Printable View
:wtf:
he got cought with a profile on the web looking for guys in DC to have bareback sex with
the media hasn't picked it up, yet
http://www.blogactive.com/2004/11/rn...thers-for.html
he's either going to get swept under the rug, stay where he is, or the story will explode and with this barebacking shit it will be more black marks and amo for the crazy right wingers
Not another government scandal LOL
Regards,
Lee
i thought i read they want to make him the chairman
the DC press are sniffing for queers in the gov't, they out mostly Republicans though since they're mostly anti-gay marriage.......
Greetings:
Ok, I never really understood how a gay man could possibly be a republican before this. Now I get it.
He has no desire for commitment, so the whole marriage issue doesn't bother him at all.
He goes around having bareback sex with anonymous strangers, so the "no passing out condoms" clause that came along with the AIDS funding for Africa doesn't really bother him either.
Makes prefect sense, I think...
haha of all people that dude had to end up in a chatroom with, it was the guy that runs blogactive.com. Too funny.
The guy from BlogActive has poor character. He doesn't realize these guys are our inside men and makes a name for himself by doing stunts like this. Truly unfortunate. He's doing the work of the Bush supporters. How sad. The last thing we need is another family member outing our inside guys that work for our community in secret.
Lol, his gay.com profile sounds great!
The profile's gone.
It's on the bottom of this page, D-bear
http://www.blogactive.com/
laguages spoken:
Southern
:) :) :)
Never mind, here is the good stuff...
http://www.notwinks.net/dan.gif
That blog doesn't allow you to cut and paste text... strange. I had to take a screen cap
Quote:
Originally posted by Squirt
The guy from BlogActive has poor character. He doesn't realize these guys are our inside men and makes a name for himself by doing stunts like this. Truly unfortunate. He's doing the work of the Bush supporters. How sad. The last thing we need is another family member outing our inside guys that work for our community in secret.
Inside man? If he's doing any work for the gay community "in secret" then he's doing a shitty-ass job of it. If you think that a pathetic closet-loser is going to be able to do anyting on the inside other than nod his head when asked if homos should get sent to prison camps, you're dreaming in technicolour. And he's no "family member" of mine.
I say out them all.. Hypocrits do us no good whatsoever. Guys who help work against the community and then reap the benefit of our hard work make me want to go break femurs. Working for the RNC durring the day and enjoying the rights and freedoms won by the people he's working against is about as smarmy as you can get.
On the other side, exposing hypocrisy is what we're gonna have to do. Once people have placed themselves high on a pedestal, it's good for the world to knock that pedestal over.
oops ! I think I replied to his post :blush: :blush: :blush:
just kidding
You certainly have a way with words! :swoon:Quote:
Originally posted by Jasun
Inside man? If he's doing any work for the gay community "in secret" then he's doing a shitty-ass job of it. If you think that a pathetic closet-loser is going to be able to do anyting on the inside other than nod his head when asked if homos should get sent to prison camps, you're dreaming in technicolour. And he's no "family member" of mine.
I say out them all.. Hypocrits do us no good whatsoever. Guys who help work against the community and then reap the benefit of our hard work make me want to go break femurs. Working for the RNC durring the day and enjoying the rights and freedoms won by the people he's working against is about as smarmy as you can get.
On the other side, exposing hypocrisy is what we're gonna have to do. Once people have placed themselves high on a pedestal, it's good for the world to knock that pedestal over.
My favorite part of his profile is the "I'm usually ready" for sex "3-5" times a week.
He's a republican for sure.
Democrats do it twice a day. It's why I'm always out of breath.
I'll give you two examples of people you would have outed, whom after purposely being closeted to get ahead, made a difference for our community once they got to where they needed to go.Quote:
Originally posted by Jasun
Inside man? If he's doing any work for the gay community "in secret" then he's doing a shitty-ass job of it. If you think that a pathetic closet-loser is going to be able to do anyting on the inside other than nod his head when asked if homos should get sent to prison camps, you're dreaming in technicolour.
My ex of 5 years is an executive at the biggest paper on the west coast. He started in the closet at work, while at home raising a baby with me. After he broke the "Gay" ceiling he came out a week later, brought me and our son to work and introduced us. He then made sure that equal opportunities for minorities and Gays were enforced. He hired liasons for the Gay community to communicate with the paper and then made sure the paper increased it's coverage of Gay stories, bringing to light many issues that had been swepted under the rug previously because nobody in the "straight press" wanted to report on them.
Another example is a good friend, and ex, that is a reporter and part time anchorman for Fox News, yes Fox. He knew that at first he had to be closeted, especiailly when covering the Gulf War, etc. After he made it to a key position he came out, started doing special interest stories and has to date won 18 emmys for his work and many awards for his stories regarding Gay and minority issues. He's also started many organizations, one of which investigates international Gay rights issues and brings them to the forefront of the U.S. media and foreign policy. Like the story of Indias "Gay community", the "Vedic" as they call them. To be Gay in India you are castrated and must dress as a woman and are relegated to the "third sex", the "Vedic" and are downcast to the lowest level in indian society, the Sudra, who can, by law, only do the most menial work ( i.e. burning the dead, working sanitation, etc.). Killing a Vedic has a punishment equal to that of killing a cat in India.
Jasun I'm not dreaming in technicolor. I'm speaking from experience. Unfortunately their are Gay people out there like Mike Rogers at blogactive, and John Byrne, that make a name for themselves by outing people. Like you, they just don't get it.
Squirt.. we're not talking about reporters and executives and florists, we're talking about employees and members of the RNC. Closeted gay Evangelical Christian ministers. People who claim to be "ex-gays" for organizations like Focus on the Family
Hey, if your friends wanna stay closeted in their jobs as reporters and high payed executives for newspapers, that's cool.. none of you know about my freaky-ass Lumberjack Log rolling fetish, and we're all perfectly happy. I'm not drafting policy that hurts you.
If your freinds were working for the Republican party, helping them make homophobic policy and helping Rick Santorum spell "bestiality", I'd be totally supporting outing them. I think we can do without their help.
And dude, I get it.
Jasun you still don't get it.
Whether a reporter, executive or working in politics, sometimes you have to be closeted to get to a position to change things. That means knodding your head yes to all the anti gay policies, laws, etc. until you can make a change.
Your views seems short sighted and not focused on long term success. You give me the impression of an "I want it now" kind of guy. Horny slut! :high:
OK.. Squirt..... so those "Ex-Gay" married couples who are actually on Focus on the Family's Payroll... people like John Pualk and his wife.. they've been used as weapons against the gay community for years.. proof that we don't deserve rights because we chose to be gay and can be cured...
And then it turns out that he's troling for sex in bars and parks, and she never actaully was gay..
BUT
You want us to let them stay in the closet so they can help us later.
What fucking help are they gonna give us? Trust me, the gay community gets a lot more use out of them being outed as the lying hypocrites that they are than we would allowing them to keep lying to us and the world.
The Elder gay senators like Jay Timmons who had been heavily involved in fighting for the Constitutional amendment. When was he going to start using his position of power for good? He certainly didn't have a lot of shopping days left til christmas on that one.
David Drier, Paul Crouch... stop me any time... these guys were NEVER going to start using their positions or power to help the gay community. Fuck them. They were actively hurting the community and deserved everything they got.
My favorite part...Quote:
Originally posted by Jasun
My favorite part of his profile is the "I'm usually ready" for sex "3-5" times a week.
He's a republican for sure.
Democrats do it twice a day. It's why I'm always out of breath.
"8+ cut (not an internet 8 either)"
But then again, I'm just a size queen!
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasun
You want us to let them stay in the closet so they can help us later...... Fuck them. They were actively hurting the community and deserved everything they got.
Some people should be outed but it's important to realize that others are playing the game for the future good of our community and things aren't always as they seem Jasun. For instance, at first glance some might thing you're a top, not even guessing that you're an insatiable bottom :high:
If you took a snapshot at a point in someones carreer, I know many people who, at one point or another, would seem anti gay or an Uncle Tom. Unfortunately some people are caught at that point and outed, and their long term goals couldn't be reached.
I know EVERY Gay person has been in that situation where surrounded by straight people, and nobody knows you're Gay, and you keep quiet. A lot of people have been in work environments like that as well.
We agree a lot Jasun I just think it's dangerous to have outing as acceptable, or a carreer choice, when there are a lot of variables someone on the outside just doesn't know about.
As Gay people we have fought for acceptance and not to have our sexuality used against us, yet we have our own people doing the same. How can we say publicly that being Gay is ok and doesn't matter, yet make it a practice to out people?
Jasun, once again, thank you for lifting the burden of debate from my shoulders so well. You always manage to say what I'm thinking in a rather empassioned way.
Squirt: Let me add here, there is nothing to be gained by what you call "playing the game." Nothing at all. The game, in and of itself is, by its very nature, wrong. Playing it is stooping to a level that degrades oneself and our community as a whole. While I believe the decision to be out has to be left a personal choice, I also know that, until someone is strong enough in character, mind and spirit, to be himself (WHATEVER self that may be) then he's certainly not what I would consider strong enough to be making national policy.
A homosexual man who refuses to be out might use the pretense that it's for the ultimate good, that he's "playing the game" or that he's blending in to change things from within. FUCK THAT...within is fucked up! That is certainly not a system I find it acceptable or worthwhile to work in!
You keep telling Jasun that he doesn't "get it." If shame and pretense are what we're supposed to "get" from your rhetoric, then I'm happy not to, thanks. Perhaps it is you who doesn't get it Squirt. Perhaps it is the men and women who think that by pacifying hate they will somehow be able to squelch it somewhere down the line. That simply will never happen. The less we stand up for ourselves, as proud men and women of a community that deserves equal human rights, the less we will be treated as such. Pretending we are something we are not is NO WAY to earn respect and I refuse to respect someone more, simply because he's hiding his own insecurity behind the blanket of "I'm working from within." What bull!
"...who refuses to be out might use the pretense that it's for the ultimate good, that he's "playing the game" or that he's blending in to change things from within. FUCK THAT...within is fucked up! That is certainly not a system I find it acceptable or worthwhile to work in!"
Jason we are talking about people with a plan , not people who are uncomfortable with their sexuality and using "working within" as an excuse. The RNC guy had a Gay.com profile (he's not stupid), and if you read the article, you'd also see he was out at the RNC, with family and his community, before Mike Rogers' "outing". You see when you work like Mike Rogers does you get yourself in a jam, you're always trying to find your next big story, next big "outing" and when you don't find one, you have to make an already out guy seem "outed".
"The less we stand up for ourselves, as proud men and women of a community that deserves equal human rights, the less we will be treated as such."
Again Jason the people we are talking about are ones with a plan to come out and make change with the principals you and I have in common; human rights and equality.
"Let me add here, there is nothing to be gained by what you call "playing the game." Nothing at all. "
I've already given great examples of people that played the game and made a difference. Others that come to mind are Rosie O'Donnel, Melissa Ethridge and Ellen Degeneres. All Gay activists that played the game and came out. It's a political agenda we have that you seem to have missed out on. Weren't you at the last meeting? :high:
If someone would have outed Rosie or Ellen the results would have been a lot different and their plans wouldn't have been as effective as they were.
I get a chuckle out of what happened to this guy. Mostly on account of his foolishness. Being so careless about his image, privacy, identity and activities while knowing full well his political activity makes him a target for criticism and attention. Stupid.
At the same time, though, I don't see anything inherently "evil" about a gay person who is actively Republican.
The Republican party's position towards gay marriage and civil unions and the like are just a few of the many different elements to their platform. Perhaps issues such as gay marriage and the like fell lower on his priority scale than those that made him a Republican. And not in a "Well obviously he don't care much about marriage cuz he loves fuckin' around". But everyone has different priorities and feels the government should have different priorities and those, in turn, play a role in the political views they fashion.
Is a God-fearing Christian betraying all Christians when they vote Democrat? Because some would say they are indeed doing just that and we would call those that say that extremists and arrogant.
Must a military servicemember vote Republican or else have to face charges of betraying the military? Because sometimes they do, and we call those who lay such accusations against them prejudiced, shortsighted and wrong.
If an attorney campaigns in favor or tort reform is he campaigning against the wellbeing of his family and colleagues and thus a traitor?
Does a black man who is opposed to racial quotas and affirmative action rightfully deserve to be called a traitor?
Things aren't always so black and white, and whereas the Republican party's anti-gay rhetoric and platform is undoubtedly quite blatant and firm these days and it's one of many reasons why I'm not a Republican anymore, it's not the single, defining characteristic of the Republican party.
Further, one's sexual orientation isn't the single, defining characteristic of the individual.
And so, Republican and gay arent' necessarily mutually exclusive.
I don't much think that running about the world vindictively and rabidly exposing the private lives of those in the public eye is ever an admirable thing, whether or not it happens to work against those with whom I disagree politically. So I don't see much cause for glee in this man's situation.
Say he's gay... but firmly believes (whether or not he's right) that terrorism is the greatest threat to this nation and firmly believes (whether or not he's right) that George W. Bush is the best leader for a war on terrorism. And let's say he firmly believes (whether or not he's right) that traditionally Republican fiscal policies, privatization of a number of public sector programs including social security, and No Child Left Behind are essential for the well being of this nation and the prosperity of all Americans.
If, given all of the above, he voted Democrat based solely on the fact that he's gay... well... he'd be kinda selfish. Wouldn't he?
Of all people, we should see the value in the words "Judge not, lest ye be judged".
This whole situation is comical and I laugh at his mistake for being a foolishly negligent and naive political operative who didn't care to shield himself from exposure that would inevitably come about based upon his role in the RNC and his sexual activities.
But beyond that... I don't really have much desire to bite the man's head off or see him burn.
OK BOYS! I think you beat this topic to death, lol
Very well said. I feel the same way about us as human beings and our multifascited existance. A lot of wisdom in your post, I'm impressed :-D Men with brains are so sexy!
He wasn't in the closet. His Gay.com profile had his cute pics up, him with his partner etc. He wasn't hiding anything. RNC, community and family knew he was Gay. I'm curious as to what his personal platform is. You are right though, being a Republican and Gay isn't wrong, not all Republican policies are bad, etc. This isn't a black and white issue.Quote:
Originally posted by BDBionic
I get a chuckle out of what happened to this guy. Mostly on account of his foolishness. Being so careless about his image, privacy, identity and activities while knowing full well his political activity makes him a target for criticism and attention.
This whole situation is comical and I laugh at his mistake for being a foolishly negligent and naive political operative who didn't care to shield himself from exposure that would inevitably come about based upon his role in the RNC and his sexual activities.
How's this?Quote:
Originally posted by BDBionic
Is a God-fearing Christian betraying all Christians when they vote Democrat? Because some would say they are indeed doing just that and we would call those that say that extremists and arrogant.
Is a christian who votes for a party who's platform includes taking away all rights and freedoms of Christians a traitor?
And yes. Yes, they are. They're also short-sited and probably self-hating, but I digress.
Sorry, but I have never once, in my adult life, pretended to be straight when surrounded by straight people. Ever. I mean that.
Gay people who think they're helping the cause by deceiving those around them are deluding themselves at best, lying to themselves at worst. Being in the closet just reinforeces the outside notion that being gay is something to be ashamed of.. something to hide.
I'm sure your freinds have done a lot of good, and I'm not debating that. But you know what? simply by being out and proud at Slayer shows and at work and with my friends and their girlfriends, I've done an awful lot of good too.
So can any gay man or woman by growing a fucking spine and coming out.
Yeah I agree. I've been out and proud since I was 16 or 17 and never looked back. I marched for AB101 when I was in California, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. I think you know a bit of my history from posts on here so I know don't have to explain that we're the same in that sense. But I do think a lot can be said for those like Rosie, Ellen and so many more that are under the raydar until the time is right.Quote:
Originally posted by Jasun
So can any gay man or woman by growing a fucking spine and coming out.
Both forms of activism are equally valid and have their negatives and positives. :high:
I think you might have oversimplified the example I made reference to with regards to Christians. One need not actively campaign for taking away the rights of Christians to be engaged in activities that could be construed as against the interests of Christianity. Say you were an active and adamant proponent of separation of church and state in all ways and at all costs. You felt the government shouldn't fund any programs - regardless of whatever good they did in their communities and for people - that had religious affiliations. You felt all references to God and religion should be taken out of any public document or declaration, from the Pledge of Allegiance to the dollar bill. Such a stance has merits, indeed. But it stands to reason a Christian would feel threatened by all of that. If a program does good for people and enriches peoples' lives, why cut its funding on account of its religious affiliations alone? Why take out historical references to God and religion in public documents and the like? If God and Jesus Christ are indeed the way and the truth - the core element to your believe as a Christian - then vehement adherence to seperation of church and state may very well look like a bad thing.Quote:
Originally posted by Jasun
stuff
You're not allowing other people to have their own ideas of what serves and does not serve the greater good. Who is to say how the infinitely complicated and entirely unique set of experiences, circumstances, information learned and wisdom gained, upbringing, values, etc etc etc that combine to determine how we feel about certain things is right or wrong?
A hardcore evangelical Christian would say you are wrong. Your lifestyle is wrong. Your beliefs are wrong.
Now, you don't have to agree with them in order to be able to understand, at least, how their evangelical beliefs would lead to the conclusion they've made. See the difference there? Acknowledging that someone's own unique set of circumstances allows for their unique opinion is not the same thing as saying that, in your opinion, they are right.
I'm a big believer in relativism. Which is to say, conceptions of truth and values aren't absolute. Rather, they're unique to those that have them. We use relativism to work in our favor just as much as others use it against us, but that's the framework of relativism itself and the entire premise dictates we can't expect everyone to have the same values as us all the time, regardless of whether or not we feel they are right or wrong.
There are no absolutes here. There are a million different factors that go in to where someone decides to place themselves on the political scale, sexuality just one of them. You're attempting to dictate what this man's priorities should be and where his values should lie.
I disapprove of his party's position towards gay marriage and gays on the whole just as much as anyone else here, but I don't attempt to tell him or anyone else for that matter whether or not their feelings towards and position on homosexuality should be the deciding factor in all things political.
If he felt the good the Republicans could do - as per his own values, reasonings, opinions, beliefs, etc - in the nation and world on the whole outweighed the harm the Republicans would do to the cause of gay rights, it seems rational and reasonable he'd have the party allegiance he does.
Further, I'd have to take issue with your characterization of being closeted and the harm it does to gay people on the whole or the gay rights movement in its entirety.
Why should the gay rights movement in its entirely be their primary concern? Are they not allowed to prioritize their own personal well being and comfort? If they reach the conclusion that coming out at a particular point in time to a particular group of people isn't in their best interests, what right do any of us have to say they're wrong? Do other people need to come out in order to help the gay rights movement on the whole and thus, in turn, help me? No. Let them care about themselves.
In your personal and particular circumstances, coming out early and being openly out to everyone has served you well and you're glad for having done so. But your own circumstances aren't absolute and no one else is obligated to see things as you do.
I happen to feel that a 16yo not yet ready to come out because he fears reaction from his peers and parents is perfectly entitled to wait until he gets to college or until some point he feels comfortable to do so. Regardless of whether or not his fears would ever manifest themselves or whether anyone that would react negatively to his coming out is someone whose opinion is worth caring about. If he's not yet ready, he doesn't have to. There's no standard or uniform code to coming out of the closet. It's the utmost personal and individual decision and we're doing all gay people a disservice by saying some ethereal entity such as the gay rights movement need be the primary concern of a gay person not yet out of the closet.
Quote:
Originally posted by Squirt
But I do think a lot can be said for those like Rosie, Ellen and so many more that are under the raydar until the time is right.
Oh yes, we always need a "moment."
:notsure:
The Bear
Brian... wow... I can't even go back and read that whole thing again until I have another coffee. and maybe a scone.
I'm really not talking about the average Joes out there... Hey, I was only half out at 16, and I don't even judge people who aren't out at 30.
We started talking about people who actively support the people who would hurt our community.. No one else.
I don't care if someone wants to keep their sexual orientation a secret.. like i said, I've got my own little secrets... very few around here, but I've got them. It doesn't hurt anyone that I have them, and I have no intention of teling you what I'd like to do to you once I finally get you alone. That'll be a surprise.
I don't even think hollywood stars should have to come out unless they want to. However, if it turned out that say, Pat Buchannon was gay... then yes... I'd support outing him. Anderson Cooper? No.
So I do get it.Quote:
Originally posted by Squirt
Some people should be outed but
Thanks.
All I needed to know.
:jasun: