Unlock That Closet

Every October 11th (12th in the U.K.) is a day memorialized by homosexuals as “National Coming Out Day“, a day utilized to encourage discussion of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender (GLBT) issues. Is a day dedicated to making known your sexual desires necessary, or even appropriate?  What does one have to gain by making public such information?  Some homosexual advocacy groups suggest attention is necessary in order that homosexuals become free of discrimination by achieving fairness and equality.  But in what way are homosexuals not equal, is it true inequality, or simply perceived?

I am not of the opinion that one’s sexual life, beit heterosexual or homosexual, is an issue which so strongly identifies yourself that it begs to be made public.  I have never felt a need for others to know my sexual preferences.  I do not figure it into my list of what makes me who I am.  In other words, when someone asks me a question such as “what makes you, you”, my sexuality would not make the discussion due to my initiation.  I think for homosexuals there tends to be a disproportionately high value placed on their sexual identity.

It seems to me the desire to have others know your sexual identity stems from an inner need for approval of the lifestyle.  It is not about tolerance, they already have tolerance, it is about approval and endorsement, it is a longing for validation.  It is not about rights.  Homosexuals currently enjoy all the legal rights as heterosexuals in America.  There are no laws inhibiting their equality as citizens, nor restricting their civil rights.

The perceived discrimination and inequality builds on the premise that laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman is unfair and excludes homosexuals from the institution.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Sure at first glance, it appears that heterosexuals have rights homosexuals do not, that they can marry.  But homosexuals have the same rights as do heterosexuals, the problem is they also have the same restrictions.  In states which do not allow same-sex marriage, all the restrictions of marriage equally apply to everyone.  Most state marriage laws consist of restricting marriage to only two individuals, of the opposite sex, not of close relation (however close relation is defined), who have reached the state’s age of consent, who are currently free to marry (not already married).

Just survey the state’s laws on the matter.  No mention of sexuality, sexual attraction, or emotional attachment anywhere.  The state is not concerned with whom the to-be-married is in love with, or sexually attracted to.  Marriage is encouraged by the state for the purpose of raising children and building and maintaining families (1).  In this regard everyone is on the same playing field.  The objection that heterosexuals can marry the one they love, but not so for homosexuals misses the point.  Granted, the majority of marriages are initiated by love, but most longterm married couples will likely tell you, marriages are maintained by commitment, not the title “married”.  Many-if not most-states have provisions for civil unions.  Which in every respect but one, the name, is equal to marriage.  The bottom line is, it is not about equal rights, discrimination, love, private relationships, or long-term commitment. 

So what drives this inner need for approval, endorsement, and validation?  My opinion is it is driven by a sense of guilt.  How many of us when we have done something, or are about to do something which deep down we know is wrong, we rationalize to ourselves that somehow it’s not really wrong, or at least not that bad.  We try to convince ourselves that what we’re doing is ok.  Many times we ask someone else’s opinion.  Often we keep asking around until we get someone who will not condemn our rationalization and allow what ever it is, is not technically the wrong thing.

I think the reason homosexuals face so much hostility to their “cause” is due to active pressure to “educate” and legislate acceptance.  It does not seem to be enough for the lifestyle to be tolerated, it must be championed and advocated for.  Pressures for curriculum in public elementary schools is seen as incredibly invasive, especially when parents have no say in whether their young children are exposed to sexual issues. 

The approach is seen as bully tactics, that all who oppose the homosexual cause is targeted and labeled bigots and homophobes.  That is how I see events like National Coming Out Day.  It is an attempt to persuade people to believe an idea unfairly.  Those on the pro-homosexual side are not content to ‘agree to disagree’.  It is done under the guise of tolerance, though the only view which is tolerated is the pro-homosexual view.  Until the pro-homosexual advocates play fair in the market place of ideas, there will always be hostility to their methods of persuasion.


(1) For further treatment of this read Prop 8 Struck Down

Related Article: Can You Feel The Love?, You’re Not Supposed To Ask, Unfit Parents


  1. Nice post. It bothers me when people identify themselves by their sexuality. I am against homosexuality though, whether people define themselves by it or not.

  2. Coming out days and other such political activities are among the means by wich homosexuals have earned the general acceptance in the western world. It was not so long ago when their sexuality was seen as insanity and they could be treated by a number of discriminating ways. Same goes for other minorities also. Their rights have been earned by hard work, commitment to their cause and sometimes with blood. They have every right to celebrate those.

    Even if the homosexuals are only celebrating past victories in the US and most of EU countries, they do have a need to remind people that they should have the same rights as the rest of us. There are a lot of people who would be ready to condemn homosexuals because of their sexual orientation. Why is this, I for one, can not understand. In Lithuania just a few years ago a new law was set, that makes talking about homosexuality to people under 18 years in an accepting tone, a criminal act. This may seem ridiculous, but it sends a wery clear message on what is seen as accepted in the society, to the Lithuanian homosexuals. If other people want to be candid about their sexuality, how does that hurt you?

    The general acceptance of different people is what the world needs. If you were a homosexual would you not want to marry the person you love? Would you not feel it discriminating, that you could not because of your sexuality? If your brother was a homosexual would you not feel he was discriminated, if he could not marry for love? Did you not marry for love?

    • You do realize that homosexual desires was taken off the list of mental abnormalities solely for political reasons and not because it was determined my medical and psychiatric professionals to no longer be such. Homosexuals already have equal rights in America, they have the same rights as everyone else, so parades and events declaring to the world what your sexual desires are is a matter of pride (in the negative sense).

      If I was sexually attracted to animals or children should I have equal rights to be able to act on them? Should I be able to marry anyone I love, including your wife or child? I have already addressed this issue, there is no need for you to ask the questions again here.

      • Do you seriously think that without the parades and political activity homosexuals would have any rights in the US?

        Are homosexual parades asking for a license to have sex with animals or children? No they are not, that is totally beside the point. They are not asking to marry anyones wives either. They are asking to marry for love each other. Not other people. Why is that wrong?

        • First, they had rights long before parades which contained simulated sex acts and nudity. Second, my point is no one is permitted to marry anyone they wish. There are all kinds of restrictions on marriage. I have already addressed you concern as to why same-sex marriage should not be endorsed and encouraged by the government.

          • Are homosexuals asking to marry anyone they wish? No, they wish to marry for love a nother homosexual. That is a reasonable demand. It is by no means counterproductive to society. On the contrary. Every minority is more productive to their society, if they are first accepted as a part of the society, with equal rights as the majority. The fact that the minority has problems is not a reason to be hostile against them or to deny them equal rights as the majority. That would be immoral. Like the romans persecuting the early christians.

            As long as there is a great number among the so called majority, that is ready to be openly hostile to the minority, the minority has a need to show that they are humans and not just representatives of the minority. You may question if the gay parades are doing this job, but at the moment the majority of people in western countries has accepted homosexuals and their political activity has achieved this. That is how democracy should work.

            You said: “I think the reason homosexuals face so much hostility to their “cause” is due to active pressure to “educate” and legislate acceptance.” If this is so, why were they experiencing hostility before they started to bring their cause out of the closet? These parades are held much because they need to show each other that they exist and that they can come out of the closet. They are not held to annoy you.

            • Do we measure morality by what is productive for society? Who gets to determine what is acceptable productiveness and what is not? What if I love my mother or father, should I be able to marry them? What if I love your wife, or my dog? Should we really be allowed to marry anyone we love?

              • This is getting silly. Are homosexuals asking for the right for you to marry your parents or your dog, or to marry anyone they love? No, they are asking to marry a nother homosexual for love. So, your examples are completely and utterly irrelevant. If heterosexuals can marry each other for love, then would it not be an equal right for the homosexuals to do the same? There is nothing wrong about homosexuality. Yes, democratic societies determine their morality along the values of the majority, productivity to the society is often enough one determining factor. Political activity is how those values are affected. Good people do not condemn other people simply because they are different or that they have problems. Is that not what Jesus taught?

              • You are missing the point of my mentioning parents, children, etc. It’s not because homosexuals are seeking those people as spouses. But once you re-define marriage to allow a certain group of people to marry “who they love” how can you justify “discriminating” against another group? How can you say “we didn’t used to allow same-sex marriage, but it’s only fair to allow homosexuals to marry who they love”, but then tell another group of people, “no you cannot marry your child, parent, pet, etc”? Why do you draw the line where you do? If the line is movable for one group of people, why isn’t it movable for another?

                Once you get the line moving you can’t stop it because every time you do, you’re discriminating against some other group. They will be justified is using the fame false rhetoric same-sex marriage advocates used to bully support. “You’re only opposed to us becuase you think it’s icky”. “You’re bigots”. “You’re treating us like second class citizens”. And everything else. In the end how do you justify telling brothers and sisters, parents and children, owners and pets, they cannot marry the one they love? After all, if heterosexuals can marry who they love, and homosexuals can marry who they love, why can’t these groups?

                Maybe you’ll say it’s a slippery slope and will never happen, but 50 years ago it was unthinkable same-sex marriage, or anything else but 1 man 1 woman would be a marriage. Remember even before same-sex marriage was legalized in some States here, homosexuals had all the same rights in marriage as heterosexuals. What they didn’t like was they also had the same restrictions.

                And no, it’s not what Jesus taught.

              • Maybe you need to read your bible again. The one man & one woman thing is not as rigid there either. Many people in the old testament are living in polygamy. So, it has changed before. I never thought I would have to explain to an adult person why you can not marry from so close to your family as parents or siblings, but here it is. Marriage is a commitment where more often than not people do have intercourse. Close relatives having sex might have children and it would be wery unhealthy, because those children would be wery likely defected in a number of ways. (This is particularly interresting in the bible, because the book is actually thought to claim that human kind was originated by two people, so their ofspring would have had to marry and reproduce.) I hope I do not have to explain you why adults should not have sex with children.

                Are you actually saying you have nothing against gay marriages, but you would not allow them because it would lead to people marrying children or dogs? It is as if you would argue that since coloured people got their right to vote, it will inevitably lead to a situation where children and animals will also have the right to vote. Homosexuals are demanding right to marry other adult homosexuals.

                Oh, and by the way, tolerance is exactly what Jesus taught.

              • I’m pretty familiar with the Bible. Heterosexual monogamous marriage is the teaching of the Bible. Just because there are people who disregarded the teaching recorded in it by no means makes it normative. The Bible records many people committing many sins. Recording is not endorsing.

                If you are worried about the health concerns those types of relationships produce, then you should be opposed to homosexual behaviors as well. Do some checking, the homosexual lifestyle is highly unhealthy physically and emotionally.

                Oh, and by the way, Jesus did not teach tolerance in the way you are suggesting. Tolerate people, not sin. Every time Jesus forgave someone of their sins, He told them “go and sin no more”. He did not tolerate sin, He turned over the tables in the temple; He rebuked the Pharisees for their teaching; He was intolerant of any religious system which did not affirm the God of the Old Testament, He was very clear that monotheism was the only true religious view; He was intolerant of people who did not accept Him as the only way.

                I find it quite frustrating that in another comment, you said Christianity was so complex that you couldn’t really understand it, but yet you regularly assert what Jesus taught and seek to “correct” me. How can it be that you are so confident about the teachings of Jesus, but Christianity is so complex you can’t understand it?

  3. Giving homosexuals the right to marry would be one step to heal the emotional wounds they may suffer from discrimination. Health issues you mention are not reason enough for them not to have equal rights. And no, they do not have equal rights, any more than you would, if you were only allowed to marry a person of the same sex.

    Jesus does not belong to you christians. You do not own him. You yourself have claimed him a historical figure. To me he is one of the philosophers of antiquity. What I do not understand is why do you christians have to think he was a son of a god, before his humane message reaches you. Or does it? It is terribly selfrighteous to think that this man who only suggested people to behave, is seen as some sort of apolgy automaton for the club members of this or that sect of christianity, whose members are granted eternal life as a reward for clubmembership. It seems so many christians would choose to beleive the fairytale part of the legend, but reject the message of tolerance and love. In my opinion it would be time for humanity to grow up and stop expecting rewards for doing right and do right because it is right. In my wiev Jesus and many others of his kind have suggested something similar so many times.

  4. Oh, I didn’t not realize their were heterosexuals who “wanted” to marry people of the same sex and couldn’t. It was my understanding any person a heterosexual had interest in “wanting” to marry they could. Oh, right so many heterosexuals married same sex partners for the hell of it when same-sex marriage was passed in Connecticut. Also, was their a box on your marriage license that you had to check off about whether or not you planned to have children? After all the state recognizes your marriage, and gives you tax breaks so you will be in a better financial standing to raise children, heterosexual couples who marry with zero interest in producing or raising children are basically committing fraud then.

    Homosexual couples do not have all the same rights as Heterosexual ones in all states. Even with civil Unions, there are states that will only allow married couples to adopt and it is purposely phrased like this to exclude homosexual couples. You say the state wants to promote families, but here is a case where for solely political reasons the state is hindering the expansion of families and keeping children out of loving homes.

    Also, we don’t live in a society where everyone just assumes someone is asexual until specifically specified. You never felt the need to state your sexual attraction because it was always just assumed. The entire system of courtship is based on people maybe not declaring their sexuality in exact words, but everyone has to act it out. If you want to date a women, you go hit on women. But if you had wanted to date a man, you better be damn sure you’re hitting on another homosexual because too many people don’t take mess up sexuality lightly, And people have lost their lives because of it. Have you ever been afraid of losing your life for hitting on a girl (obviously before you were married)? Because you couldn’t help that you were sexually attracted to her? Coming out isn’t for the benefit of you knowing or telling you, it’s for themselves.

    Pro-homosexual side doesn’t play fair? They don’t believe in agree to disagree?

    PH: I feel I should have the right to marry.
    AH: Well, I disagree. So the answer is no, deal with it.

    PH: I feel my children shouldn’t have to be afraid of being bullied in schools.
    AH: Well I have the right to to teach my children one-sided information, and if they grow up to be gay-bashers that’s out of my control. As long as I don’t specifically say to bash you, but instead instill in them a hate for you or the belief that you are disgusting and going to hell, that’s my religious right and I’m in the clear.

    What I’m hearing in the market place of ideas, is we’ll “tolerate you” if it means we get what we want.

    One question I would like answered is why the government should be in the interest of recognizing marriages at all? Why should it be their business who you cohabitates with or how committed you are? There are those who have open marriages too, people you are committed to one another but are not sexually seclusive. The government does not have the power to take away their marriage licenses, because their business is their business, but when it comes to the gender of the married couple that is suddenly the governments business. At least if they didn’t recognize marriages at all they would be being consistent. This is just another issue I don’t understand why conservatives have such an issue with, small government but big enough to invade my bedroom and family.

    • Kelsey, you miss the point. Homosexuals claim they want the right to marry anyone they wish. But no-one is allowed to marry anyone they wish, not even heterosexuals.

      Homosexual couple should be excluded from adoption. Studies have repeatedly shown that children are better off in opposite sex married families, with a male and female parent structure.

      Lets not talk tolerance, you’ll lose that argument because that is the mantra of the pro-homosexual side, until the Christian worldview is up for wanting some of that tolerance. You may be able to show the God Hates Fags group, and thats about it, but nearly every homosexual advocate resorts to the most vile name calling when it comes to people who vocalize opposition to homosexuality.

  5. That is your soul point of this article? It’s fair because no one can do it? The fact that love and societal recognition is all raped up into marriage really means that little to you. Believe me, I didn’t miss your point. I just find your point ridiculous and untrue. It’s like denying a person the access to cancer treatment, and claiming it’s fair as long as you deny everyone the right to cancer treatment. The only people who really need access to cancer treatment are those with cancer, for everyone else the access doesn’t really matter. Same thing would hold true for every right, if you deny people the right to speech, religion, association, anything does it make if fair as long as you do it too everyone? The only difference with these rights is the affect all of us, so it is privilege which allows people to argue against the rights of other since those rights have no impact on their lives.

    First of all, there are studies supporting both sides on same-sex parenting. Secondly, you assume all children are going to be adopted my a same-sex couple. That is not the case. There are millions of children in the foster care system. So until your studies show it is better to leave children in foster care then give them permanent, loving same-sex parents there’s really no good argument for not letting same-sex couples adopt and whether or not opposite sex couples are better at raising children is irrelevant.

    Your third paragraph I think was about tolerance, and how both sides need to just tolerate the others opinion. The negative impacts of not tolerating aren’t even for both sides. I don’t hold one group not liking to be called names on the same par as the other group being denied the right to start a family with the person they love. In the long run how would passing same-sex marriage really hurt the anti-homosexual side personally? Does it hurt the value of heterosexual marriages some how? No, you will still be able to get married and even in your religious circles talk about why you believe your marriage is better. Are you afraid suddenly American children will all start turning gay? I really don’t see why this has any impact on the anti-homosexual’s life.

  6. Also, most gay right activist don’t argue for the right to marry anyone they wish. They want the right to be able to marry one person of the same sex. And just because one thing is granted doesn’t mean everything has to be. Animals and minors legally can’t consent to marriage so that would be out. If marriage is defined as a monogamous commitment between two people, it would exclude polygamous from marriage which makes sense because their are huge power dynamic issues when one person has more then one spouse. Power dynamics and genetic issues are also the reason why incestuous marriage is illegal. Homosexual couples don’t have power dynamic issues and they can’t create children with genetic issues from inbreeding, so how is society hurt by allowing homosexual marriage?

    Also, how do children of same-sex parents fair in comparison to children of divorced parents? After all, we don’t make it illegal for people to get divorced because they have children and 50% of marriages end in divorce (which also shows that even heterosexual have issues with monogamy for life, which is what marriage is supposed to be and a person is a cheater whether they sleep with 1 person or 100 people outside of that marriage if you believe marriage is truly “till death do us part”). And what about children of opposite sex parents who one or both of their parents are homosexual, you say everyone has the right to start a family as long as it’s with someone of the opposite sex, but is forcing them to act “hetero” if they want children really good for the family? Does acting like something you are not make you a better parent and make your family a better home? That would seem to just add stress to a family.

    • But who are you to say two minors, or an adult and a minor can’t get married? Some people are born with sexual attractions to pre-pubescents, who are you to say they can’t marry the person they love? What about pets, zoophiles will claim they were born with sexual desires for animals, who are you to tell them its gross, and they can’t participate in marriage? If the “whos” can be re-defined at the whims of 2-4% of the population, why are the “how manys” restricted? You see, then you argue from “natural feelings, born that way” and “who are you to say” there is no reasonable limit. You have lost your ability to restrict at all.

  7. Firstly, marriage is a two way street. Both people have to agree to it. Animals can’t, their animals they lack that reasoning, the lack the ability to consent. A dog can’t buy a house. Not even a monkey can do that. So there is no reason can expect a monkey to be able to enter a union equally with a person. Children are denied the right to do things all the time because they are children because their parents have the right to make decisions for them, and the magical thing about children are they aren’t children forever. They grow up and have the ability to make those decisions for themselves at 18. Homosexuals are homosexuals. That’s not changing. Plus, they are fully recognized as adults, full legal citizens fully capable of making decisions for themselves while children aren’t. So two consenting adults entering a union is completely different from one adult trying to marry a child or trying to marry an animal. This is not based on whether I think it’s gross or not, if two people enter a union they must be entering it equally and on the same level. What some feel is gross should not be a factor in deciding who gets to marry, as long as those who think it’s gross aren’t forced to do it (or anyone else who prefers not to). All parties must be able to consent, and the union must not be hurting anyone else. And I will stop you incase you feel like mentioning incest or polygamy. Creating incestuous children, is genetically harmful to that child so someone is hurt. Even if the couple promised not to have children or couldn’t have children, a father marrying a daughter or even a sister marrying a brother involves power dynamic struggles, so two people can not enter that union equally and consensually. The same thing goes for polygamous, you can’t enter a marriage equally and consensually if one or both people already have a spousal commitment plus it holds the possibility of being detrimental to the other spouse involved.

    The whims of 2-4% of the population. Love that one! No sorry, you don’t get rights because you are only a small percentage of the population, so we get to make choices for you. That’s what landed Japanese Americans in interment camps during world war two! If deciding what people get rights was simply based on the majority vote, southern states would have gotten to keep their slaves as well. It’s also why racial profiling can be legalized, because it only affects a small percentage of the population. The rights of the minority should never be based on the will of the majority no matter what their size.

    I also love your last line “you have lost ability to restrict at all.” I thought conservatives were against the government interfering in the private lives of individuals when it harms no one else. So it brings us back to the question of why the government should be involved with marriage at all. (If you aren’t sure where I previously raised this question, it’s at the end of the really long comment)

    • So you are equating same-sex marriage to Japanese interment camps? That’s disappointing. It’s not about no-one gets rights because they’re only 2%, it’s that we don’t revamp an entire system because they want a title. Right now everyone has the same rights, it’s the fact that we all have the same restrictions you don’t like. Basically the argument is “change the rules, because now I’m here”.

      If you want me to take you seriously, don’t equate Same-sex marriage to interment camps or some form of slavery.

      And it does harm others. The amount and degree of sexually transmitted disease which runs rampant in the homosexual community should disturb you. But I guess the CDC is biased, as well as every other health care provider. They only diagnose homosexuals with STDs because they oppose homosexuality, right?

  8. Restrictions that only affect some people! My point is it’s not fair to deny a group of people rights because they are a small percentage of people. But let’s not even pretend this is about the size of the group, you would still oppose same-sex marriage even if impacted 30% of the population, heck you would still oppose it if it affected 70% of the population because you think it’s wrong no matter what.

    Oh yes, giving homosexuals the right to marry would only increase their likelihood of getting sexually transmitted diseases further. It would also magically start giving heterosexual married couples STDs. I really have no clue what you were trying to prove with the CDC statistics, that people should stop being homosexual? This is an argument for why EVERYONE should be in monogamous relationships and use safe sex practices, not how same-sex marriage hurts people.

  9. Maybe I can enlighten you slightly as to why people feel the need to do this, as I had my own somewhat analogous experience earlier this year….

    You say you’ve never felt the need to make sure everyone knows you’re heterosexual. But there are not a whole raft of dangerous misconceptions, silly stereotypes, slander, and outright falsehoods floating around in our culture about heterosexuals as a group. There are about LGBTQ people. Heterosexuality is the presumed normal, the default. People presume you’re heterosexual, and therefore “normal,” unless informed otherwise. So of course you don’t feel the need to go around informing people of it–you know that they assume it.

    Now, when other people only know vague, broad, or comedically simplistic media stereotypes of a group, they make all sorts of assumptions based on what they *think* they know. If no one that they know fits these stereotypes, it may not even enter their heads that they might know an actual, individual member of this group. And falsity builds on falsity in their belief systems, because they don’t have a flesh-and-blood, individual, human example as opposed to a caricature in their heads.

    To come out is to say “yes you do, and it’s me. Yes, you do know someone, I am a human reality and not the vaguely sinister threat you hear about on the news, and I am affected by the way our culture talks about these issues. When a law, or a ridiculous stereotype, or educational/housing/job discrimination negatively affects gays and lesbians, it negatively impacts my actual life.”

    Last year I was belatedly diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. Lots of people, even good and well-meaning people, believe a lot of harmful and ridiculous things about people with autism. A few months later, I “came out.” I mentioned it on facebook. I decided that I was going to let people know this about me, because as it was, people believed a lot of false things about me based on a false assumption that I was not autistic. A lot of my own friends believed false and ridiculous things about people with autism, because they had no idea that they had a friend who was, because I’d been too scared of ridicule to talk about it.

    Now that they know about me, they know more about the real human complexities of the condition and how society treats people with it.

    “Coming out” is about accepting the truth about yourself without fear or shame, and asking others to do the same, not just for you, but for everyone else that they might not know about (yet). It short-circuits the stereotyping process. It’s a decision not to live forever inside a lie of omission. It’s a decision to trust the people around you to love and accept you for what you really are, not what they assume only because they don’t know better.

    • And you dont think its a coincidence that you are homosexual and hold the view of the Bible and the view the Bible takes on same sex sexual relationships?

      But putting that aside. Just from what you wrote, it sounds like you have what I would call “victimhood syndrome”. The gist of which is lgbt activists have drilled it into you that everyone hates you. You are a target and need to be suspicious of everyone, because you could be next. I used to hang out with a gay guy years back. When he had friends over (almost exclusively gay) I never felt compelled to mention I was straight. It only came up once, and it wasn’t me who brought it up.

      You sound like a person who likes to “inform” people and clear things up. As if you need to make sure no one is believing a stereo-type. You have to understand that most people don’t care. Including me. It might surprise you that I don’t care who is homosexual. What I care about is the impact of legal same sex marriage, which is a different issue. And I think that really bugs many homosexuals. People not caring. It’s my opinion that many–if not most–want people to focus on it. They want everyone to know, they need everyone to know. As if it is their mission to root out the homophobes from the crowd.

      What I find distasteful about this whole enterprise is that I have never, and that is not hyperbole, never seen a homosexual discuss the issues. I have never interacted with a homosexual, or same sex marriage defender who didn’t resort to name calling, and speculation to my character…every time. So far you have not, but then again, you are new to my site. Hopefully you come back and we can discuss, tactfully.

      I’d like to know what you think of this: http://truthinreligionandpolitics.com/2011/06/14/lgbt-hate-crime-alarmism/

      • I’m not homosexual; I don’t think I gave you any basis on which to conclude that in my comment.

        But yes, when you live under severe and constant threat of harm for who or what you are, you tend to grow suspicious of everyone because, as you put it, “you could be next.” It’s a hard way to live. It gets hard to trust anyone or ever be vulnerable. Yes, it bugs me to no end when people believe stereotypes…especially when people believing stereotypes has some kind of actual negative impact on actual people. Since I’ve lived my entire life marginalized in one way or another, my sympathies tend to lie with marginalized people of any stripe. I don’t really care much who’s gay, either, but enough of my friends and coworkers are that I have to think about how discrimination affects a great many actual people who I know.

        No, I won’t resort to name-calling; ad homineum attacks are never useful. But I don’t think I’ll be back, either.

        • lol, I guess you came out as having an autistic disorder. I guess I just hastily assumed you were adding additional info.

          Did you read the link? homosexuals arent living under constant threat of harm. .00016% of homosexual were victims of hate crimes in 08, and the numbers arent getting higher. Its alarmism that is being sold to the public by activists.

          Why wouldnt you be back? Was it something I said? I tend to be a bit abrupt. I dont mean to be uncordial.

  10. Correct. Lol, not so much, but it was an incredibly positive and healing experience, so I can understand why people of any hidden or badly-understood minority choose to “come out.”

    It’s true that sexual orientation and gender-identity minorities are living under far less concrete incidence of violence than they’ve probably ever been in this country…but there’s a great deal of threat of harm that might not legally amount to a hate crime, and a whole lot of intimidation and harassment that probably never even gets reported, because the victims know that they won’t be supported or helped. And the actual incidence of grievous violence doesn’t have to be very high for the *threat* to be incredibly real. It wasn’t that many years ago that a pair of men walking hand in hand here in NYC were attacked and badly beaten by a group of teenagers who thought they were gay; one died. Of course I’ve never been targeted for my sexual orientation, but due to communicative and emotional difficulties, I know how it is to live when EVERYONE in your environment is a potential threat until proven otherwise. Coming out is a symbol of feeling safe enough to be truthful about what you really are.

    As for why I probably won’t be back much, I find your argumentation flippant, snide and dismissive. It doesn’t leave me with the impression that you have any real interest in truly understanding why people with different opinions or life experiences from yours might believe and feel the way that they do.

  11. ……I literally….I just cannot.
    I am lost for words right now.
    Your bigotry and ignorance astound me.
    “I have never felt a need for others to know my sexual preferences.”
    Perhaps this is because you have never been discriminated against because of your sexuality? Perhaps this because you have not spent years in stifling oppression and oftentimes in fear of your life because of who you love?
    A person does not come out to seek approval for their lifestyle, lest of all from a narrow-minded bigot such as yourself. They come out because it is liberating and allows them to express an important part of who they are.
    “But homosexuals have the same rights as do heterosexuals.”
    You say this in relation to the law, and legal entitlements. I am not very knowledgable on matters of law, especially considering I am not American. But regardless of the law, why should this make any difference? It is primarily in the prejudiced eyes of society where the lgbt community is discriminated against, and this influences the legal system. Until homophobes and bigots are out of office, there will be injustice.
    And please, refrain from using the word ‘preference’. That implies choice, of which there is absolutely none.

  12. Im not sure what bigotry youre talking about, are you sure youre using that word correctly? But aside from that, whether someone felt oppressed because of the kind of person they prefer to have sex with or not, what about feeling liberated about that would compel someone to announce it? Maybe its because I dont define myself by my sexual proclivities. What I mean is when someone says ‘tell me about yourself’ my sex life doesnt even enter my mind.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: