Welmer

38 responses so far ↓

• 1 Bob // Sep 20, 2009 at 11:38 pm

  “I guess what I’d like to know is why gay men think it’s a good idea to join up with the feminist camp in the assault on men and fatherhood.”

  I don’t think gay dudes realize that feminists are simply using them to bolster their own numbers and upon completion of their feminist takeover would gleefully castrate gay men right alongside those of us who dig women.

• 2 Monad // Sep 21, 2009 at 12:15 am

  I agree,I think they do so because gay men have no direct experience of the vilification of men in society, mostly because they are sheltered from it, their gayness is like an exemption because they are ’special and different’ (though, I do wonder if the bio-dad was gay?).

  However, a few years ago, I was having a conversation with a young gay guy about homosexuals having/adopting children and he said “gay people should not have children”. His reasoning was they could screw up the kids and they needed a normal family. I was pleasently suprised by his non-PC views.

  Maybe this was an exception, but I wouldn’t discount all gay people having the same automated liberal ideals.

• 3 Monad // Sep 21, 2009 at 12:18 am

  Bob: ” I don’t think gay dudes realize that feminists are simply using them to bolster their own numbers and upon completion of their feminist takeover would gleefully castrate gay men right alongside those of us who dig women.”

  Bingo.

• 4 ganttsquarry // Sep 21, 2009 at 12:51 am

  A few thoughts…

  “I guess what I’d like to know is why gay men think it’s a good idea to join up with the feminist camp in the assault on men and fatherhood.”

  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

  Coalition politics. Which you alluded to.

  Politics is very personal for these people. Notice how they believe that family courts in Seattle right? are dominated by social conservatives.

  It’s delusional of course, but very emotional and personal. The need for personal acceptance trumps some larger notion of societal good.

  They view, probably accurately, that feminists accept them ( and their lifestyle) more than straight white males. This trumps everything else.

  I wonder if Wilde, Rhodes, and Weininger would have been so pro male if they had lived in a time when being pro gay male was acceptable.

  Why do straight men, like Bill Clinton, support gays and feminist women so vociferously?

  I think, at least in regard to gays, some do it because if the gay lifestyle is embraced and legitimized, poor straight behavior, like affairs, and what not, will seem like childs play in comparison.

  Gays, at least “movement” gays, not only need to build their lifestyle up in the eyes of the public, but also need to knock “normal” family structures down a few pegs. The public needs to be convinced that something ( traditional families) isn’t working, or is broken, to embrace alternative lifestyles.

  Some have daddy issues I suspect.

  Lets face it, there is a certain % of gays that are very effeminate and relate better to women. The women that they are around( mostly in dense urban areas), and who in turn are comfortable with them, are going to be left wing.

  I think you are right that overt straight male bigotry has little to do with it. They fear social conservatives with a passion though. Scares the chit out of em. Whoever opposes them is alright with gay activists.

  I think talk of men and fatherhood has a patriarchal tone and reminds them of Jerry Falwell or something. Not all of course, but the activists.

  I want to add that there are also a healthy number of gay men that are relatively conservative, at least fiscally speaking. They aren’t marching in Pride parades though. Progress with these types is possible.

  Thats what I came up with off the top of my head.

• 5 Puma // Sep 21, 2009 at 7:04 am

  Wait until the first gay divorces, gay asset divisons, and gay-alimony verdicts come in. That will wake up these guys from the lala-land in which they’ve been living in.

• 6 novaseeker // Sep 21, 2009 at 8:49 am

  I think a few things are going on when it comes to gay men.

  One is that feminism, at least in some of its more prominent strands, was quite openly promoting homosexuality. It’s true that this was, for the most part, being done by female homosexuals, but nevertheless, feminism has been a huge social movement that has been powerfully supporting homosexual rights, and the legitimation of homosexuality, for decades now. In that context, it’s pretty easy to see how a lot of gay men would relate to feminism and its ideas (including feminism’s reflexive disdain for anything that is straight, white and male unless that individual is self-hating and “evolved”).

  Another is that there is a strong strand in feminism that promotes the elimination of dual gender identity and its replacement with a fluid, self-picked, identity that is not tied to any concepts of “masculine” or “feminine” that have any meaning apart from how one personally defines them. Again, this is *very* attractive to many gay men, because their lifestyle, and in some cases their mannerisms and so on, are not “masculine” as commonly understood. An ideology which problematizes a system which they feel hems in their own “gender expression” is, again, going to be attractive to at least some gay men.

  Another issue is that the gay men of this generation have bough into the victimology that has been peddled by the left to all groups that are not white, straight, males. Everyone who is not white straight and male is “oppressed”, according to this view, and the white, straight, male is the universal oppressor. He needs to be resisted, disempowered, and shelved. And I’m sure many of the more radical gay men totally agree with that, and are happy to support anything that empowers women at the expense of straight, white, men. These sorts of gay men simply identify more with women in terms of being oppressed by white, straight, men, than they do with white, straight men.

  Of course, gay men are not monolithic. There are conservative gay men, and guys who dislike feminism. Gay men and lesbians have always made strange political bedfellows due to their very different approaches to lifestyle, as well as the intrinsic misandry that lies at the core of the self-identity of a goodly number of lesbians. But it’s hard to predict, really. Someone like Andrew Sullivan calls himself a conservative, but I’ve virtually never seen him attack anything that was feminist, other than Sarah Palin.

  As to what makes people gay, I think when it comes to men a very small % are “born gay”. Some surely are, but it’s a much smaller % than the number who actually live a gay lifestyle. The latter number is larger because of (1) homosexual abuse situations during youth which trigger a homosexual eroticism, and (2) de facto bisexual men who “opt” to be gay because in terms of procuring sex it is easier to do so a a gay man than as a straight man. As for point (2), a quick review of the Craigslist personals will reveal an astonishingly high number of married or “straight” claiming men who are soliciting other men for sex on the internet. Why? Because it’s easier to procure sex that way than it is from women. It’s for the same reason that the younger gay lifestyle tends to be so rampantly promiscuous –> they don’t need to seduce/Game women to get sex, so there is no check on the flow of the male libido. That is the reason why the number of men who have sex with other men (whether they say they are gay or not, or live in gay relationships or not) is higher than the % of guys who are “born gay”.

• 7 Justin // Sep 21, 2009 at 9:01 am

  Welmer, I know it isn’t p.c. to point this out, but the vast majority of these people have mental/emotional illnesses. Homosexuality itself was taken off the list of mental illnesses due to political presurres, but it is still “associated” with a myriad of pathologies. This is the basic answer to your question, what is up with them: they are not well.

  Trying to politically reach out to gays is just as productive as politically reaching out to blacks. All the logic and reason in the world matters not. They are motivated by deep-seated psychological forces related to their identity formation and sense of self.

  This is why advice like Puma’s is naive. Gays and/or lesbians will never ever ever be the allies of men and fathers, no matter what their experience in the family court system. They would simply try to carve out their own special exemptions and rules, they will never grant those same privileges to regular dads.

• 8 Cold North Wind // Sep 21, 2009 at 9:23 am

  “What’s Up With Gay Men?”

  They’re mentally ill. That, and they’re selling out the next generation of gays by being overly confrontational; while that may lead to short term perceived benefits for today’s gays, it’s tommorrow’ who will bear the backlash that is inevitable.

  The older I get, the more I loathe homosexuals. Because of the buttsecks? No, because of the rudeness, the obnoxiousness, the flamboyancy, the childishness, the astonishing deceit, and, not least of all, the politics. I now understand exactly why Hitler rounded them up – they were indistinguishable from bolsheviks and were actively seeking to destabilize Germany. What is happening in America and other developed nations is Weimar Republic v2.0

  Worked with gay men lately? Very different than they were 20 years ago, much more in your face, much more politicized.

• 9 Cold North Wind // Sep 21, 2009 at 9:25 am

  “I guess what I’d like to know is why gay men think it’s a good idea to join up with the feminist camp in the assault on men and fatherhood. ”

  It’s the fundamental equation of modern democracy: brown people, women, and homosexualists gang up on straight white males in elections to steal their wealth and make their lives miserable. They, and pretty much everyone else, does what the media tells them to do. If the media told gays to align with Nazis they’d probably do that too.

• 10 miles // Sep 22, 2009 at 3:12 am

  The media/educatocracy has men (especially straight white ones) “FRAMED” as the “oppressor” of everyone else. To side with men is going to be viewed as reactionary, and its always easy to be “cool” by opposing whatever straight men propose.

  This lesbian’s “bio-dad”, if not in arrears with his child support payments, should continue legally to have court-ordered time and access to his son. The child is going to end up hating the mother whether she knows it or not. Being a lesbian is psychologically a rejection of the son as a male. There is no way around that. If all women were like “mom”, and turned their nose up at “me” to consort sexually with other women, he would be struggling socio-sexually in adolescence and young-adulthood even more. He will resent her and despise her in his adulthood. She will be lucky to see him much past his late 20’s.

• 11 B.B. // Sep 22, 2009 at 3:57 am

  Justin says:
  Homosexuality itself was taken off the list of mental illnesses due to political presurres

  I hear this often, but it is entirely baseless. In 1973 the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and the decision was ratified by a majority vote by the general membership of the American Psychiatric Association with some 58% approving of the decision. The reason homosexuality is not considered a mental illness is because a majority of psychiatrists don’t think homosexuality is a mental illness.

• 12 Professor Hale // Sep 22, 2009 at 5:49 am

  The reason homosexuality is not considered a mental illness is because a majority of psychiatrists don’t think homosexuality is a mental illness.

  This explanation is not inconsistent with the political pressure explanation. You have described the mechanics for how it was done, and politics is the reason why.

  If only other disorders could be erased by majority vote, we could cure cancer overnight.

  What’s Up With Gay Men?

  They are fags.

  …trashy lesbians met a couple of gay men and were complaining about how difficult it was to kick the “bio-dad” out of one of the lesbian’s son’s life

  Makes me wonder about the backstory. Was the bio-dad really a loser? Was he one of those guys who did a Lesbian chick a favor to help her have a baby without the expense of invitro? Was he paying court ordered child support? Was he previously romantically tied to the Lesbo and she switched sides? So many questions.

• 13 Man // Sep 22, 2009 at 5:42 pm

  Feminists in actuality care nothing for gay and lesbians or their sexuality. What they find is something in common with them, namely people who do not benefit from the core societal foundation and construct.

  What brings gays and feminists together is the common end toward the abolishment of a society founded on the greater good or common perogative i.e. normal sexuality, normal family structure, normal conception processes etc.

  Feminism wants no societal construct, no norm, no foundation, no gender with no associated sexuality, no class structures, no free market and certainly no competition.

  They find in gays and transgender people an excuse and an ally to further the androgynous marxist ideal.

• 14 Savvy // Sep 23, 2009 at 1:40 am

  There are some who are decent, kind people but on the whole, I’m so over hanging out with the gays. The women want me to BE a lesbian, the men want to tell me about their exploits. I don’t want to hear it either way. Ew!!

• 15 whiskey // Sep 23, 2009 at 2:31 am

  Women LOVE Gays. Particularly, straight women LOVE gays. Look at my latest post (about the “sorta gay” NEA and Obama elites). It has a link to the Salon TV critic who expresses her love for gays.

  Basically, she says that Gay Men have all the good qualities of Beta Men with none of the bad, and are hip and cool besides. Gay men never wear unfashionable clothes, never hassle her for sex, never ogle her, always are “non-average White guy” which is viewed as “evil, racist, and boring” by most women, and are perceived as “cool.”

  Far better than a boring, straight and nerdy White engineer.

  The woman, Heather Hravilesky, talks about how San Francisco was “heaven” and how much she loved the gays there. Most women, if they could turn all the Beta White guys, would do so instantly. Women love gays.

  Also, women love talking about various sexual taboos and find the ickier things the better. Men prefer not to think about them, women LOVE to talk about them. Hence the tell-all books about icky sexual stuff, etc. Readership of women.

• 16 B.B. // Sep 23, 2009 at 5:31 am

  Professor Hale says:
  This explanation is not inconsistent with the political pressure explanation. You have described the mechanics for how it was done, and politics is the reason why.

  No, it is completely inconsistent with the political pressure explanation. Homosexual picketers might of been a pain in the ass for the few psychiatrists that worked at the APA, but it had no effect on the lives of the thousands of members who ratified the decision to take homosexuality off of the DSM. The most parsimonious explanation of why psychiatrists wanted homosexuality off of the DSM was because most psychiatrists by the early 1970’s were of a liberal political inclination, and therefore wholeheartedly believed in the whole “gay rights” cause.

  Professor Hale says:
  If only other disorders could be erased by majority vote, we could cure cancer overnight.

  There is both a descriptive and prescriptive aspects to fields such as medicine and psychiatry. With differing normative values comes different interpretations of what constitutes a “disorder”, since there is no scientific justification for the innate goodness of certain preferences. It is easier to attach positive, negative or neutral normative value to some things rather than others. Cancer is more universally considered non-preferable because of its immediate negative effects on quality and of longevity of life, but the innate consequences of homosexuality are more ambiguous and therefore it is harder to classify whether it is a “disorder”.

• 17 Belgian // Sep 23, 2009 at 8:31 am

  As recently as 2006 a Pentagon memo described homosexuality as a mental disorder.

  Pentagon memo

  Worked with gay men lately? Very different than they were 20 years ago, much more in your face, much more politicized.

  I worked with three different homosexuals in the early and late 1990s in two different countries. I didn’t find them all that political. They were generally OK but they could be hateful toward people who seemed otherwise harmless, particularly unfashionably dressed, unpowerful men.

• 18 Belgian // Sep 23, 2009 at 8:42 am

  Until about 20 years ago the Belgian armed forces considered homosexuality a mental disorder. I believe the French were the same. In 2005 an Italian court ruled that a homosexual soldier’s behaviour was due also due to a mental disorder. (He even had his drivers licence taken away0. I think a year or so later the EU ordered the Italian government to pay a fine due to discrimination.

  In all cases it was politics that led to it no longer being considered a disorder.

• 19 novaseeker // Sep 23, 2009 at 8:53 am

  Basically, she says that Gay Men have all the good qualities of Beta Men with none of the bad, and are hip and cool besides. Gay men never wear unfashionable clothes, never hassle her for sex, never ogle her, always are “non-average White guy” which is viewed as “evil, racist, and boring” by most women, and are perceived as “cool.”

  Far better than a boring, straight and nerdy White engineer.

  The woman, Heather Hravilesky, talks about how San Francisco was “heaven” and how much she loved the gays there. Most women, if they could turn all the Beta White guys, would do so instantly. Women love gays.

  I would limit this to the urbane sophisticate type of woman, really. For that demo, I would say, yes, there’s a lot of fag-hag-ism going on.

  Note something else that Hravilesky says: the gay men around her in the Castro are all “beautiful, fit, talkative” — in other words, perfect non-sexual companions. Non-sexual, you say? Why then noting the beauty? Because, as a female friend pointed out to me not too long ago, women can and do appraise men on physical beauty as a matter of aesthetics — it isn’t a sexual appraisal. In other words, a woman can (and does) find handsome men aesthetically pleasing, but this does not, in itself, mean they are sexually attracted to them (something very foreign to male patterns of attraction that we are used to). But, even if not sexually attracted, it’s nice, aesthetically, to be around handsome men, just as there is aesthetic satisfaction from being around nice things, nice interior design, clothing and so on. So she notes the fact that these gay men are beautiful and fit precisely because this adds to their aesthetic pleasantness for her — on balance, she’d much rather chat with talkative, aesthetically pleasing gay guys that she has no sexual interest in than she would with unaesthetically pleasing straight guys whom she has no sexual interest in. That’s why you see the odd focus on “beautiful” and “fit” being used in a way that is divorced from sexual attraction — that is an equation that simply does not compute for a male (beauty = sexual attraction, 100% of the time, regardless of what you do about that attraction), but it typifies the way that women can (and do, as in the case here) compartmentalize beauty from attraction.

• 20 Justin // Sep 23, 2009 at 10:46 am

  Nova, are you personally that shallow about beauty equaling sexuality? I appreciate the beauty of beautiful girls all the time, without finding them sexually attractive. Conversely, I find many women sexually attractive without finding them beautiful at all.

  I think equating beauty and sexual attractiveness is a form of pro-Game brainwashing. I’m just wondering if you, on the personal level, honestly do not, in your own psychology, see a distinction between beauty and sexuality.

• 21 Female Misogynist // Sep 23, 2009 at 3:44 pm

  As a lesbian and a misogynist, I want to say that I’m appalled at this but not surprised.

  Since Marcuse, leftists have exploited homosexuals by promising us tolerance in exchange for our help in attacking tradition and the status quo. I have no doubt they’ll throw us under the bus as soon as they don’t think they need us anymore, but in the meantime, a lot of us have fallen for it.

• 22 Savvy // Sep 23, 2009 at 6:25 pm

  Whiskey, whoever that was who said Gays had all of the good and none of the bad, never REALLY hung out with them. When I lived in NYC, a girl working with me said she got checked out MORE in the gay area (Chelsea) than anywhere else.

  We don’t all love them.

  One of the reasons why I left a church singing gig wa because the choir director would say inapproriate sexual comments while we were preparing for WORSHIP. I decided that if I wouldn’t put up with that from a straight man, that I shouldn’t put up with that from a gay man either.

• 23 Savvy // Sep 23, 2009 at 6:26 pm

  Novaseeker–not all gay men are good looking. That’s another myth from TVland. How do *I* know? I’ve been in the arts for many years. I even worked for an aids organization for a short time.

• 24 Savvy // Sep 23, 2009 at 6:28 pm

  Lastly, please send me a nice, nerdy, white engineer with good table manners and who goes to church and attends to personal grooming habits. There have been a few that came close, but were missing one of those key elements. Let me restate this in Klingon if it helps…

  Thank you.

• 25 novaseeker // Sep 24, 2009 at 3:41 am

  Nova, are you personally that shallow about beauty equaling sexuality? I appreciate the beauty of beautiful girls all the time, without finding them sexually attractive. Conversely, I find many women sexually attractive without finding them beautiful at all.

  I think equating beauty and sexual attractiveness is a form of pro-Game brainwashing. I’m just wondering if you, on the personal level, honestly do not, in your own psychology, see a distinction between beauty and sexuality.
  

  I have never seen a woman I considered beautiful whom I did not also consider sexually attractive. I don’t see that as “shallow”, I see it as being a male human being. That does not mean (1) I would act on the attraction or (2) I would be interested in dating/mating/marrying such person. But neither of those has anything to do with underlying “raw” attraction. And for me at least it has nothing to do with Game at all — been that way long, long before Game.

  However, I do not mean to say that “I only find really beautiful women sexually attractive”. Not at all. But, as I say, I have not met one truly beautiful woman to whom I was not, at least initially, sexually attracted. That attraction can be “spoiled” in numerous ways, especially from mannerisms, attitude and so on. But the initial attraction … yep, it’s there.

  not all gay men are good looking

  I know. I was responding to the post quoted in Whiskey’s post where the woman living in the Castro said that all the men around her were good looking. Hyperbole, sure, but I was reacting to what she said.

• 26 Landon // Sep 27, 2009 at 2:51 pm

  The child will be fine with two lesbian moms. Heterosexuals believe parenting is like being a puppet master. It isn’t. The child will grow up to be health and well-adjusted. The implicit assumption heterosexual males have is that a lesbian, let alone a feminist lesbian, would crush a male’s manhood and turn him into a sissy or a criminal. It’s totally false. Males raised by lesbians get into less trouble and are more likely to go to college than those raised by heterosexuals.

• 27 Welmer // Sep 27, 2009 at 2:59 pm

  Whether or not that’s the case, is it morally justifiable to arbitrarily separate a child from his father?

• 28 B.B. // Sep 28, 2009 at 10:31 am

  Welmer says:
  Whether or not that’s the case, is it morally justifiable to arbitrarily separate a child from his father?

  My outlook is utilitarian. If there is no harm done, it is not immoral.

• 29 Bob // Sep 29, 2009 at 6:25 am

  “The child will be fine with two lesbian moms.”

  I don’t call being separated from one of its birth parents fine.

  “The implicit assumption heterosexual males have is that a lesbian, let alone a feminist lesbian, would crush a male’s manhood and turn him into a sissy or a criminal.”

  Females do not know how to raise males to be men, the only model of behavior that they can impart is the female model,which is of less than no use for navigating through male society as a man.

  Knowing how to sit still,be quiet, and dress well will not keep you from getting mugged,killed, or teach you how to stop the same from happening to a loved one. A female cannot teach a man honor,courage, or selflessness.

  The right kind of woman can,however, inspire certain kinds of men to those things.

  I personally believe that it takes a man to teach a man to be a man.

• 30 Feminists are using Homosexuality as segregation whether homosexuals approve of it or not // Oct 1, 2009 at 10:15 pm

  Nothing against homosexuals but homosexuality can turn pretty segregative and can actually seperate the genders

  Feminists HATE Men & Women TOGETHER
  They HATE it

  What is the BEST method to seperate them ? Homosexuality

  Especially if you are a homosexual reading this look out … the feminists are using your sexuality whether you like it or not

  ‘ My outlook is utilitarian. If there is no harm done, it is not immoral. ‘

  How do you define ‘ harm ‘ ? When do you know that ‘ harm ‘ is being done ?

  This is a bad worldview
  I personally don’t like homosexuality but come on now …

  Feminism wants to destroy Humanity
  The unity between Men & Women

  And while many homosexuals may not despise the opposite sex guess what ? Homosexuality can turn into a nasty , hateful and segregative tool

  Also see all those ‘anal sluts’ in porn ? It is a form of submission toward liberalism and most of all gay men

  I don’t hate gay men but sadly gay men are now ” patriarchs ” … gay marriage & feminism is being used as a form of hatred and seperation between the genders

  Wake up people

• 31 Feminists are using Homosexuality as segregation whether homosexuals approve of it or not // Oct 1, 2009 at 10:21 pm

  Stop attacking motherhood
  Stop attacking fatherhood

  Biological Father & Mother please
  Nothing more , nothing less

  No to gay adoption or gay marriage
  Sorry homosexuals but you are blind to feminists
  BLIND

  They want to destroy the unity between the genders and I will not let it happen

  If you are standing in the way and scream ‘ Homophobia ! ‘ then I do not give a SHIT

  Open your eyes

• 32 DN // Oct 5, 2009 at 2:10 pm

  Lastly, please send me a nice, nerdy, white engineer with good table manners and who goes to church and attends to personal grooming habits. There have been a few that came close, but were missing one of those key elements. Let me restate this in Klingon if it helps…

  Thank you.

• 33 Curiepoint // Oct 7, 2009 at 2:17 pm

  I think it more appropriate to ask “What’s with the women who do love gay men?”

  My own personal thought is that they love gay men because having a gay male friend is akin to having a pet man. As with any pet ownership, there’s affection, gratitude, and a subconscious certainty that one definitely holds an alpha position in the dynamic. There’s no pressure to be physically affectionate so there’s no mess or bother with all those complications that arise out of romantic entanglements.

  What I don’t understand is why these same women have an inclination to seek counsel from a gay man as to what men in general want, or how to make themselves more appealling to the so-called “winner” men. As if these guys understand hetero dynamics. If they do, it’s almost certainly on an academic level.

  I suppose it’s also just possible to like a gay man the way one likes anybody else. I just can’t shake the feeling that there’s a deeper underpinning to it.

• 34 Realist // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:05 pm

  Yes, Oscar Wilde, champion of men & they put him on trial 3 times, charged with 25 acts of gross indecency & put him in prison for 2 years, That’s what he got for that! Jesus, do you people read??
  Here’s a snippet for you:
  “The Wilde trials caused public attitudes toward homosexuals to become harsher and less tolerant. Whereas prior to the trials there was a certain pity for those who engaged in same-sex passion, after the trials homosexuals were seen more as a threat. The Wilde trials had other effects as well. They caused caused the public to begin to associate art and homo eroticism and to see effeminacy as a signal for homosexuality. Many same sex relationships seen as innocent before the Wilde trials became suspect after the trials. People with close same sex relationships grew anxious, concerned about doing anything that might suggest impropriety.”

• 35 WIFE // Jan 2, 2010 at 9:35 pm

  “I’d be willing to bet good money that a gay son raised in the company of a loving, straight father will turn out much better adjusted and prepared to face the world than one who is raised by a bitter, single feminist mother. ”

  Would you also be willing to bet good money that, ” a gay son raised in the company of a loving, straight MOTHER will turn out much better adjust and prepared to face the world than one who is raised by a bitter, single, MASCULINIST FATHER”????

• 36 Chris // Jan 3, 2010 at 7:21 pm

  So many ignorant posters here, it’s actually painful to read.

  Firstly, you base your whole article on two particular gay men, and probably stereotypes that you have in mind of others. You pretend as if gay men have some plan to separate children from their biological parents, or fathers more specifically. Do you really think gays have some agenda to steal children away from straight fathers? Open YOUR eyes. The majority of families are, and always will be traditional ones with heterosexual parents. Gays are not looking to change this, and couldn’t even if they wanted to. You wonder if the father being discussed really was all that bad? Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn’t. Just because you can’t corroborate their story doesn’t make it false. Point is, this whole article was a major overreaction and a gross generalization. If you are really intimidated by gay men, maybe it is some insecurity on your part and not contempt on homosexuals’.

  As for the claim that homosexuality is a mental illness or caused by sexual abuse – do you have access to the life stories of every homosexual born? It’s funny how people will claim something like this with no basis for it. Yes, a lot of gay people do face depression and mental unrest in their life. This is more likely because of the kind of comments seen here, though, that label them as subhuman freaks before they even have a chance to prove themselves as valuable citizens. Same reasoning goes for those who think homosexuality is a choice (and, at that, to get sex easier?! Hilarious! So when you’re in the mood and can’t find a willing woman, you’re telling me you’d have sex with a man?). Do you really think the gay teens who commit suicide chose a sexuality that came with the path of deprecation that led them to kill themselves?

  Great that some of you mention that all gays have a victim complex. Even greater when considering how many straight, white men on here are bemoaning the constant attacks on straight, white men. Have you considered that a homosexual couple wanting to marry or raise a child in no way undermines heterosexual couples doing so? If you believe it does, then maybe you should reevaluate the strength of your marriages or your parenting abilities. Gays are just trying to acquire the benefits and privileges that heterosexuals get. Labeling this as “playing the victim” or as a threat to the majority is really making light of civil rights.

  Meanwhile you have a poster advocating a holocaust for homosexuals. I would think that agreeing with Hitler is a bigger sign of mental illness than being attracted to the same sex.

  I’d suggest that you resist the temptation to generalize any group as you’ve done here. It’s clear that you don’t appreciate generalizations – lots of posters have pointed out their frustrations with what they perceive as a blanket label of “oppressor” on straight, white men. Of course, to say heterosexual, white males as a group are anything but heterosexual, white males is unrealistic. But try to recognize that this doesn’t just apply to majorities. Just because gays are a minority doesn’t mean you can lump them into categories. Calling gays “feminists,” “enemies of the typical straight guy,” or claiming that they are leading an “assault on men and fatherhood” is completely ludicrous and has solicited some pretty disgusting responses.

• 37 Nick // Jan 12, 2010 at 3:05 pm

  So unless I am misreading, Welmer’s expressing concern that two lesbians are trying to raise their own child. I see no problem with this. Patently, the women just want to actually have their own without the biological parent. And so what? This to me is analogous to gay adoption. If two men are entitled to raise adopted children, it is not an ethical leap to say that two women are entitled to do so.

• 38 Welmer // Jan 12, 2010 at 3:09 pm

  Yes Nick, you are misreading.

Leave a Comment