Am I the only one who is disturbed by Peter’s avowed desire for 12 year old children? Is nothing immoral?
waterj, are you sure you’re straight, lad? Yer scarin’ me… 
daniel, let’s review PeterB’s original post on the subject:
First of all, he’s only 19, a child himself - at 19, most boys are attracted to trees for God’s sake. Secondly, he didn’t say he was out having sex with them, he just said he still finds them attractive - he realizes the law and his own morality and isn’t going to do anything. Third, there are some early bloomers out there who have fooled even me, and I’m significantly older - I’ve seen 13-year-olds I’ve mistaken for 21. (Plus once you get visited by the Puberty Fairy, it’s a done deal, regardless of what age the law might proscribe as making you a legal adult. Although “if there’s grass on the infield it’s safe to play ball” might not hold up in a court of law, natural law says differently. Again, I’m not advocating he start sleeping with newly-ripened young boys.)
It’s one thing to talk about your feelings, and it’s another matter entirely to act on them. He knows the score, so calm down.
Esprix
I’m just tryin’ for the title of most flamboyantly gay straight guy here.
Dear Gay Guy,
I just wanted to pipe in and say how appalled I am about today’s Supreme Court ruling regarding the Boy Scouts of America. I understand that they are a private organization, but that they can legally exclude any particular group in this manner is simply wrong. I am especially angry about the Eagle Scouts who, after coming out, have been stripped of the honors they rightfully earned.
Do you know any specifics that may have brought about the ruling? Did it basically come down to “our clubhouse, our rules”?
There was a lower court ruling several years ago that also said the Boy Scouts qualified as a private organization, and thus were exempt from anti-discrimination provisions that cover government-sponsored organizations.
In the long run, this will probably hurt the Boy Scouts. Many municipalities traditionally rent auditoriums and other property at specially reduced prices. Army enlistees who have been an Eagle Scout for at least 3 years get a rank of Private First Class (E3) immediately upon joining the Army (normal enlistees must start out as an E1, two grades lower). These are forms of government perks. Since the Boy Scouts are now “officially” a private organization that practices discrimination, both against homosexuals and against atheists, these government perks can be successfully challenged in court and defeated.
:wally
I was watching “Survivor” last night, and I was impressed that the toughest and most useful guy on the island is Richard, the gay guy. The straight guys are hopeless at hunting tapioca and catching fish, and Richard has turned out to be an ace fisherman. He also kicked ass in the blowgun contest. I was also amused by the commercial with one straight guy sucking snake venom out of his friend’s leg, so that to a woman hiking by, it looked like they were having oral sex.
I was also interested in your opinion of the Supreme Court’s verdict in the James Dale case.
Ok, I have a small question…
I was pondering in my mind stereotypical homosexual behavior, and homosexuals I personally know. Well, one of them is a young man I haven’t seen for a few years, but I met him before he “came out”.
He matched a few stereotypes
He was into the theatre
He had a great fashion sense
He was “flamboyant”
He was also very popular, but claimed to never have kissed a girl. (He was 19 at the time…Alarm bells should have been going off)
He also boggled the mind of one of his best friends, Blake, by leaving the LDS Church. Blake didn’t understand, he talked to me about it, and said that Danny used to have a great testimony of the Church, and could give beautiful prayers. All Danny would say was the Church wasn’t right for him.
A year later he came out, and then he moved, so I lost contact with him.
I also have another friend who exhibits pretty much identical characteristics.
So, my question is, because all of these were signs of homosexuality in one person, could I assume safely it’s signs of homosexuality in my other friend?
I’ve never watched “Survivor,” but I was wondering – how does one hunt tapioca? Makes me wonder about what exactly I’ve been eating all these years.
waterj2 wrote:
I think SkySlash got there before you did. Sorry, pal. How about heterosexual sidekick?
SeaDiver wrote:
There is a lively discussion and a complete legal breakdown of the decision in the “Homosexuals and the Boy Scouts - Revisited” thread.
Personally, yes, it appals me, despite the fact that the Supreme Court seems to have made the right decision. What gets me most is that “morally straight” and “clean” still equate to heterosexuality only. The guy was not using the Scouts as a platform, he was a model Eagle scout, he gave many, many years devoted to the organization, and something he does outside of the realm of his BSA responsibilities causes him to get ousted. It’s sad and pathetic and somewhat cowardly, IMHO, and I have every confidence, as tracer pointed out, that the BSA will suffer any consequences for this choice of action. Already I know my denomination, Unitarian Universalism, has denounced the BSA for its anti-Atheist and gay stances, and my local church won’t let them meet there anymore.
goboy wrote:
I do not watch “Survivor,” as I view it the same way I viewed the card game “Magic” when it came out - once you start, there’s no turning back, and then it will suck out your soul (I hate television in general, except good sci-fi and “Family Guy”). I didn’t even realize there was a gay guy on it. {SIGH} I suppose now I’ll have to watch an episode or two…
pepperlandgirl wrote:
Heavens, no! I will once again offer up SkySlash as our resident gay-acting straight guy. Stereotypical behavior tells you nothing about who a person really is, and at the same time reinforces bigotry. End it here, my dear, and just take him for who he is, who he says he is, how he acts, and that’s that. If you want to know more about him, ask - never assume.
Esprix
Esprix-
One of my lesbian friends told me about something she called “lesbian bed death.” She said that it referred to the sometimes low sexual drive of women, and that if two women are left to their own devices (so to speak) sexually, they may have sex rarely if at all, hence the “death” part. Is this common? I would think that the notion of not having much (or any) sex could be discouraging to the potential lesbian.
Now, I realize that you are not a lesbian, but perhaps one of the girls can help out if you have no knowledge of this supposed phenomenon?
Ha! Caught me on a good day…
Don’t think that “lesbian bed death” is relegated to women alone - men suffer from it, too, as do straight couples! Heck, even me and Dr. Boyfriend have had this problem! But your friend missed one small detail - it’s not that women have low sex drives and therefore have little sex, it’s that over the course of a long-term relationship they sometimes lose the spark in the bedroom. Any new couple, straight or otherwise (well, except maybe devout Christians) are going to have lots of sticky snugglebunnies in the beginning of their relationship, but over time, it fades, and I’ll leave it to the sexual relationships experts to opine over why. But for some reason (and maybe it’s because it’s perceived that women do have a lower sex drive than men, which I’m pretty sure isn’t true) lesbian couples got saddled with the term (or maybe they’re just the ones that whine the loudest when they’re not getting any… KIDDING! Don’t kill me! :D). It could also be that lesbian couples are sometimes seen as more loving/caring/cuddly than gay male couples, so the idea that sex becomes less important but companionship is more important would fit that theory nicely.
Or maybe I’m wrong.
Gosh, I hope so! 
Esprix
From the Associated Press wire:
The police say that they aren’t sure if it was a hate crime, because they all knew each other for a long time. The victim’s mother said that he had always been picked on for being “different.”
They never would have known it was murder at all and not just a hit and run if it hadn’t been for a third teenager who confessed to helping clean up the crime scene.
My question to you, Gay Guy: What the fuck is this world coming to?
Okay love, I think that this is my first appearance in ask the gay guy. I might be wrong about that it’s been a while since I have checked in here.
Anyway something you said in another thread let me know that you are the right person to ask about this.
Not really a gay question but a sex one.
My husband and my third are pretty well endowed, if you know what I mean, and I was wondering since you brought it up once…How in the world would you deep throat a man that big? I mean they aren’t monsterously huge, but quite a bit bigger than average.
They enjoy what I do, but one of these days I would love to give them something else to smile about!
EJsGirl wrote:
“Darn it, if I become a lesbian, I’ll never get any! I’ll just have to make myself be attracted to men instead.”
Kricket: It’s 12:30 a.m. and Matt has the frankies… How “well-hung” do you mean? The biggest guy I ever blew was seven or eight inches and fairly thick. I forget how I dealt with it but I did.
The police are pretty good at figuring out what happened. Onced they examined the body they would have figured out that it was intentional murder and not an accident. It wouldn’t be hard for them to figure out the victim was run over multiple times.
What if his being gay was part of the motivation? If I murder someone for cash does that make me better then someone who murders because of orientation?
Marc
MGibson:
Marc, the issue here is whether this was what is called a “hate crime” or “bias crime”, defined as “criminal actions intended to harm or intimidate people because of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or other minority group status”.
Of course nobody is saying that murdering someone for their money or for another private motive is a good thing, even comparatively. The reason why many people put hate crimes in a separate category is because, in addition to injuring the individual victim, they are a deliberate expression of hostility and aggression towards an entire group of people. The White House Conference on Hate Crimes commented, “Every time one of these crimes is committed it creates tension and fear, and tears at the fabric of community life.”
There is a great deal of debate over whether hate crimes should be subject to special or additional legal punishment because of their especially destructive motivation. Personally, I lean towards the view that hate crimes statutes are potentially dangerous to civil liberties, and that we’re better off imposing criminal penalties strictly on the basis of acts rather than motivations. But it’s perfectly legitimate to be concerned on a personal level about anti-minority hatred and violence. That concern is what cjt was expressing in wondering what the world is coming to, and that is why the question of whether “the victim’s being gay was part of the motivation” is an issue here. See?
**
Comparitively it is less of a crime. At least according to advocates of hate crime laws.
**
I don't really mind the separate category. It helps us keep track of motivations for criminal acts and that information can be used for a wide variety of purposes. What I do mind is harsher sentences for the same crime. The men who dragged James Byrd Jr. to death in Texas have been sentenced to death. How would a hate crime law help?
**
The Boston Strangler and the Son of Sam created tension, fear, and tore at the fabric of community life. So did the rapist here in the Dallas area who was raping coeds. Sounds to me like a lot of violent crimes fit that description.
**
What’s the point of passing any hate crime bill if it isn’t going to result in stricter punishments?
I think it is perfectly legitimate concern for everyone. Especially if you’re a young male.
Marc
{SIGH} I wish I knew, dear Cjt, but even the Gay Guy can answer that one. Best we can do is fight this wherever we find it and live our lives as best we can.
Practice, practice, practice… Other than that, I have no clue.
I’m torn on the hate crimes issue. On the one hand, a specific deterrent to would-be offenders sends a clear message of “zero tolerance,” even beyond the criminal element to society at large. But all crime is equally heinous, and if the laws on the books are sufficient for them, why aren’t they sufficient for all? As pointed out, Matthew Shepard’s killers have already lost their lives, so what good does making it a hate crime do other than classify it as such?
Hopefully a spirited discussion will help me hear both sides clearly.
Esprix