Cheat Sheet

I was one of the 1% on the 33rd floor..

Unless they want to live with someone and get equal rights or adopt. Then you REALLY care what happens in the bedroom... right?

That is the dumbest thing I've heard you say disorder.

Great, demsdisorder supports gay marriage!

>> gak001, when I read your post i wasn't sure if you were replying to my post. After reading the article, I'm simply stating why I believe support is waning for same-sex marriage based on what I see. I have no problem with someone's sexuality, I've hired two openly gay workers within my own company. On the racist issue, if you read my post you would have seen that I'm African American and was giving examples on how blacks were able break ground with help of being welcomed into societies homes by way of TV.

2.8% so 3 per 100 people. not 10% but who's counting

Depending on the definition of 'gay', studies vary between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 being gay/lesbian/bisexual.

Demsdisorder -- Your figure is the correct one, of course. The figure of 5 to 10% is sixty years old and based on very bad science. If anyone disagrees with that, ask them to produce the study that says 10%.

Here is a link explaining the disparity in numbers:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

It comes down to how you define 'gay.' Is that someone who is in a gay relationship? Calls themselves gay? Has gay tendencies? Has had a few gay experiences? Thinks they want to be gay but never have been? Someone who likes both sexes?

What is 'gay'?

Well look who it is, Aslanleon is back. Funny how he/she only seems to post at TDB when the subject of homosexuality comes up. Obsessed much...

By the way, as I pointed out before about a week ago to Aslanleon, I'd say the 2-3% statistic on homosexuals is probably correct. But let's not use that as a rationale to marginalize the homosexual population, shall we? Afterall the Jewish population in the United States is a little over 2%...

It doesn't matter what the percentage is. It still makes demsdisorder and assloin a couple of homophobes.

I see the problem with the figures you posit, and you and I agree on the difficulty of obtaining real figures. As you quite properly put it, what is gay? The poll which asks how many people you think might be gay is fairly meaningless. Self-identification is more accurate, but also has problems. My definition of homosexual is someone who engages in homosexual activity in some given period, say a given year. That puts homosexuality at approximately 2.5% for men and 1.5% for women. Other criteria yield different results. When anyone names a figure, it can be 'true' depending on what their definition is.

Lizard Lad-- It would be more accurate to state that I show up for Republican, abortion, Christian, and pro gay articles, and a few others. The fact that you only see me at the pro gay blogs tells us where you show up, not where I do.

@Aslanleon

Ah, now with the juvenile name-calling. You're just oh-so-mature, aren't you? I have taken note how much you like to lecture others for this sort of thing. I'm not all surprised to see that hypocrisy is another of your traits, on top of everything else I've managed to glean from your multitude of posts on the threads involving homosexuality.

As for where I show up, first of all, if you bother to look around articles dealing with non-homosexual topics you'd notice that I post on threads covering a variety of subjects on a regular basis. My most recent were articles about the cost of the war in Afghanistan, George Bush and his flip-flopping "free market instincts", RNC plans covering abortion, "Black Jails" in China, President Obama rejecting current options on Afghan war, Lou Dobbs leaving CNN, AIG CEO threatening to quit, Rubert Murdoch threatening Google, Tea Party protesters at the Capital, and Republican Dede Scozzafava discussing her getting dissed by conservatives.

Funny thing, I don't recall seeing you posting at any of them.

Secondly, yes I have a tendency to post on articles that deal with homosexuality and gay rights, I do this because as a homosexual I ACTUALLY have a very direct stake in the issue... In your case it seems a more prurient interest.

Lizard Lad-- Name calling? Do you mean calling you lizard lad? That's complimentary. I note that you began this conversation by calling me 'obsessed.' That, of course, couldn't possibly be considered name calling. As for your keen perceptions, another poster complained that I posted fifty out of 250 posts on the RNC covering abortion thread. Perhaps you missed that.

If you start out a conversation by calling a person obsessed, you probably shouldn't count on pleasantries and politeness. As for prurient interest, that is the same tired old gay bashing that homosexuals do so well. They imagine that by calling someone a closet gay they have scored a point when they have only underlined mine-- that homosexuality is a form of immaturity. After all, I've never called you a closet heterosexual. It would be rude and untrue. Come to think of it, I've never heard someone who disapproves of the gay agenda calling a gay a closet heterosexual. I guess bizarre accusations of being of the opposite orientation is a gay thing.

@Aslanleon:
~"Lizard Lad-- Name calling? Do you mean calling you lizard lad? That's complimentary."~

Oh, sure, now I can't imagine why it hadn't occurred to me before that deliberately mocking someone's username with a condescending substitute was meant as a "compliment". In that case I suppose you could take my observation that you seem obsessed with the subject of homosexuality as a compliment as well.

And, no, strange though YOU might find it, assessing someone as being obsessed with a topic would not legitimately be considered "name calling". Certainly not an amicable thing to say about a person, no, but I really think it accurately describes the peculiarly focused interest you take in this subject.

I also notice that you are sensitive about the accusation. Which brings me to your next comment.

~"As for prurient interest, that is the same tired old gay bashing that homosexuals do so well. They imagine that by calling someone a closet gay they have scored a point when they have only underlined mine-- that homosexuality is a form of immaturity."~

First of all, I did not accuse you of being a closet homosexual, though I have noticed that others have and you are often quite defensive about it when they do. Understandably enough, I suppose.

As I recall, most of those who did so to you (and that I've seen elsewhere) are heterosexual, too, so I guess that means, by your logic, that heterosexuality is inherently immature.

By the way, I do not think referring to someone as being a closet homosexual as an insult is mature. But, then I think those who do so are not trying to suggest that by secretly being a homosexual one is therefore a bad person, but rather, they are suggesting that there is something profoundly dysfunctional in a person who is fixated with or overly critical of a behavior or trait which they themselves engage in or posses - particularly when this is something they are also in denial of.

Cognitive dissonance comes to mind.

~"After all, what is a sadist but someone who makes a masochist very, very happy?"~

You posted that last week, as I recall. It's less amusing each time.

As for the S&M groups not getting their own parade. Au contraire. Apparently you need to get out more. Such a thing is not my cup of tea, but there are entire nightclubs dedicated to such interests, many "pride" parades are open to various "lifestyles", not merely sexual orientations, and Southern Decadence is a very wild annual gathering in New Orleans. And no, I wouldn't be caught dead there.

So, no hate mongering or phobias other than from people like you.

"It's less amusing each time." I think it gets better and better. The point of that post is that there are many sexual and social deviancies. As is proper in a free society, they are tolerated in a basically Western European Judeo-Christian society such as ours as long as they are not socially destructive . The freedom we all enjoy rests on a Christian base. What the gay activists want is acceptance and parity. This has nothing to do with toleration and everything to do with demanding respect for what most people consider a less than desirable life style.

The immaturity of the proponents of this life style is indicated in many ways, but one of the most telling is their behavior on these threads. They refuse to deal with the actual thoughts, beliefs, and feelings of people who feel otherwise, but go straight to the name calling. This does not produce respect, but amused contempt. I will respect anyone who respects me. That doesn't happen much here. And thus my point is made.

~Aslanleon wrote: "As is proper in a free society, they are tolerated in a basically Western European Judeo-Christian society such as ours as long as they are not socially destructive ."~

I can go along with that. Which is why, considering that same-sex relationships and homosexual orientation is not inherently socially destructive, you should be less critical of it, less determined to get society to demonize it, and certainly less obsessed with trying to get the legal system to discriminate against it and those who possess a homosexual orientation.

~Aslanleon: "The immaturity of the proponents of this life style is indicated in many ways, but one of the most telling is their behavior on these threads."~

Ah yes, that again. You are forever trying to use individual incidents as a justification for your sweeping generalizations and to rationalize why both society and the law should reject any tolerance of homosexuality or homosexuals.

One very serious flaw in your rationalization, however, is the fact that the same can be applied to those who advocate the anti-homosexual agenda.

What does it say for your ilk and your argument that derogatory remarks, personal insults, and even hateful language are often hurled at homosexuals and proponents of equality for gays?

Is it somehow our fault when your side reacts this way, kind of like when I assess that you are obsessed with this topic that this gives you an excuse to childishly butcher my username?

~Aslanleon wrote: "They refuse to deal with the actual thoughts, beliefs, and feelings of people who feel otherwise, but go straight to the name calling. This does not produce respect, but amused contempt."~

Ditto.

What he means is "acting swishy"...the overly affected speech-patterns, eye-rolling/drama-queen, theater, fashion, home-design, etc. that has become a stereotype in media.

Some of my gay male friends do indeed act "swishy" and don't apologize for it. Many more do NOT act this way, and are very frustrated by how difficult it is to find a (their words) "Average Joe" to settle down with.

Gay female friends are across the spectrum in appearance. Some are casual/jeans and T's kind of women, others dress to the 9's.

What do you mean by that? I'm not understanding...

define.. dressing like a straight man?

I'm not sure... I'm using your supposed definitions/viewpoints to more easily communicate with you... but having no luck.

Seems to me you don't like anything that acts differently than you do.

dems.... apparently you have the definition of "acting like a gay man"...just use the same logic for defining "acting like a straight man"

BTW... Demsdisorder on this thread is a perfect example of the damage a sexually repressive belief system can do to a person. You don't have to hate yourself buddy. I'm sure no one has told you this, but we will still love you no matter what your sexuality. Let the healing begin.

Thanks SS i guess i need to get in touch with my gay side

What rights don't you have? your not looking for rights your looking for acceptance, and having all gay TV is not the way.

All gay TV? Where?

Just want to point out; most African-Americans don't appreciate our plight being compared to the Gays. Gays plight is due to sexual-orientation while blacks plight was because we were thought to be less than human, not worthy of walking the earth. We were ripped from our home-land, thrown into slavery, stripped of our culture and religion, torn from families and so on. This pails in comparison to someones plight due to sexual orientation. Our color is our sin and we couldn't escape it by hiding in the closet.

Demsdisorder, I don't have the right to marry someone I've been with for more than 20 years, don't have the right to see him in the ER, don't have the right to inheritance from our life together should something happen to him, and much more than that. If you have a problem watching gays depicted as part of real life, then maybe living in the real world might help. Your discomfort is something else you might want to ponder. To me, its just another case of "the lady doth protest too much".

UnseakydevilU-
The Civil Rights movement included all. Gays, women, African-Americans and any other citizen who is not protected by the Constitution. Your lack of appreciation for others who are enduring the same plight AA's did (until people like me marched and made a racket to change that) is unfortunate. Do you really think that the ERA need apply only to AA's? That's preposterous, and just downright ignorant.

We ALL deserve equal rights, and oppression is oppression, regardless of color.

>> RegisteredIndependent, You may want to try to examine and appreciate others individual struggles; it seems you want to paint it all one color when there is an array unique path to a destination. Just as Jews own their plight, Native Americans own theirs; Blacks and Gays separately own our respective plights. Blacks just as Jews, Native American and etc. want claim to the blood lost while emerging from oppression, sharing it only minimizes our toil. I'm sorry but I'm selfish to this matter. My grandfather was lynched in Texas, and once being involved in the 'Black Power Movement' I lived it on a daily basis, I couldn't fight and then go home to the comfort of a safe community.

You seem to be a bit insensitive to think you can take one groups labor and give it to another. You are either choosing to forget or omit 'Black' out of Black History. The Civil Rights Acts of 1875 and 1964 were put forward to protect Blacks from discrimination due to wrongs set upon us, that's it. The 1968 act expanded on previous acts and prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, and as of 1974, sex; as of 1988, the act protects the handicapped and families with children.

I assuming it's the 60's Civil Rights Movement you marched in and if so you are being ignorant to say you marched for Gay rights. When Rev. Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." and also, "...where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers." Nowhere in his speech were Gays mentioned, JFK pointed out regarding the Civil Rights Act that: "The Negro baby born in America today, regardless of the section of the nation in which he is born, has about one-half as much chance of completing high school as a white baby born in the same place on the same day." No mention of gays. I'm fine with sharing the spoils, but give credit where credit is due for gaining them! Equal rights for all but cherish our different paths to equality.

One can list a variety of persons or lifestyles that are parodied and stereotyped on television, the difference with homosexuals is that nearly every character or celeb personality is a parody and/or stereotype. Not so of most other segments of the population.

A homosexual character conveying a positive image, leading a healthy lifestyle, being a person that could be taken seriously is far too rare and it seems quite deliberate. And that, is, afterall, the point which continues to elude you.

The point that continually eludes you is that this even more marked with the Hollywood take on others. The villain is always the religious person, the businessman, or the ex-military guy with the crew cut. I walked into a room where a mystery show was playing for three minutes a few years back and said, "That's the murderer." At the end of the show, one of the TV watchers chided me for having seen the show before and giving away the end. I told him I had never seen the show, but when a male character is shown praying, he's usually the murderer. I didn't even watch the show long enough to know there was a murderer. Now, when was the last time when the gay guy was the murderer instead of the religious 'fanatic?' When was the evil conspirator a homosexual and not a businessman? Every group on TV is a caricature, which is why I don't watch it. Expecting that it would be otherwise is not realistic. And thinking Hollywood is homophobic is purely delusional.

DragonScorpion
Aslanleon has been on every thread where he thinks he sees a sick opportunity to control others, and actually believes he can persuade first, posters here, and then it is on to the electoral process where he and his ilk actually believe they are going to affect this country with their fundamentalism. He is a troll from an ultra conservative site, and doesn't deserve the time of day or night, but stick it to him/her anyway and enjoy doing it.

cb -- Nice to see you. I see you are still never ever even touching upon the subject at hand but going straight to the immature insults. Why not try, just once, disagreeing with what someone says with some well thought out, rational reasons why they have the wrong take on things? It improves the intellectual tone and general civility of a conversation immensely.

Well I don't know if I've ever seen a pro-life person on a sit com, but your point is similar to mine, television is filled with stereotypes.

~Aslanleon asks: "Now, when was the last time when the gay guy was the murderer instead of the religious 'fanatic?'"~

The Punisher
Recent episode of Bones ("A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood," though one of the murderers was a churchgoing lady, the other was a homosexual)
Stewie from Family Guy (a not-so-ambiguously gay baby with a matricide complex who has killed in several episodes)
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
Crusing
Pyscho (while not blatantly depicted as homosexual, it is implied)
The Rocky Horror Picture Show (a comedy and a musical, but I just couldn't resist)

And this is off the top of my head, out of a rather small minority of movies which actually feature homosexuals as a main character.

~Aslanleon: "Every group on TV is a caricature, which is why I don't watch it. Expecting that it would be otherwise is not realistic. And thinking Hollywood is homophobic is purely delusional."~

Again you (deliberately, I suspect) miss the point. All these groups of which you speak also have positive images in media, in movies. But this is rare in the case of homosexuals. But then that's just how you want it, so, naturally, you don't see the problem.

Of course, it is also worth mentioning that these groups that you mention are also not institutionally marginalized by society and arbitrarily denied such things as employment, housing or marital rights & privileges without due process.

Also, I'm not aware of anyone who is suggesting that Hollywood is homophobic, only that the image they are portraying is predominately negative. Their reason for this is because it sells. It's what our heteronormative society wants to see. Just as a largely racist society wanted minstrel shows, at one time.

@cbeenthere
I know the type all too well. I've had lots of experience with them over the years. In fact, this Aslanleon reminds me so much like an irascible old curmudgeon I used to debate on a local forum. In fact, the similarity is uncanny. The same exact arguments, the same insinuations, the character assassinations, baiting insults from others whilst using these as justifications for demonizing homosexuals and proponents of gay rights, the same claims to have rational reasons for not trusting homosexuals but failing to produce them, the same defensiveness about religion, the same driving obsession that would lead to dozens upon dozens of comments on threads dealing with the subject. And the most bizarre thing is that how he/she does all of this is almost verbatim...

Of course, lest I get wrongly accused again, I'm not suggesting that Aslanleon is the same blogger. Not at all. There are details he/she has revealed which don't fit, and that blogger probably doesn't even know this site exists. Besides, the rhetoric from Aslan would have been much more hostile from the very beginning as he most certainly would have recognized my username.

As for enjoying this, I find it is necessary, not enjoyable so much. But I'd be dishonest to not admit that I do take some pleasure in revealing the anti-homosexual agenda at work here.

Television is all stereotypes. The basic plots and characters are pretty much the same since "The Honeymooners." Mom is smart, Dad is dim, heroes are vaguely liberal (but not too liberal) and villains are usually evil businessmen, and so on. Cops are either disillusioned or corrupt. Religious people are either gullible or evil. And gay people, now that they appear, are swishy, sardonic, and smart. All mindless cliches.

Just how would you tell if a character was gay or not if there wasn't some stereotyping going on? If my car mechanic told me he was gay I would be both bored and mystified. Why would that come up in a conversation about Jeep parts and why would I care? It doesn't seem to me that a person's sexual proclivities are really that interesting or any of my business unless they choose to make it so. If they ask my opinion of it or demand my approval for it they have made it my business whether I want it to be or not.

Perhaps a certain percentage of the characters in any television show should be arbitrarily considered to be homosexual regardless of whether they made any public declaration about it or were shown in whatever personal relationships they had. That's the reality of everyday life--- don't know, don't care, and why are you interested in making it my business?

Wow, never mind, I disagree with you now. You are getting a little insecure towards the end there.

Nope, just tired. Pro gay activists are always accusing those who don't want gay marriage of hatred and fear. Bored and bemused would be closer to the mark. We will care about what you do only if you make it our business. That's true of most things in life. Furthermore, if a person's sex life is the most defining and interesting thing about him/her, he's probably pretty vapid.

"We will care about what you do only if you make it our business."

The problem that people like me have with that statement is that your definition of "making it your business" about being gay is much more loose than your definition for straights. According to you, anyone who is not straight must completely conceal everything about their sexuality, their love interests, and the stresses and struggles they feel on a daily basis from being gay in a sometimes oppressive society. You can not be friends or even close acquaintances with anyone without things like that sometimes popping into discussion.

The truth is you are simply uncomfortable with that. You are childish.

~AslanLeon wrote: "Just how would you tell if a character was gay or not if there wasn't some stereotyping going on? If my car mechanic told me he was gay I would be both bored and mystified. Why would that come up in a conversation about Jeep parts and why would I care?"~

Why would being Jewish come up in such a situation? It normally wouldn't, yet we still have Jewish characters in TV shows. Most of the time it is a non-issue, irrelevant. At other times it is quite relevant. Naturally, as in REAL LIFE, the two tend to overlap...

For example, a show could have a Jewish, or even a homosexual Jew, mechanic. While he's working on the car, neither is likely to be apparent. When he's taking your money it probably doesn't come up either. During the scenes with his co-workers, it might come up that the guy goes to Synagogue and has a boyfriend. During scenes at home, a lot of personal situations are likely to come up. As a viewer, of course, one has the knowledge of personal elements of the characters, and this exists at all times of the show, even in those times when you would otherwise be "bored and mystified" by having knowledge of it...

~Aslanleon wrote: "It doesn't seem to me that a person's sexual proclivities are really that interesting or any of my business unless they choose to make it so. If they ask my opinion of it or demand my approval for it they have made it my business whether I want it to be or not."~

I, frankly, don't give a damn what you think of me or the entirety of homosexuals. But I do care about when others perpetuate negative stereotypes about people like myself, just like as you do in regards to Christians, conservatives, and apparently businessmen. I do care about dispelling sweeping generalizations and myths propagated by people like yourself. And so I challenge these erroneous claims and insulting implications.

Furthermore, in my daily life I no more make my "sexual proclivities" the business of others than heterosexuals make theirs mine. That's what people like yourself often fail to grasp, that just being in relationships, showing any form of romantic affection no matter how subtle, publicly showing a picture of your partner can all be construed as being 'in your face', but in reality it is not. At least, it certainly isn't considered so when heterosexuals do it. But it often is considered so if the subjects in question are the same sex.

As for demands, I demand that my government treat myself and those I care about with equal protection under the law. Stay out of my business, I'll stay out of yours. If you can't do that, then we're going to have problems. And, well, here we are.

If you use the voting booth to keep homosexuals from having equal protection of the law or even going so far as to remove established rights for homosexuals, as has now happened in California and Maine, then you're getting into our business.