2009.10.26
William & Mary's transgendered homecoming queen
Congratulations to Jessee Vasold, William and Mary's first transgendered homecoming queen (and first at any Virginia university as far as I know). Congratulations, too, to the student body at one of Virginia's premiere public institutions of higher education for their bold choice.
Vasold identifies as "gender-queer," a catch-all term for those who identify with something other than traditional male or female gender roles.
Perhaps it inspired their football team, who crushed James Madison 24-3.
RSS feed 
This is disgusting. And a disgrace. The RTEB should be ashamed of itself for offering "congratulations" and encouragement to this disturbed person.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 26, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Alas, the Tribe was not the first to do so. A couple of years ago, George Mason broke this ground.
Comment by Mike — October 26, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
I would like to know why "Congratulations" are in order here? My guess is that this individual was elected for comic relief rather than some progressive statement as this blurb suggests.
Comment by Jim — October 26, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
@2 George Mason elected a gay transvestite as homecoming queen. I think this is the first transgendered individual, though. But maybe I'm splitting hairs. Kudos to both schools. We had a post about George Mason at the time.
Comment by C. Trejbal — October 26, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Can anyone explain why this is supposed to be a "good" thing?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 26, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
Well it's a good thing because the person has a solid sense of who they are in a time when many do not.
Comment by catspaw — October 26, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
Hey Glen, this is why they make chocolate AND vanilla ice cream. You don't dig it? Cool. Some care about this. Some people could care less. It is over. Done. Gone. Let's move on.
Comment by Saintbridge — October 26, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
Actually it would seem that this particular individual has no idea who they are; indeed, if there were a picture in the dictionary next to the entry for "confused", this person would be in that picture.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 26, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
Saintbridge:
This is not a matter of a choice among different options. This is a matter of someone engaged in a perverted and disturbed lifestyle, being feted on a public school campus in an official function, and the RTEB thinking it is all so grand!
This is the Left's biggest problem; it has NO standards. And apparently the only thing that offends the Left are those who do maintain standards and possess a sense of morality, dignity and decorum.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 26, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
@9 and of course. Fox News.
Comment by Uptheriver — October 26, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
G, I think your response says more about you and your prejudices than anything else. This person is not trying to tell you or anyone else -- so far as I can tell -- how to live their life, so let them live theirs.
Comment by Saintbridge — October 26, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
Saintbridge:
There is a right and a wrong. And I am very prejudiced against wrong.
Just so we are clear--transgender, transsexual, cross dressing, homosexual, bisexual are all WRONG! Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 26, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
#11 - "This person is not trying to tell you or anyone else -- so far as I can tell -- how to live their life, so let them live theirs."
I'm willing to bet that he/she belong to a group who does.
Comment by Patrick — October 26, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Glen, I am so happy you straightened me out on right and wrong. You have been so blessed to have such a cut and dry gift of knowledge.
I just don't have that gift nor would I want it as you seemed to be so bothered by knowing. Oh and of course you can tell me the Lord tells you these things, well he tells me things too and what he told me does not agree with you.
Comment by Richard — October 26, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
I've always found it ironic that some of the most vocal opponents to certain things are sometimes the most involved in the activities for which they outwardly oppose. To me, I just don't see the big deal with this. This person is being who they are, and the student body at William & Mary voted and wound up supporting him. Perhaps the reason so many folks are outraged over this is that as things like this happen with greater frequency, it shows that younger generations are less inclined to hold onto past prejudices, and therefore, the views held by many of the fanatical right are becoming less relevant as we go forward. Just a thought.
Comment by Other John — October 26, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Other John:
Maybe the younger generation is holding itself to a lesser standard of morality because society is telling it that there is no morality. Or just as bad, that all things are equally good, and that there is no wrong.
It is not normal for a man to want to be a woman and vice versa. And it is certainly not normal or healthy for a man or a woman to take steps to attempt to "transform" himself into the opposite sex. Man cannot improve or redo God's work. It is beyond our ken.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 26, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
OJ... I don't know if peole are letting go of prejudices or urinating all over traditions.
Comment by BUD — October 26, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
this is ridiculous... it is NOT normal..period !
Comment by pammala — October 26, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
Good grief folks, there have been gay people and transgender people through out history for centuries. Do some research into history!!
Comment by catspaw — October 26, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
There have also been all sorts of adulterers, murderers and psychopaths throughout history. Should we celebrate these folks as well?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 26, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
Glen,
The adulterers, murderers and psychopaths all hurt others, and should not be celebrated.
Who has been hurt by Jessee Vasold and those like him? Or by gays and lesbians?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 26, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Society as a whole.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 26, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
Has it occurred to anybody that maybe this was a joke by the student body?
I mean, I remember when I was in high school and a very large and unattractive girl was nominated for homecoming. We all voted for her thinking what a great joke it was because we thought the idea of "homecoming queen" (they didn't have a king in those days) was pretty silly anwyay.
If I remember she was on the homecoming court and we all got a chuckle out of it.
Before I get accused of insensitivity here, I think I was 14 or 15 at the time....
Comment by Bob H — October 26, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
Society as a whole would be lacking some of the greatest music, art and literature, if you think about it, or have any knowledge.
Comment by catspaw — October 26, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
#21 - "Who has been hurt by Jessee Vasold and those like him? Or by gays and lesbians?"
Perhaps those whose religious beliefs tell them it is wrong, yet are being forced to accept it by the government.
Comment by Patrick — October 26, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
@25 - Would those be the same religious beliefs, Patrick, that once said interracial relationships were wrong and against natural law? The religious groups, justices of the peach in Louisiana notwithstanding, have mostly seemed to survived being forced by the government to accept those.
Comment by C. Trejbal — October 26, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
GFK,
Nothing upset your sensibilities more than a story that substantiates the reality of human sexual diversity. What exactly is the relationship between trans gender orientation, adultery, murder and psychopathology?
You seem to spend a whole lot of time visualizing "perversions" in your head. When you meet a heterosexual couple, do you immediately imagine what they might be doing in private? Probably not.
Why celebrate? In my view it's a better culture that accepts the diversity of the human condition. I'm old enough to remember when such people where ostracized and pushed to the fringes of society by assumed connections that you seem to still make in your own mind. It doesn't matter to kids at George Mason or William and Mary any more. It makes no difference to my own children who are young adults and it's puzzling why it would make any different to anyone.
Comment by Mike Scott — October 26, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
Christian Trejbal:
There is a HUGE difference between the marriage of a white man and a black woman in Caroline County, and the sexuality perversity associated with the GLBT agenda. And I am sure that more than a few black folks would be offended at having the example of their civil rights struggle being associated with such sexual perversity.
BUT YOU RAISE AN INTERESTING POINT; it was not religious groups and beliefs that brought about segregation and Jim Crow. No, it was the same institution that is now forcing today's hedonism down the throats of religious folks. And that institution would be . . . the government.
The government was wrong then. The government is wrong now.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 26, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
Mike Scott:
I am not interested in forcing the twisted and abnormal folks from abstaining from their unnatural and immoral behavior. I am most interested, however, in not having it shoved down my throat, sanctioned by society, or portrayed to me that the perverts are "normal" and my refusal to sanction their behavior is bigoted. They are not, and I am not.
If these folks truly just wished to be left alone, they would keep their behavior private. But they don't, because they demand that society accept and sanction them. The answer to that is a resounding "NO"!
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 26, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
Glen, this is about you.
You have strong feelings on this issue and those feelings are valid. But those feelings are all according to YOU. What you cannot do with any authority is proclaim that everybody else "ought" to feel the same.
This country was founded on the premise that we are individuals and are free to hold different beliefs. Right? Sorry to inform you, but your beliefs are not the only ones out there. One of the great things here is that we can have differences and deal with them in a civil manner. I love that!
What is incorrect about your take on this is that Society as a Whole crumbles because of a few people who lead lives that are off the beaten path. Society is strong, stable and probably right of center. There are folks who are waaaaayyy to the left and waaaayyy to the right. Most of us are near the middle and there are so many there that it would take a radically huge tidal wave of extremists to really affect society one way or another. And that is not happening.
Really, where do we draw the line? If I find another man attractive but don't feel motivated to act on that, am I unclean? A very good friend of mine once felt a very strong attraction to a member of the same sex. But they never acted on this mutual feeling and have continues otherwise normal hetero lives. Does this mean she has violated some standard as you see it?
And are we supposed to come you you for absolution or to offer an apology? What is is you want to be done? There have been gay people since the dawn of time. There are gay people everywhere now. There will be gay people in society in the future. What should we do about this? Well, what will you do about it, because I don't care. They don't affect me, my family or my friends.
Comment by Saintbridge — October 26, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
Let's try putting it another way, GFK, would you agree, given your literal translation of the Bible, that any individual who has relations with their married spouse in anything other than the missionary position for the purpose of procreation is immoral? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Comment by Art Hill — October 26, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
Let's see, in the US I can practice any religion I want under the constitution and be protected under the law. In my religion, the Loard has said this is acceptible behavior. Therefore I accept William and Mary and the Roanoke Times as it is moral and right. GFK, what gives you the right to dispute my religion?
Comment by Richard — October 26, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
Saintbridge:
This is most certainly not about me. This is about our society, and its disintegration due to our unwillingness to uphold standards of decency and morality.
That people have acted badly throughout history is of no moment. Sin is among us, and shall always be among us. It is our duty to resist it, recognizing that at times we shall fall short.
That man is flawed is no excuse or reason to say, "what the heck" and create a society where anything goes. There are absolute rights and wrongs. Adultery is wrong. Homosexuality is wrong. And whatever the W&M homecoming queen is up to is wrong. Society should so label it as wrong, and protect its standards. Society should not celebrate this poor fellow's misguided, perverse and inexplicable behavior. He needs help, not a pat on the back.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 26, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
What a welcome breath of fresh air are the comments by Saintbridge, Art, Other John, catspaw, Mike Scott and Richard.
Your comments have very eloquently and completely debunked the bashing agenda of those of others on this thread.
Keep up the fine work.
Comment by Will — October 26, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
#26 - Christian, it doesn't matter what religion or what their beliefs are, the point is that it is someone's belief nonetheless and YOU and your ilk are using the government to force them to accept something they don't believe in.
Force by the government...those words alone should tell you something.
Comment by Patrick — October 26, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
It is a sad day when sexual perversity is celebrated and mainstream religious views are degraded and insulted. The end is nigh.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 26, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
YOU and your ilk are using the government to force them to accept something they don't believe in.
Like the war in Iraq? Ooohh, the hypocrisy, it burns...
Comment by Art Hill — October 26, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
Is there a parent who, if their teenage child said he or she planned to live their life as as transgender, would welcome and encourage it?
Comment by waynep — October 26, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
The end is nigh.
For a nominal fee I'll take care of your pets after the Rapture.
Still waiting on an answer @31.
Comment by Art Hill — October 26, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
Art Hill:
The war in the Iraq does not equal the celebration of sodomy. You have posited the mother of all non sequiturs.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 26, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
Remember, this is the same school that forced the cross to be taken out of the chapel between events, lest it offend anyone.
Comment by Suzie — October 26, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
#37 - Freeing a people from tyranny doesn't even compare to forcing people to accept something that goes against their religious beliefs.
We're giving the people in Iraq the freedom to practice their religious beliefs...while our own government is forcing it's own people to surrender theirs.
Comment by Patrick — October 26, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
The war in the Iraq does not equal the celebration of sodomy.
Over 4 million displaced Iraqis might disagree.
Still waiting @31
Comment by Art Hill — October 26, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
Every parent wants their children to grow up healthy, marry and join in a life of family, children, grandchildren and good traditional happy times. Every parent would be broken hearted to learn that their child would chose a life of homosexuality or transgender behavior.
Comment by waynep — October 26, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
#42 Patrick says "We're giving the people in Iraq the freedom to practice their religious beliefs..."
Whereas, "147 killed in Baghdad as suicide attacks raise security questions" typical headlines today from the twin suicide attacks yesterday.
Comment by Gary — October 26, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
#45 - As ugly and wrong as it may seem, people die in the name of freedom, Gary.
Tell me, what do YOU want to happen in Iraq?
Comment by Patrick — October 26, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
Some folks--perhaps Gary--would prefer that Saddam Hussein still be in power, enabling terrorism throughout the world.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 26, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
Enabling terrorism throughout the world? Do you have any evidence of that whatsoever?
My understanding is Saddam gave some money to the families of suicide bombers in the Palestinian territories. Beyond that, there's no evidence that he "enabled terrorism" anywhere, much less "throughout the world."
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 26, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
@46: "Every parent would be broken hearted to learn that their child would chose a life of homosexuality or transgender behavior."
You must not have looked into this very far. There are plenty of parents who love their children no matter what their sexual orientation. I know I would love my child if she chose to live a lifestyle that I didn't necessarily agree with.
Again, folks, this is why they make both chocolate AND vanilla. And it is the beauty of America. One transgender homecoming queen is absolutely not the End of the World as We Know It.
Comment by Saintbridge — October 26, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
@34 Will, I do have to admit that prior to moving up this way and going to VT, I used to hold views that I now see as misguided. However, being on a diverse college campus is an eye-opening experience for those who wish to see the world with a wider view than blinders permit...and my eyes were certainly opened. Quite simply, none of the negative stereotypes that were pounded into my head while growing up I found to be true after meeting and getting to know people who were not heterosexual. I do get the feeling that the younger generations are far more open to being tolerant of others, even the very religious folks I know. The common thread I keep finding is that people want to have the freedom to be who they are and live their own lives without fear of retaliation by others...be they other individuals, the government, or fanatics. I know what I feel in my heart, and there are a whole lot more folks like me, my wife, our friends, family, and acquaintances who share similar feelings. Just like I dislike government efforts to restrict freedom of speech and freedom to own firearms, I also dislike efforts by people to use the government to restrict personal freedoms and consensual relationships between adults.
Comment by Other John — October 26, 2009 @ 10:14 pm
@36...GFK
Perhaps Koontz...the diversity of people is what's being celebrated and perhaps "mainstream" religious views aren't as mainstream as you personally think they are.
Comment by Will — October 26, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
Diversity is a crock. Are we supposed to believe Will that the world is better because of sodomy, AIDS, drag queens, fisting, the San Francisco bathhouses, pornography, bisexuality, pedophilia, NAMBLA, abortion, single mothers, cross dressers, transsexuals, etc.?
I don't think acting perversely so as to declare your difference and diversity is a virtue. Anyone can behave poorly. It takes an effort to behave correctly. Diversity is just an excuse for delinquent behavior.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 5:56 am
Actually, Glen, it takes effort to buck the script society expects you to follow.
Jessee is an awesome person and should be (and is) congratulated for being who ze is, in the face of opposition.
You are insulting someone you don't even know. Why does zir election bother you so much?
It is interesting to examine what it is within society that gets certain people so riled up. Why are genders outside of the binary often one of those things?
Comment by Katie — October 27, 2009 @ 7:41 am
Bigotry demands that everyone must look, act and think as the bigot does.
The bigots argument is that the rules, and mores of the group he or she associates with, must be the rules and mores of everyone.
They demand a society that has no variance, where everyone is faceless, nameless and without deviation from what they consider the norm.
There are entire countries devoted to this concept, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, - Almost any country found in the middle east.
Many conservative bigots would love to see the USA become a Christian version of Iran.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 27, 2009 @ 8:07 am
#54 - "The bigots argument is that the rules, and mores of the group he or she associates with, must be the rules and mores of everyone."
By forcing their lifestyle upon those who don't believe in it, can't the same thing be said for groups supporting gay rights?
Absolutely.
So, who's right?
Comment by Patrick — October 27, 2009 @ 8:34 am
@55 Patrick...'By forcing their lifestyle upon those who don't believe in it, can't the same thing be said for groups supporting gay rights?' No, the same cannot be said. Gay rights groups are not forcing their lifestyle upon anyone...they are not making people live a way different from how they choose to do so. Religious Christians, heterosexuals, etc. are not made to live a different life; however, the religious Christians very much do try to force non-heterosexuals and non-Christians to live according to popular Christian thought. Big time difference.
Comment by Other John — October 27, 2009 @ 8:45 am
@52...GFK
Well well Koontz...true colors abound.
I guess we're all to believe that you've never had an "impure" thought in your life and that when you have sex with your spouse, it's completely vanilla...and heaven forbid that you've ever taken a peek at a Playboy magazine and that in the comfort of your country club locker room, you've never made any kind of salacious remark about a female...no no...you are so way above all that. Okay, if you say so. But thanks for the compliment for if you believe all that, you must indeed believe that I and many of the rest of the posters on this thread were indeed born yesterday.
It's a shame that you probably didn't enjoy one of the first female impersonators from years ago in one Milton Berle.
Your remark about AIDS though really goes to the heart of your shortcomings. AIDS never was, is now, nor ever will be a Gay disease. You, my learned friend, need to do a bit of research before jumping into that quicksand.
Comment by Will — October 27, 2009 @ 8:58 am
#55 Patrick wrote: "By forcing their lifestyle upon those who don't believe in it, can't the same thing be said for groups supporting gay rights? Absolutely.So, who's right?"
In what way does the person who's lifestyle differs from your own "force" you to become as they are?
Do they demand you marry a person of your own gender? A different race? A different culture or religion?
No.
They only demand to have the same right as you. To choose who they wish to marry, to choose what religion they wish to follow, to choose to observe the cultural traditions they are familiar with, or to be judged not on the color of their skin, or the shape of their face, or eyes, but on the merits of their abilities and intellect.
In other words, the same demands you make of your own life,
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 27, 2009 @ 9:12 am
#56 - I disagree, OJ. Gay rights groups are indeed making other people live a different life than what they choose. Many don't want their kids being subjected to gay lifestyles, yet they are being forced to. THAT is NOT the lifestyle they choose.
Comment by Patrick — October 27, 2009 @ 9:19 am
#58 - You're correct, Joe, they are not forcing me to live their lifestyle. However, they are using the government to force me into accepting it...which I simply will not do.
Comment by Patrick — October 27, 2009 @ 9:23 am
Wayneo #44 There are a lot worse things parents have to cope with than being gay, transexual, bi, or other lifestyles. Death, chroic illness, drug abuse, alcholism all come quickly to mind. Also, mistreatment by bigoted people that are still in the 14th century with their thinking is a terrible problem to cope with.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 9:34 am
I'm sorry, but I just don't see where anyone is being subjected to 'the gay lifestyle' in requesting that they not be forced to live a government-forced heterosexual Christian lifestyle. I further do not see anyone being subjected or forced to change their beliefs in being made aware that gasp, gay people exist, and that gasp! they are not evil...as so many people would like to believe and make others believe. Christian groups very much use the police force of government to implement their agendas though. Whether it's prohibitions on legal recognitions of gay relationships, restrictions on abortions and access to contraceptives, restrictions on sales of alcohol, efforts to force prayer in schools, Blue laws, forcing the teaching of creationism in science classes...you name it, that's forcing Christian belief upon the masses, whether they are Christian or not, and it's wrong.
Comment by Other John — October 27, 2009 @ 9:50 am
60 Patrick, nobdy cares if you accept it or not, just leave them alone, don't take or keep their rights from them. Let them work as a US citizen, let them have have their lives as all ither citizens and they will leave you alone and you can leave them alone and believe whatever it is that you want.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 10:04 am
59 I've never seen a gay person force another to be gay, have you? I've never even seen a promotion saying "Hey kids, come on over to our side, you'll love it." All I've ever seen is give us the same rights as everyone else and leave us alone.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 10:06 am
#63 - Actually, Richard, if you want to be gay you go right ahead and do it.
#64 - "I've never seen a gay person force another to be gay, have you? I've never even seen a promotion saying "Hey kids, come on over to our side, you'll love it."
Where did I say that's what's happening?
Comment by Patrick — October 27, 2009 @ 10:47 am
I believe this is your line
#56 - I disagree, OJ. Gay rights groups are indeed making other people live a different life than what they choose. Many don't want their kids being subjected to gay lifestyles, yet they are being forced to. THAT is NOT the lifestyle they choose.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 10:51 am
#66 - Richard, let me interpret that for you. "Subjected to" does not mean being forced to be gay. Parents who think being gay is wrong teach their children the same thing and don't want someone telling them otherwise.
By being forced to accept gays, their lifestyle is forcefully being changed.
Sorry you didn't understand.
Comment by Patrick — October 27, 2009 @ 11:01 am
@59...Patrick...
Your comment "Gay rights groups are indeed making other people live a different life than what they choose" intrigues me.
I have yet to see any gay rights group force people to live a different life from that which is natural to them. I have seen gay rights groups push people to be more tolerant of the differences between people but not to change a person from gay to straight or vice versa. I've never once seen any gay rights group make that kind of demand on anyone.
Quite unlike certain sects of Christianity which all but demands that you change and adopt the beliefs of the Christian faith...otherwise you're only about two steps away from pond scum.
Comment by Will — October 27, 2009 @ 11:03 am
#7 Patrick, being provided information is part of growing up and reeiving an education. Your child will grow up and think for him or her self. Yes you have complete parental rights to teach them what ever you like, but at the same time they will leave you and go out into society, have to function in society, and hopefully succeed in society. As such, they need to know what others think and live. You can tell them you are right and others are wrong, but you cannot hide them from information.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 11:17 am
#68 - I never said gay groups were pushing people from straight to gay. What I said was that they are forcing people to accept them...which many people do not want. THAT, in turn, is forcing them to alter their lifestyle.
How hard is that to understand?
Comment by Patrick — October 27, 2009 @ 11:22 am
@70...Patrick
So what you're having a hard time with is the "acceptance" part. You don't want your children to be "accepting" of the differences between themselves and others. Well gee, if that's the case, why am I being forced to "accept" straight people?
You see, the debate is just as foolish on one side as it is on the other. Acceptance and tolerance for the differences in everyone should be the goal here.
A gay person should in no way prohibit you from loving who you choose, pro-creating life and enjoying the life that comes from that pro-creation. Gay people certainly aren't attempting to prevent you from doing that. By the same token, gay people should be able to love who they choose and enjoying the benefits of life that are available to others.
Is that too hard to understand?
Comment by Will — October 27, 2009 @ 11:38 am
#68 I was thinking the same thing. I have never had any gay groups knock on my door and try to convince me to be gay,it does not work that way.
But on the other hand I cannot tell you how many times Christians have knocked on my door, or even came up to me on the street and try to "save me".
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 27, 2009 @ 11:40 am
#71 - I'm not having a hard time accepting or understanding anything, Will. Simple fact: I won't accept gays as being normal. Nor will I teach my children to.
Ya know the whole "We're queer, we're here, deal with it!" attitude? It works both ways.
Deal with it.
End of conversation. have a nice day.
Comment by Patrick — October 27, 2009 @ 11:47 am
I can just imagine what schools would be like if the Christians got their way on 'the gay agenda.' There would be a Mr. Mackey-lke counselor standing up before each class saying 'Gay is wrong, m'kay? Evolution is crap, m'kay. Drugs are bad, m'kay.' Give me a break.
Comment by Other John — October 27, 2009 @ 11:47 am
@73...Patrick...
Intolerance and unacceptance must be a tough row to hoe.
Good luck.
Comment by Will — October 27, 2009 @ 11:53 am
#74 well, in someways they do...when my sons went to school they would ask me things like, "Daddy is it true when you have bad dreams that's the devil?" I told them no, that is not true. But after a little digging I found out the public school had a bus that was parked just outside the school property line and that was for bible class. I left my kids go just to give them another side to things and let them on their own make up their own minds.But some of that stuff was funny and the kids thought that too.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 27, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
Will:
I did not write that AIDS is a homosexual disease. But since you attribute that sentiment to me, let's explore the situation. In the US, if you have AIDS, you either got it from anal sodomy (practiced largely by homosexuals), intravenous drug use via a contaminated needle, or by a blood transfusion of tainted blood. Of those three (3) possibilities, homosexual sodomy is the cause of the overwhelming majority of US AIDS cases.
So while I did not write that AIDS is a homosexual disease, the facts would indicate that homosexual practices put one at great risk for contracting AIDS.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
GFK@29
There's active imagination again. I'm not really sure what, exactly is being shoved down your throat. Is the gay community in your town knocking on your door? I going to submit that the majority of visibility by gay people is designed to promote their status as regular people who contribute to the community in a manner that's overwhelmingly constructive. I will also submit that it's unfortunate task they must undertake to counter the slanderous associations that you seek to associate with anyone's whose private behavior differs significantly from your own. Yours is the predominant historical attitude that I soon hope is destined for the garbage heap of really bad human ideas.
Comment by Mike Scott — October 27, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
Mike Scott:
Homosexuals have a radical agenda, aimed at society's acceptance of their perversions as "normal" and undermining traditional American and Christian values. That is not a figment of my imagination, it is a fact.
If all homosexuals wished was to be left alone in the privacy of their bedrooms, no one would know who they were. If all homosexuals wished was to be left alone, there would be no "Gay Pride" parades. If all homosexuals wished was to be left alone, they would not try to undermine the sacrament of marriage.
The bad idea that will be left on the "garbage heap" is the homosexual and other "alternative" lifestyles concept.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
#78 The only thing heading for the garbage pile is that kind of thinking I hope. Someone that is gay has as much right to walk the streets as you do.
And as to what is sometimes being forced on me I guess is someone coming to my door and trying to sell me their brand of Jesus. But no,gay folks are GOP, or Democrat,left and right.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 27, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
Bill, try putting a 'No Soliciting' plaque by your front door. We've been thumper-free for 2 years now...not to mention we don't get any door-to-door salesfolks, or political campaigns either. It's quite nice.
Comment by Other John — October 27, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
#79 Please keep in mind someone that is gay have no radical agenda. They go to work and have families just like you do. But if I turn what you are saying inside out I guess you are saying anyone that is gay has to stay inside their house. I guess you might even want a law to say so.
And if you want to be married to a women no one is stopping you from doing so. How you you feel if we say it is against the law to marry a women, silly right?
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 27, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
#81 I have industrialize strength Jesus folks that come to me. The thing is it is just not at my door, but on the street, at the library, at Lowes, you name it. But yes good idea.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 27, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
If "accepting" homosexuality means allowing them to have the rights guaranteed to all Americans, then, yeah, sorry, you'll have to 'deal with that.' If it means making you agree with their lifestyle, then that's different...you don't have to and you shouldn't have to.
To an earlier comment by GFK, that the government started segregation and Jim Crow and is now forcing religion into a corner and promoting homosexuality, I think you've got to apply a little critical thinking here. The government that started segregation was one run by white, religious people at a time when the national psyche was resistant to viewing blacks as fully American (or even human). Today, the people and the government are working towards the goal of separating itself from enforcing ideology on people. By removing religious overtones to government social policy, it is protecting the people from being forced to accept any one religious view. By removing itself from discriminating against people by race, sexuality, or any other thing in which one might be prejudice, it is protecting the people from being discriminated against by prejudice views. In no way is that forcing you to accept their lifestyle. But, you seem to think that restricting the government's ability to discriminate others, or removing religious bias from government social policy, is actually discriminating against Christianity. Why?
Comment by WPGHSC — October 27, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
Bill Hudson:
Read the papers, turn on the television, go downtown and look around. There is a radical homosexual agenda, and it is being pushed by homosexuals.
But I shall admit that Leftist heterosexuals help and sympathize with the radical homosexual agenda. But then again, the Left is always opposed to traditional American and Christian ideals and morals.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
OJ, That's how I remain religious zealot-free too.. However this weekend, I nearly missed out on a great deal. Neighborhood kids raked 15 bags of leaves for only $8. I almost felt bad, but that's what they said it would cost.
Comment by scott — October 27, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Bill, I know what you mean. Thankfully, I somehow have been mostly able to avoid being approached...but several folks I know have been proselytized while working, or shopping, or walking down the street like you mention. I do admit though, I do donate to the churches in my community even though I do not attend them. They are small churches and their folks are not like the 700-clubbers out there and are just good folks living their lives the best they can, much like most of the rest of us.
Comment by Other John — October 27, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
WPGHSC:
The government is hostile to, and actively opposed to traditional and Christian values. So is the Left.
This country was founded by Christians. Our rights are derived from God--the God of Abraham, the Christian God, the father of Jesus Christ. There is a right, and there is a wrong. Deal with that.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
GFK, I'm not sure what traditional Christian and American value are. Up until the moral majority made an issue of it, no one cared who was gay and who was not. Up until confidentiality laws came into effect, Gays had lots to say about their partners health, up until a big deal was made about gays in the military they served with distinction. So traditionally, they had lots of rights becasue no one cared.
but we could go back even further for tradition, like lynching those you don't agree with, blacks, Irish, latino, or better yet having them as slaves. That was some good traditional Christian values there, slavery and whipping them into shape. Maybe some more tradition like the inquisition or control over the Gov't by the Church. Wait, that's not American, we came over here to get away from that.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
Richard:
Your comments about traditional Christian values @89 are inaccurate and unfortunate. Perhaps if you went to Church, you would learn what "traditional Christian and American value[s] are."
And homosexuals have never openly served in the United States military. That is also inaccurate. So your claim that homosexuals served with distinction would be impossible to verify, and is highly doubtful.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Why must anyone announce their sexuality? I don't run down the street going "Im Straight, I'm Straight." What's the point. Don't care who or what anyone prefers to sleep with, but why must I have to accept having my nose rubbed in it at every turn. Why can't you guys just be gay and happy? Seriously? I don't understand why a lot of the gay folks I know or have known seem to go out of their way to make sure everyone gets it? Can someone please explain this phenomenon to me?
Comment by Walker — October 27, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
#87 Yes, very true and you know at the end of the day when you die you will find out anyway if there is or is not, a afterlife.. I like to think while we are here on earth try to make this world a better place.
When I was down in New Orleans there were many very small churches helping out right along all kinds of folks.
#88, Just not true, read up on your history it might help.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 27, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
I am being serious. I want to understand why they seem to want attention based only on their sexuality?
Comment by Walker — October 27, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
scott, that is indeed a good deal there. I just use my combination leaf blower/mulcher and do the work myself. I'm too much of a stickler when it comes to my yard to let anyone else touch it. I do the mowing, trimming, seeding, raking, fertilizing and everything else. It's therapeutic in a way. There's a great deal of satisfaction to be had in looking at a freshly mowed yard with the alternativing stripes of grass from the mower rollers. I guess the golf course maintenance worker in me just won;t leave, even though I haven't worked at one in years.
Comment by Other John — October 27, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
@85...GFK
Koontz...it's only radical because you don't agree with it. Anything that the uber conservative right says is correct is not radical in their own eyes.
Is our stance open and full throttle? You betcha' it is. After a while, you get a little tired of being belittled and ridiculed and made to feel that you have no self worth. That's why people like me who are unafraid of those who wish to continue to kick us down have started kicking back.
You see...the reactions you get are only in response to the treatment that you give.
Comment by Will — October 27, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Bill Hudson @92, with reference to 88--it is true. I was a history major. I am correct.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
@93...Walker
No one particularly wants attention based on their sexuality; however, gay people have been marginalized and shunned because of their sexuality. Consequently, that's why gay people have received a lot of the attention they've gotten.
It seems to be of little consequence to anyone that gay people also teach, manufacture, provide health care, serve in the military (openly or not), provide police and fire protection and a host of other things that ordinary people take for granted.
The sad part about it is that gay people, while providing all those things that are taken for granted are not allowed to enjoy the same benefits that those of heterosexual couples.
Gay couples are expected to concede to a second class status even though they provide and contribute to a quality of life just like anyone else...and that's simply wrong.
Comment by Will — October 27, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
#96 Then you might want to go back and read some more. It's funny but I won $25 bet from one of the history majors at JMU.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 27, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
Will, it reminds me something I heard a while back, and I can't remember who said it or what context it was used. It was along the lines of 'when you poke the sleeping tiger, why do you act surprised that you pull back a bloody stump?'
Comment by Other John — October 27, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Will:
The homosexual agenda is radical because it is a departure from the normal, the good and the moral. And it is not in reaction to any maltreatment; it is an aggressive and unprovoked attack upon traditional American and Christian values. It is evil, and it shall be defeated.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
@96...GFK...
And I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night and that makes me even more correct.
Koontz...you're really reaching for it buddy. I guess denial is the first step to rehab. Good luck.
Comment by Will — October 27, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Bill Hudson:
I did not go to JMU. Before you wager with me, you might wish to do your own reading, because you are wrong.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
Will:
I am a Hilton man myself; it has a better rewards program.
And thanks, but no thanks; winners do not need luck.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
GFK, history indicates thay Alexander Hamilton was most likely gay and probable the illegitimate son of George Washington. during the Revolution, men (gay and straight) served in the military as no one discussed openly anyone's sexuality without planning on a dual. Gays were just considered bachelors at the time and many became school teachers and ministers as a profession. The minister profession was a continuation from the monastery and monks from Europe where many gays went to have a career and place to meet.
So tradition is quite varied in the US.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
#100 ok, I got it, you are normal the rest is not. You might want to get out sometime and just look around. I am not gay but have gay friends and evil is not one of the things I would say they are. To call them evil is evil itself.
As to the history thing I'd love to see you sit down with Benjamin Franklin,say with some wine. Read Poor Richard's again, you might find he was non-dogmatic believer but was open minded, that's the key word.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 27, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
GFK as far as your history goes, I too have studied religion and history as both are a passion of mine. The God of Abraham and Chrisitians is also the God of Islam. As for the founders of our Country, they came from many places, most decidedly unchristian. The Spaniards claimed to come for the Pope, but most assuredly came for the gold. A very unChristian reason for murdering or enslaving the natives they found here. The English came at the direction of the East India Company, again a most unchristian organization that chose murder, piracy, enslavment, and war as a means of getting money. Those that came from the Dutch India Company had the same purpose. England sent criminals to the Carolinas to get them out of the poor houses and jails. No the Puritans came for religious purposes as did William Penn. But he was accompanyied by people like my ancestor who came as a soldier for profiteering. Fortunately, he and his quaker wife were kicked out of the church for such. The puritans were good traditionalists, they just burned anyone different. nothing like a good Christian burning. The tere were the Dutch in New York, they came to start their businesses here and were very successful. At Boston, our forefathers mainly drank beer and rum and were most disatisfied when the british wanted to house soldiers with them and tax their rum. Nothing like a good drunk rebellion to start a Revolution. So I don't see all the Christian heritage you see in history.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
By the way, I am a Marriott man. Nothing like a good morman hotel that is nonsmoking but serves good scotch.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
I am a cheapest hotel I can find kind of guy when on the road. The vise grips are for the hot water, so said the guy giving me my keys to my room. But had the best home made curry.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 27, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
As interesting as discussions about hotels and lawn care are, let's try to stay on topic.
Comment by C. Trejbal — October 27, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Bill Hudson:
I did not write that homosexuals were evil, I wrote that the radical homosexual agenda is evil. Homosexuals are merely sinners.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Richard:
The founders were Christians; read Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Lee, Madison, Franklin, et al.
Also, the "founders" were either from England, or were of English descent.
There were no Spanish or Islamic "founders".
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
OK C. back to history?
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
@111 As long as it's vaguely on topic, feel free to bang your head against the revisionist history being written here.
Comment by C. Trejbal — October 27, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
GFK, you mean writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution then. Let's see Jefferson was accused at the time of being about anything but a Christian by his peers. Liberal, rebel rouser, French Revolutionary sympathizer, (communist in today's lingo, very unchristian). You forget the Spanish owned Florida, Texas, California and the French Lousianna at the time. They are part of US right. But back to the colonials, Sam Adams was a good bar owner and showed few Christian tendencies. Cousin John was indeed Christian. But Washington most decidedly was not a practicing Christian. he was a soldier that as a young man had an affair with his bosses wife , married the good widow Custis for her land and money, most likely had an illegitimate mixed race son while in Jammaica who he broght to the US and gave a military job under him. Mr. Hamilton was most likely gay per history. Washington was so christian that he left Philadelphia Convention early to make sure he had his slaves back in VA before they became free men under the law of Pennsylvania at the time. A very Christian thing to do.
Franklin was a scientist and womanizer. He most certainly did not practice all the good Christian manners you speak of. Lighthorse Harry also had many unchristianlike problems and died a broken man. his son Robert broke married into the Custis family much like our forefther George. Unlike today, where every politician has to wear their religion on their sleeve to get elected, our forefathers did not worry about it. They were who the were, sinners all, and hard working men and women.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
The talk over at the Daily Press has been about the same as it has been here. A few folks tightly holding onto their morality seeing this as being some sort of threat to it, and a lot of other folks not seeing the big deal with it. Is the world any different today than it was before W&M's homecoming? Not appreciably...and certainly no different because of it...except that a bunch of folks on the right have a new flavor of the week issue to rail on.
Comment by Other John — October 27, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
I'd like to know how/why the gay movement thinks its a good idea to have parades/protests where they inevtiably present themselves as hedonistic and outlandish as possible?
Everyone here knows what I am talking about. We've all seen what I am talking about.
You don't see other groups doing this and I, for one, would support them much more if they respected the social mores of our society instead of spitting on them.
You attract more bees with honey, they say.
Comment by T Witten — October 27, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
Richard:
First, at the time of the founding of this country, Florida, Texas, California and Louisiana were not a part of the revolutionary colonies, and were not represented in the Continental Congress. I forgot nothing.
Second, Jefferson believed in the Christian God, and wrote extensively on how our rights are derived from God. Washington was a member of the Anglican Church, and maintained a family pew at Christ Church in Alexandria. The Lee family also maintained a family pew at Christ Church in Alexandria. Mr. Adams the brewer, like his cousin, Mr. Adams the President, was a Christian. Mr. Franklin also believed in God, and concurred strongly with Mr. Jefferson's analysis on the derivation and source of our rights.
Third, to bring this back to the original topic, if a William & Mary student had thought to proclaim himself as a "transgender queer" or whatever this poor disturbed fellow characterized himself as, he would have been expelled. He would have been shunned, at least, by society, and perhaps imprisoned. If he committed or admitted to sodomy, he would have been tried on a criminal felon. He would have been denied communion and expelled from the Anglican Church. No one would hire him, or sell to him, or trade with him. He could not have served in the militia or owned a gun.
In other words Richard, the reigning William & Mary "homecoming queen" [no pun intended] is not consistent with this country's traditions and morals; rather, he is an affront to them.
And Christian Trejbal, there is nothing "revisionist" about this post.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
Outlandish parades and protests have a long history in the US as do celebrations. One they attract attention if you are protesting and two add alcohol and a party and it tends to get outlandish. So parades and celebrations have a lot of fun. Protests seek attention. Certainly not limited to gays. Roanoke City had quite a history for celebrations and parties prior to it becoming settled.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
Religion was a constant thorn to many of those who founded this nation. Their recent history, based in Europe was of canstant wars among differing sects of Christianity, as nations fought nations, churches ran pogroms, purges and inqusitions. Many of those signing the constitution had great contempt for the established churches of that era, wanting to keep their power in check, and circumscribe the political asperations of churchmen.
The men founding a new nation in America knew this and wanted none of it staining their creation, hence the seperation of Church and state.
Lets start with Ben,
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/44/Letter_from_Benjamin_Franklin_to_Ezra_Stiles_1.html
A confirmed diest, by his own hand in a letter to Ezera Stiles.
Next let's look at Tommy J. Who cut the bible into pieces and reworked it to suit himself:
"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other"
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html
And then there is James Madison:
http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_mad1457
Letter to Bradford, January 1774
Poverty and luxury prevail among all sorts; pride, ignorance, and knavery among the priesthood, and vice and wickedness among the laity. This is bad enough, but it is not the worst I have to tell you. That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some; and to their eternal infamy, the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such business.
Here's some nice quotes from many of the founding fathers on Religion:
http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/serpentandlion/americanstatesmen.html
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 27, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
I am not gay. I have never been gay. (Where have I heard that one before?)
You have seen the outrageous parades plastered all over the media because that is the image fundamentalists want you to associate with homosexuals. It's called "propaganda." Most gay people I know live quiet and unobtrusive lives with committed partners. After reading some of the responses on this thread, I am beginning to wonder just who the "perverts" really are.
Comment by Art Hill — October 27, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
#113, That was good and with sprinkling of humor to boot but I wonder if we all need to have a history major to maybe think another way and see the "light"?
#109 Your paranoia is leading you to some strange places...there is no radical homosexual agenda.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 27, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
GFK It was probably me Christian was revising. You are correct on how the WM student might have been treated had he come out. Isn't it great we have gotten to the point you can come out.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
Some people must lead some awfully boring lives.
Comment by Will — October 27, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
I am sure that some people must lead awfully sad and tortured lives.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
What do people mean when they suggest that gay groups are trying to subject their kids to the "gay lifestyle" (whatever that is)?
If you mean teaching kids to accept others and not to be hateful or mean, which is what mostly happens, why do you object to that?
Teaching children that everyone is a valuable person deserving of respect seems like a "lifestyle" all people should live, don't you think?
Comment by Katie — October 27, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
@122. No, it is not great. It is sad, and sign of moral decay in our society.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
@GFK in 117
Do you really want a country where people are denied rights and marginalized simply due to who they are?
At the time of the founding of this country, women weren't considered people, and people of color would also not have had many of the rights and privileges you wish Jessee didn't have.
This country has some great traditions, but also a shameful past in regards to certain groups of people.
Comment by Katie — October 27, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
@GFK #124: Yes, those who waste their lives trying to shame and shun others because of their sexual orientation must be awfully sad and tortured.
I couldn't agree more, GFK.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 27, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
Katie:
Yes. I, and all other real Americans and Christians wish to oppress others. Indeed, I regularly contribute to a PAC dedicated to eliminating the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments. Someday we shall take this country back.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
Dan Radmacher, if you are going to agree with me, you should properly state my positions. I would not wish you to be deceived or confused.
But if you wish to join the correct side, come on over!
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
Me thinks someone has just gone "round the bend."
Baiting posts for replies seems to be a norm so I'm going to let the baiters go fishing.
I applaud those who continue to see the injustices of some of our less colorful history and who strive to correct those injustices.
Comment by Will — October 27, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
It doesn't take all kinds, there ARE all kinds.
Comment by Art Hill — October 27, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
Hey, GFk, there are so few of you around anymore, naybe we could get you all a small Native American Reservation to settle on. You seemed to be agreeable that it was alright for them.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
#129 You my good man are not "real Americas", there is in my opinion no such thing and you are setting your self up.
As to taking the county back, well as of Nov. you didn't... and my hope is folks that think like you do not have any kind of power in government.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 27, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
Will, I applaud your continued efforts as well and hope that one day you will simply be seen as a fellow human being, with no tags, punchlines, or other qualifiers on who you are. Likewise, seeing where the last couple of posts have gone, I'm going to go sit by the fire, grab a good book, and relax on this fine rainy evening while my Jambalaya cooks on the stove. If it weren't for the fact that this is one issue I cannot simply sit silent on, I probably would have sat the thread out entirely because I had a feeling it would wind up here. And once again, I simply do not understand what is so difficult to grasp about living your life your way, and letting other folks live their lives their way. It's so simple, yet for so many it seems far too complicated to grasp.
Comment by Other John — October 27, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
Well GFK, Dan, Christian, Will, Other John, Art, Bill, Jim, Suzie, pammala, and all others that I have spoken with - this has been much fun and a great release from the toil and drudgery that I must now attend. Nothing like skipping a day at the office to play with friends. Guess I'll have to fire myself. Hope I have not offended or if so only slightly. Obviously religion, lifestyle and politics can cut deeply, but hopefully sharing our views can help all live a little easier.
I have promised myself to stay away until my deadline is next met. Thanks for the Fun. Richard
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
A few famous people who GFK thinks are queer. Well, they are! And think who much better off we are for their contributions to society (from famousandgay.com):
Edward Albee
Alexander the Great
Susan B. Anthony
WH Auden
Giorgio Armani
Joan Baez
Leonard Bernstein
William S. Burroughs
John Cage
Noel Coward
Melissa Ethreidge
EM Forster
Stephen Foster
George Gershwin
Sir John Gielgud
Vladimir Horowitz
Rock Hudson
Frida Khalo
Nathan Lane
k.d. lang
Leonardo da Vinci (could be the entire list and make my point alone)
Armistead Maupin
Michelangelo
Rudolph Nureyev
Cole Porter
Maurice Ravel
Eleanor Roosevelt
David Sedaris
Steven Sondheim
Gertrude Stein
Lily Tomlin
Alan Turing
Giani Versace
Andy Warhol
Oscar Wilde
Tennessee Williams
Virginia Woolf
Comment by Saintbridge — October 27, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
Assuming that you know what I think, your list proves my point in large part. After all, Joan Baez and k.d. lang? Talentless hacks. And not at all attractive.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 27, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
You left our Barnie Frank
Comment by waynep — October 27, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
@GFK #138: "Assuming that you know what I think, your list proves my point in large part. After all, Joan Baez and k.d. lang? Talentless hacks. And not at all attractive."
They ain't Liberace, that's for sure.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 27, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
Richard and Art,
I know and work with many homosexuals. Most ARE "normal" people at work. I'm sure most are relatively "normal" OUT of work as well.
These Gay Pride parades that I was talking about are NOT the propaganda of conservatives. The Gay people themselves are the ones doing it.
We've all seen the naked and near-naked homosexuals showboating. There are also almost always reports of men performing sex acts in public at these events.
Now, I KNOW it isn't ALL of them doing this at these things. But, whoever runs them needs to get those people out of it. It's tasteless and illegal in some cases.
Their goals would be much more attainable if they did. I am a conservative Christian guy, but I understand and empathize with those who feel marginalized or mistreated.
While I am against what they DO, as I believe it to be wrong, I don't believe they should be mistreated for it.
Bill-
"there is no homosexual agenda"
Really, no planning whatsoever?
Comment by T Witten — October 28, 2009 @ 9:32 am
T Witten,
We aren't only fighting for the rights of LGBTQ people who are "normal". We are also fighting for the rights of those who ARE out there and tasteless.
If you watch other parades, people act ridiculous there, as well. Pride events are supposed to be fun, so people act in ways they might not normally. It's entertainment.
Straight people do some pretty outrageous stuff, as well. That doesn't mean we should marginalize them.
Comment by Katie — October 28, 2009 @ 11:09 am
"We aren't only fighting for the rights of LGBTQ people who are "normal". We are also fighting for the rights of those who ARE out there and tasteless."
"If you watch other parades, people act ridiculous there, as well. Pride events are supposed to be fun, so people act in ways they might not normally. It's entertainment."
Well, fight all you want for the tasteless.
BTW, I am talking about men who perform oral sex on each other, in the open for ALL to see (this kind of stuff happens ALL the time at these things). I am not talking about drag queens or leather-clad men in thongs.
Also, I thought the homosexuals who dressed up in odd (being nice) outfits and went to the Catholic Church in SF to receive communion/protest were extremely tasteless and making a mockery of the ritual.
Once again, it wasnt ALL gay people who did that. I know that. But, if you want to be treated decently, show some decency. MHO.
check this out
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1909459/posts
Comment by T Witten — October 28, 2009 @ 11:42 am
I wonder how many pride events you've been to. I've been to several, and have yet to see people having sex in public. I know it does happen, but it isn't as common as you seem to think it is. I think that mostly happens at the Street Fairs in San Fran, but those aren't the average pride event - they have a specific history and atmosphere.
The Sisters didn't disrupt the mass. I'm not sure what the problem is. Plenty of people mock the RCC during the week and then go to mass on Sunday.
You can't just fight for some people. You have to work towards justice for everyone.
Comment by Katie — October 28, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
#144 I was thinking the same thing. After living in Key West I saw a few but they never would allow people having sex in public. But your last sentence hits the nail on the head.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 28, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
Katie, I get your point.
And, I KNOW you can't control everyone. The more disgusting acts that I was talking about definitely do happen more in the bigger, metro areas. In San Fran, the police didnt even do anything about it (Men performing on each other)
I will disagree that "the Sisters" didn't disrupt the mass. But, thats not worth arguing.
I still think that if homosexual rights groups asked people to be a little more tasteful at these events it would go a long way.
As it is now, most people see that stuff and say, "yep, those homosexuals are lewd and disgusting. They aren't just like me."
Right or wrong, its the way it is.
Comment by T Witten — October 28, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
Homosexual conduct itself is wrong. That doesn't mean that homosexuals are evil, it means that they are sinners. We don't celebrate other sins, such as adultery, fornication, murder, lying, stealing, etc. We should not celebrate sodomy either. Whatever happened to the concept of shame?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 28, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
#147 From others point of view you yourself just might be a "sinner" but do not fret just keep an eye on yourself and let others live the way they want to live. But to put homosexual with murder, stealing,lying shows how far out you really are there, way out there.
Where is your shame?
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 28, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
Bill Hudson:
The concept of sin comes from The Bible, not "Mother Jones" or "NAMBLA's Bedtime Stories Collection". Moroever, all sins are sins, there are no gradations, with the exception of the First Commandment. Hence homosexual conduct is the same as adultery, murder, etc.
Finally, of course I am a sinner. So are you. But I do not celebrate my shortcomings; rather, I repent, seek forgiveness, and try not to repeat them.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 28, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
Dang,
Go away for a day, and the fire is still burning.
While I don't yet detect a chink in GFK's "we will win armor", I can't help but that think that "his "I know the mind of God" certainty is doing more for the gay cause than he realizes.
Is it the book of Leviticus that gives you moral certainty Glenn? That's a fun book of the Bible in which to delve. I hope you keeping a way from shrimp and mixed fabrics, cause there's some pretty severe penalties for those moral transgressions too.
I a related discussion earlier this year, didn't you assert that "the founding fathers executed homosexuals". Given your vast knowledge of history, I'd still like to know more about this aspect of American history.
Comment by Mike Scott — October 28, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
@147: "Homosexual conduct itself is wrong."
So says you. And your interpretation of the Bible, which, by the way, says:
"A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." -- Deuteronomy 22:5
To what purpose?
Then there are all the death penalty crimes that nobody, but NOBODY, believes has any merit today. Like abuse of father or mother (Ex 21:15); speaking a curse over parents (Ex 21:17); blasphemy against God (Lev 24:14-16,23); breaking the Sabbath (Ex 31:14, Numb 15:32-36); practicing magic (Ex 22:18; fortune telling and practicing sorcery (Lev 20:27; religious people who mislead others to fall away (Deut 13:1-5, 18:20); adultery and fornication (Lev 20:10-12, Deut 22:22); if a woman has intercourse before marriage (Deut 22:20-21); if two people have intercourse when one of them is engaged. (Deut 22:23-24); the daughter of a priest practicing prostitution (Lev 21:9) ... just to name a few
Then there's the "no eating shrimp" thing. So please, don't tell me how the Bible ought to be a moral guide for us. You go ahead and follow it, but trying to justify your position based on a selective reading of it is to make a mockery of it and this discussion.
Comment by Saintbridge — October 28, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
It is hard to see this thread still running. It is even harder to see such hate directed to any group of people.
Comment by catspaw — October 28, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
Saintbridge:
First, thank you for pointing out that God is against transsexuals and transvestites too. I keep forgetting to do that.
Second, the transgressions you identify in the second paragraph are still sinful, but the laws governing their punishment have changed. In other words, God's law remains constant, but man's punishment has changed.
Third, the "shrimp" thing is all Jewish law, and not a sin.
Fourth, my reading of the Bible is not selective, it is comprehensive. It seems to me that you are the one citing discrete parts in order to make your points.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 28, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
Does it occur to anyone that the W&M student body might have been ridiculing this person with the selection?
Years ago, I recall a neighboring high school's football team (whose job it was) selecting a mentally impaired girl for homecoming queen as a "hilarious" stunt. The cheerleaders and others in her court were so furious, most of them refused to pose for pictures. The poor girl who "won" wasn't bright enough to understand she was being made fun of. The school administration had no choice but to go with it, and this girl appeared in the yearbook, beaming, as she posed with her "court" consisting of two other courageous girls. It was so sad, I felt like crying. That incident has stuck with me for decades.
This story reminds me of that one.
Comment by Suzie — October 28, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
Does anyone realize that the bible was reconstructed during the Carolingian Period, time of Charlemagne, due the loss of the earliest texts during the Darks Ages, by scholars from the Greek speaking world of Byzantium, known then as Constantinople, now Istanbul.
Comment by catspaw — October 28, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
Catspaw:
So?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 28, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
I wouldn't be concerned, Suzie. Jessee is really involved on campus and knows a great many people. Reporters who talked to people said that most voted for Jessee because ze was the best pick for the job.
Not to mention that Jessee gave permission to be nominated.
T Witten, the idea isn't necessarily to make everyone think that we're all the same. It is to foster an environment where difference is celebrated, not condemned.
Glen, the Bible is a book written by humans and translated and retranslated multiple times. It is full of contradictions and outdated morality. Get your guidelines there, if you wish, but don't expect people to follow you.
Comment by Katie — October 28, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
Katie:
I don't need the Bible to tell me that homosexuality, bisexuality, transexuality, pedophilia, and other such perversions are unnatural, unhealthy, and wrong. AND the vast majority of the country agrees with me on this point.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 28, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
Katie,
OK, then. I guess this story says more about the environment at William and Mary.
Comment by Suzie — October 28, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
@153 & 158: Does your God not love each of her/his children? Being "against" transsexuals and transvestites is such a petty, human trait that I thought a deity would be above that sort of nonsense. It smacks of egoism and that is human and beneath a supreme being, IMHO.
Homosexuality is wrong in your view. I have lots of gay friends who have nothing more than the same trials and tribulations that I have or you have. The fact that they love someone of the same gender is of not consequence to them, their families or their children.
What does the Bible say about judging others? And do you jettison the Old Testament en masse or just select that which you deem not to be part of God talking to the Jews?
And it is clear that the vast majority of the country -- probably the world -- are not gay, but that doesn't mean that that same majority wants to ostracize them the way you and your ilk do.
Live and let live. Nobody is coming to try to destroy the world through homosexuality. It is a common and regular occurrence throughout history and we have all weathered the "storm" -- and in some cases excelled and made great strides forward as a species -- just fine as a result.
The end is not nigh. And if it is, why now and not yesterday or the day before that or the 80s or 50s or 1800s or whenever all those other doomsayers said we were on the Brink?
Some college kids decided to anoint -- no pun -- and Different Sort of Student as their Homecoming Queen. And these are some of the best students in the country we're talking about. Maybe they don't see the Dragon at the Gate that you do or maybe they just understand that diversity trumps conformity every time.
Let it go. It won't hurt, I promise.
Comment by Saintbridge — October 28, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
#157 Oh. The bible is full of "outdated morality".
You know, that's one of the great strengths of the bible. Its rules withstand the test of time because they're based on human nature, which never changes.
The guidance people needed 2000 years ago is the same guidance they needs today.
Comment by Suzie — October 28, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
Like stoning adulterers?
Comment by Saintbridge — October 28, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
Why not? It would surely keeps people more focused on marriage for the right reasons and family.
Comment by Betsy — October 28, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
@158 Glen, you're wrong. This country is shifting towards acceptance and openness. More and more people acknowledge that there is a wide range of gender and sexual expression that is natural in humanity.
PS.
You might want to go study nature some more. The things you said are actually mostly found in other animals as well as humans. The difference between pedophilia and everything else you mentioned is that the expression of that actually hurts others. Other than that, all of the things you said only harm those who refuse to acknowledge the validity of others' identities and thus become overexcited and angry when consenting adults do certain things together.
Suzie,
There may be a lot of good in the Bible, but many of its moral guidelines just don't work anymore with new knowledge we have gained and all of the developments we have had in becoming a more accepting world. I must disagree that "human nature" never changes. While there are of course certain inherent characteristics of all humans, societies and cultures evolve along with creatures and certain things that used to be considered part of human nature have been revealed as cultural constructs, not to mention that the expression of the inherent characteristics that all humans share varies widely from place to place and time to time.
Comment by Katie — October 29, 2009 @ 4:46 am
@146....
Has anyone ever taken a close look at NFL Cheerleaders. I seem to remember not all that long ago of the "pin-up" poster's of scantily clad cheerleaders...and then of course who could forget Daisy Duke...and by the way, has anyone been to Mardi Gras in New Orleans?
While it's true that the Gay Community certainly has it's share of questionable exposure, the straight community certainly isn't without culpability either.
@137...
Let's add Billie Jean King and Ellen DeGeneris. One of my personal favorites today is Wanda Sykes but her humor is certainly on the more radical side. Gosh...I'm glad that I'm almost 55 and still like the more radical side of life.
Some of you folks ought to give it a try. It'll clean the sludge out of your veins sometime.
Comment by Will — October 29, 2009 @ 9:13 am
Wow. Since you guys have taken it upon yourselves to rule the Bible obsolete and have declared that the moral values taught therein "just don't work anymore", perhaps you could be so kind as to share which ones are no longer applicable. Is the prohibition against murder finished? How about do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Adultery? Oh wait, I forgot, Bill Clinton already decided that adultery was okay now.
So tell me, who gets to decide which morals are relevant and which aren't. That seems like a pretty self-serving ideology. What about stealing? Is it okay as long it is from a large company that won't really miss it? I mean Wal-Mart is supposed to be pretty evil to begin with right. Surely stealing from them is not immoral? What about pedophilia? If the child consents and suffers no physical harm, can a social group just one day decide that the moral ojection to this just doesn't work for them anymore. Or maybe it should only be immoral if done by a Catholic priest?
I never realized right and wrong were so malleable and reliant upon political ideology. I was always taught some things were wrong just because they were inherently wrong. What a relief to know I was misinformed and I no longer need to worry about moral values. Boy I tell you, my thirteen year old is really going to be happy to know she can just pick and choose the rules she likes and disregard the rest. But while I'm busy abandoning my moral beliefs and chucking any last vestiges of traditional values out the window maybe some of the more modern, enlightened types could tell me, why is it that liberals always whine about conservatives "forcing" their values on them, but they have no qualms about forcing their lack of values on everyone else?
I think another historical world superpower once decided that moral values were archaic and need not apply to their society. Somebody remind me, how did things end up for the Romans? After reading the blogs and opinions in this paper, I no longer wonder why our society is slowly spiraling around the toilet bowl. But hey, if things get too bad or depressing I guess I could always just hop on over to the Metro section, take a hit of acid and forget about the whole thing. Abandon our morals and increase the use of recreational hallucinogens. That should do wonders at solving our society's problems.
Comment by Another Chris — October 29, 2009 @ 9:42 am
You're right Will. I'm thinking of organizing a heterosexual pride parade to be followed by a week-long street festival celbrating heterosexuality. During this festival we will have performances, speeches, posters and banners, many of which will present caricatures and parodies of anyone who believes differently than us. It will be modeled after the annual Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco, just celebrating a different lifestyle than Folsom. While I'm sure some will be offended, it is all done in good fun and they should really lighten up and not burden us with their personal sense of morality anyway. Can I count on you to help organize it?
Comment by Another Chris — October 29, 2009 @ 9:49 am
GFK, the famous lawyer, actually asks So? when someone points out the reconstruction of the Bible. Well GFK, let's say you're in court and and the prosecution or whomever says, "We reconstructed this evidence because much of the original was lost." Do you just accept that? Well, do you?
Comment by gdad — October 29, 2009 @ 9:56 am
Just because and animal does something...doesn't make it NATURAL. Is murder natural? Or infanticide?
We aren't animals.
Comment by T Witten — October 29, 2009 @ 10:12 am
Actually we are animals, part of the kingdom Animalia. We are just intelligent animals (some more than others.)
Comment by scott — October 29, 2009 @ 10:18 am
Katie #164
"I must disagree that "human nature" never changes"
I think you mean there are certain practices that people's perception of, changes over time. Some practices that were once commmonplace are now seen as barbaric and evil: slavery, gladiator contests, and in the future, abortion,
But what I meant about human nature is, the human emotions will never change. There will always be envy, jealousy, violent killing, lust for power, sexual urge, sloth, and issues of self-control. The bible addresses these things and will always be relevant because those issues will always be with us.
Comment by Suzie — October 29, 2009 @ 10:28 am
T Witten, we are indeed animals. You should go back to biology 101.
Comment by gdad — October 29, 2009 @ 10:31 am
gdad, I think you and everyone else gets my point. LOL
Amen Suzie.
Comment by T Witten — October 29, 2009 @ 10:53 am
@167...AC
If you need the help, will be glad to. But I think you've been beaten to the punch by Mardi Gras, Super Bowl Halftime Shows, NFL Cheerleaders, NBA Cheerleaders...certain college football games, professional boxing (where the young lady proudly bounces her boobs around the ring while holding the round number).
Glass houses folks, glass houses.
Comment by Will — October 29, 2009 @ 11:39 am
Oh...and I forgot Daytime Soap's. Have you seen some of the bedroom scenes? Holy moly!
Comment by Will — October 29, 2009 @ 11:40 am
AC...
If you teach your thirteen year old to treat others with the same degree of respect, love, care and dignity that they themselves would like to be treated with, then you will have done the best you can do.
Comment by Will — October 29, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Another Chris is right. Homosexuality is wrong.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 29, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
@164 Katie, I am never wrong. I once thought I was, but it turned out I was correct after all.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 29, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Hey Chris @166
That thing about the decline of Rome you are tossing around: Rome declined a century after Emperor Constantine declared the Christianity legal. By the time the Roman Empire finally met it's end, there was no separation of the State and the emerging Christian majority. It was the official religion of Rome. Did Christianity cause the fall of Rome? I have no idea and thinks its probably way more complicated than that. Clearly whatever moral values those early Christians were working out didn't save it either. I've always heard this argument about American turning away from God and going the way of the Romans. Nobody every told me the Romans had actually turned to the Christian God before history closed the door on their power.
Comment by Mike Scott — October 29, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
Mike Scott:
Another Chris @166 is correct. Rome declined for just the reasons he stated.
Being a Christian does not guarantee that one will do the right thing. Similarly, God chose Moses to lead the Jews out of Egypt to the promised land, but Moses's actions that displeased God caused him to be prohibited from ever entering the promised land. And the Jews actions in worshiping the Golden Calf caused them to be forced to wander for 40 years in the wilderness.
They were still Jews, and God's chosen people, but their bad actions brought dire consequences. Christians' and non-Christians' bad actions caused the fall of Rome.
The lesson for this country is that if we continue on our present path, the grace that God has laid upon us can be withdrawn. And we shall have no one to blame but ourselves. It will not be the fault of Christianity, but of Christian sinners [and secular Jews, atheists, etc.].
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 29, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
GFK, Check any decent history book or even on-line article regarding the fall of Rome, you'll find much more complexity than you profess. Afterall Christianity began in the east and then spread to Rome, thusly Christianity in it orgins is an eastern relgion. So?
Comment by catspaw — October 29, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
#180 Your guilt I am getting loud and clear but please don't make your paranoia mine. And your self rightness is not something we all might agree with you on there.
I got it, if you like to watch films I got a good one for you, it's called called,Religulous, see the film.
Then come back and tell me if you have seen the light. It might save you from your paranoia, maybe not.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 29, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
So what?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 29, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
183...an incomplete education
Comment by catspaw — October 29, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
@178....GFK
How Niiiice.
Comment by Will — October 29, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
@178 Rush's clone. Which means he's wrong a large percentage of the time.
Comment by gdad — October 29, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
Catspaw:
I perfectly comfortable with my education, but thank you for caring.
Bill Hudson:
Please. I don't do Bill Maher. I don't feel guilty. And I am not paranoid. But thank you too for caring.
Love you all.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 29, 2009 @ 8:43 pm