]

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



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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[archive]

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

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

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

 

[Laufey]

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

Yes that one.

 

[Jack Springer]

Well ......

What I got out of this discussion

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

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

 

[Laufey]

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

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

 

[chance1]

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

LOL

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

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

how is that hate on my part ?

i don't even know what your point is

 

[chance1]

Well ......

What I got out of this discussion

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

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

the rules are fluid dear jack

and on a need to know basis - LOL

 

[Ninja108]

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

 

[Kulindahr]

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/c...ay--incredible--after-coming-out.html?nav=742

Uh.

Gee.

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

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

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

 

[archive]

LOL

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

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

how is that hate on my part ?

i don't even know what your point is

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

 

[chance1]

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

i'm not celebrating anything

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

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

did u read?

i did

i think it sucks

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

i think the gay litmus test sucks

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

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

 

[JayQueer]

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

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

 

[xbuzzerx]

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

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

Great, balanced, sane mindset.

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

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

 

[chance1]

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

you're bringing your "A" game baby

 

[JayQueer]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes that one.

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

 

[Kulindahr]

The guy just destroyed his political career.

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

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

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