Ask the Gay Guy II!

[matt_mcl]

Of course that’s not all there is, goboy, and I don’t think anybody thinks that’s all there is. It’s all they may want or need at a particular point. Does the existence of supermarkets mean there’s nothing more to life than food?

[psiquest]

Forgive me for butting in… especially with my first post.

Outing:
I believe that people should come out at their own pace, not at the insistence of another. As such, I’ve never seen a situation where outing was - or could be - considered justifiable or acceptable. Michelangelo Signorile can kiss my butt.

I’ve come out to folks. I’ve also been outed. In one instance of the latter, I had a loaded 12-guage shotgun pointed at my head. An extreme circumstance which, understandably, figures heavily in my opinion.

10%:
That dates back to the Kinsey studies (don’t remember the years). The figure was backed up for a while, but has since been toasted… kind of. If you include the entire GLBT spectrum, 10% is a sound estimate.

The most recent stats that I’ve read place Gay Men at 3.51% (avg) and Lesbians at 2.89% (avg). I haven’t seen any stats on bisexuals or transgendered. (Note: there are some problems with the studies that present the above stats… but I’m not gonna quibble… yet.)

[Lamia]

Dear Gay Guy,

I have been reading your “Ask the Gay Guy!” thread since it began, long before I registered as a SDMB member. You are the coolest! I never posted a question because I didn’t have one – until now.

Since I am home from school for the summer I am once again being exposed to my younger siblings’ taste in television, which includes “Pokemon”. Something about James of the villainous Team Rocket caught my attention. It wasn’t just his blue blunt-cut, it was his entire manner, his attitude, his. . .style. What do you think, oh Great Gay Guy? Is he or isn’t he?

[tracer]

Graeme wrote:

I recently heard of a study that gay men have an over abundance of testosterone. The study goes on to say that finger length is one physical indicator of sexual orientation. (Apparently, the amount of testosterone dictates genital size and finger length).

Your middle finger (the flippin’ one) and the ring finger are the targets of the study. If your ring finger is as long as your middle finger (or close to it) then you have an abnormal amount of testosterone, and more likely to be homosexual.

There was, in fact, a thread in this very forum about that very study: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22842.

The upshot of that thread seemed to be that the study wasn’t nearly as conclusive as the newspaper article(s) made it out to be.

[Esprix]

Sorry, goys n’ birls, but I was off from work yesterday watching Dr. Boyfriend get his M.D. - now he really is Dr. Boyfriend.

Anywho, onward. Gaudere wrote:

[Moderator Note: I edited down the article out of copyright concerns. Please post a link to the article and minor excerpts, rather than the full text.–Gaudere]

Oh, sorry. I felt the entirety of the article was germane, particularly the part you edited out about the Bishop putting his head in his hands and saying how he could not witness what was about to happen.

tracer wrote:

file a deed of joint tenancy

I agree that this is something all couples, gay or straight, should consider. However, goboy obviously only touched upon a very, very small portion of the things afforded to heterosexual marriages that are not to same-sex couples. As I mentioned in the original Gay Guy thread, the General Accounting Office found 1,049 rights and responsibilities that were directly tied into marital status, and the state of Vermont’s civil union laws will affect over 300 in that state alone. And besides the tangible benefits, there’s also the entire issue of second class citizenship, separate but equal, etc.

Shadenwawa wrote:

if Ricky Martin came out and said “Hey, folks, I’m gay”, thats one thing. But I guess what I’m objecting to is the tendency for straight people to harp on this particular facet of someone’s personality, and for the gay person to come out reluctantly based on the straight community’s prying.

OK, I’ll buy some of that. On the one hand, he has a right to his own privacy, but on the other hand, it’s not like he didn’t know he was going to be asked tough questions when he achieved the success he wanted. I also understand that Barbara has been known to agree to certain interview conditions in the past, i.e., avoiding certain subjects if known ahead of time. Ricky could have gotten out of it. And looking at it from an interview point of view, I’m not sure if I’m pissed because he so obviously dodged the question that it makes him look like he’s ashamed of who he is, or if I’d rather he’d just lied and said, “Yeah, I’m straight.”

2nd Law asked:

… have you considered the drawbacks to marrige as well as the benefits? Most of the concerns I’ve heard that gay/lesbian couples have put forth about not being able to get married can be addressed through such things as joint tenancies, contractual agreements, durable powers of attorney. So I guess my question is, has anyone considered the disadvantages of gay/lesbian divorce in addition to the benefits of gay/lesbian marriage? Or am I putting the cart before the horse?

Not at all. In fact, our dear Otto (who has been curiously absent of late) posted an article not too long ago where New Zealand (possibly Australia, I don’t recall) was the very first country to pass a domestic partnership divorce bill that delineated what happens when a common law marriage dissolves, and it did apply to same-sex couples, even though they cannot marry in that country. As I said above, the things you mention are certainly important to a marriage, but there are hundreds of other legal ramifications to consider besides the obvious ones, and, more importantly (at least to me), there is the matter of social equality and recognition. Suffice it to say that gay men and lesbians want to be able to marry each other both legally and socially for better and for worse.

Trumpy303 asked:

1. (For the Gay Guy): When us nice, straight guys have to deal with another straight guy who uses women and then dumps them we say “Hey, man, you’re giving us nice guys a bad name!”. So, what about you nice gay guys? Does the same thing come up? Are there gay guys who use guys and dump them? Gay Gals are invited to answer as well.
   [/quote]

As matt pointed out, there are jerks across the whole spectrum of humanity, and it seems I’ve dated most of them. (Besides, who said I was a nice gay guy? ;))

Eureka wrote:

Interesting, the whole UMC General Conference was obviously a lot more complicated than I had realized. (Actually, that isn’t surprising, since all I knew I’d gotten from the radio or the newspaper and from conversations that occured prior to General Conference and I wasn’t curious enough to do more research.)

Then I’m glad you asked.

Basically, I believe that homosexual activity is morally wrong “because God said so”… I say I have mixed feelings because I’m concerned that homosexuality not be singled out as the unforgivable sin… I guess it comes down to, I believe homosexual activity to be wrong and I’m uncomfortable with either condemning all homosexuals as if homosexuality was the unforgivable sin or with pretending that I don’t think homosexuality is a big deal.

There is middle ground, and I’ll betcha talking with some of the non-fundie Christians on this board might be able to help you see that. Nice buncha folks, they is.

Pastor Y. fell into the common trap of looking for further proof that homosexuality is wrong and came up with “because AIDS is a terrible way to die”.

Indeed it is. Does the pastor also think that heterosexuality is wrong? I mean, that is the #1 vehicle of transmission world-wide.

I understand the appeal of the “just the rights heterosexuals take for granted” (that goboy (? I hope) posted) it is just that if homosexual activity is wrong, and I believe it is, than I don’t want to be a part of promoting something I believe to be wrong just to be “fair”.

How do your religious beliefs figure into your thoughts about legal protections and rights for the gay community?

I hate comparisons to other civil rights movements, because I think there is something inherently different between being homosexual and being “not exactly blue-eyed blond” (as my mother described a certain light-skinned black man at our church) or being female.

Can you explain this “inherent difference?” I’d think that one group of people being treated as second-class would be just as unfair as another being so treated.

matt_mcl wrote:

I regard this as a point in favour of one night stands, if you please, on the grounds that you don’t have to trick someone into a sham relationship in order to get laid.

A man after my own heart.

goboy wrote:

… gay men tend to be shallow and sex-obsessed. Online, gay men always describe themselves by physical features, often in urological detail. They rarely include any deeper qualities in their online profiles, like ‘sense of humor’ or’good dancer.’ They also seem to look for others who fit a narrow list of qualifications, such as age, weight, race, and that as long as you’re physically pleasing, they don’t care to know you as a person.

Lemme guess - you’re on AOL, right? Seriously, the internet has given everyone, gay and straight alike, the freedom to go for exactly what they’re looking for, for better or for worse. Besides reminding you that not everyone online is like this, maybe you should stop looking online. Meeting people in person is a far better way of attaching depth to a human being than a faceless screen name and physical stats. I’ll agree with matt when he says:

I would argue that there’s a difference between honestly looking for sex, and looking for sex by pretending you’re looking for love.

picmr asked:

How do you view the practice of “outing”? When is it justifiable? I think Esprix opined that the gay who decline to say they are gay are cowards. To what extent is there a responsibility to come out in public?

IMHO, it is okay to feel disappointed in those who fail to out themselves, but “outing” should be reserved for those who are hypocrites: those who are gay, but attack gays or give succour (ooh er) to those who do.

Actually, I said that Ricky Martin was a coward for dodging the question the way he did. Still, even if he’s going to wamble about the truth about himself, at least we know he’s gay-positive, so he’s not a total hypocrite. And outing in self-defense is just that, and outing for disingenious purposes is not ethical.

matt_mcl wrote:

… when you’re as rich as Ricky Martin (just to pick a name randomly out of the air), it’s not like you’re going to lose everything by being disowned or something. There’s pretty much no excuse for a celebrity to stay in the closet when there are gay kids who need his or her role modelship in this celeb-worshiping culture.

But matt, I worship you as my hero!

Graeme wrote:

If that statement were true, then straight people could BECOME gay at will.

Actually, I know of one person on this very message board who claimed he could, but reports on his success have not been forthcoming.

Silo asked:

I heard in casual talk yesterday that roughly 10 percent of the US population is gay. Is that an accurate figure?

As psiquest pointed out, the figure is based off of Kinsey’s original research, which was groundbreaking for its time. However, my understanding was that his research technique was not as strict as it could have been, or at least not as strict as it is today. Since then I’ve seen figures ranging from 1% to 13%, depending on the study. Mostly it depends on what they classify as “homosexual” - thoughts, emotions, sexual intercourse, etc. - each study seems to vary. In light of such a mixed bag of opinions, I’m going to stick with 10% as an average, albeit perhaps a slightly high one.

psiquest wrote:

Forgive me for butting in… especially with my first post.

Not at all - we’re honored!

I’ve come out to folks. I’ve also been outed. In one instance of the latter, I had a loaded 12-guage shotgun pointed at my head. An extreme circumstance which, understandably, figures heavily in my opinion.

Would you be comfortable enough to share this incident with us?

If you include the entire GLBT spectrum, 10% is a sound estimate… The most recent stats that I’ve read place Gay Men at 3.51% (avg) and Lesbians at 2.89% (avg).

Could you back those stats up with a source cite? I’m curious. I’d say 10% for the entire queer spectrum is way too low, but the 3% I’ve heard before for homosexual men.

Lamia effused:

I have been reading your “Ask the Gay Guy!” thread since it began, long before I registered as a SDMB member. You are the coolest!

Aw, shucks. :o I couldn’t do it without all my pals n’ gal-pals here!

Since I am home from school for the summer I am once again being exposed to my younger siblings’ taste in television, which includes “Pokemon”. Something about James of the villainous Team Rocket caught my attention. It wasn’t just his blue blunt-cut, it was his entire manner, his attitude, his. . . style. What do you think, oh Great Gay Guy? Is he or isn’t he?

Oh, puh-lease. He talks like Ursula the sea witch from “Little Mermaid” and that hair looks like Christian Dior. No one should wonder why he’s stuck hanging out with his sister.

Esprix

[Gaudere]

I felt the entirety of the article was germane, particularly the part you edited out about the Bishop putting his head in his hands and saying how he could not witness what was about to happen.

[Moderator Hat ON]

It’s not a matter of whether it was “germane”; a post of one of Dave Barry’s articles may be germane to some discussion, too, but if you start posting the full text of copyrighted works lawyers may start knocking at our door. If you post the full text or a significant portion of a copyrighted work, we will edit it, and we probably won’t be able to do as good a job at pulling out the relevent bits as you could yourself. Also, the website you got that article from almost certainly provides such articles in the hopes that people will visit them and thereby they get advertising $$$; it’s not fair to cheat them out of that. If they did not give explicit permission for reposting that article wherever you like, you can’t use it aside from minor excerpts.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Esprix]

Jeez, sorry. I understood your reasons the first time. I promise I won’t do it again…

Esprix

[tracer]

The Gay Guy [TM] wrote:

Actually, I said that Ricky Martin was a coward for dodging the question the way he did.

What if, instead, he had dodged the question by saying, “It’s none of your business”?

[psiquest]

Could you back those stats up with a source cite? I’m curious. I’d say 10% for the entire queer spectrum is way too low, but the 3% I’ve heard before for homosexual men.

Other than the quoted gay & lesbian stats, nope. I said estimate for the 10%. I can hunt down the sources for the gay & lesbian stats if you like.

[matt_mcl]

But matt, I worship you as my hero!

That’s obviously impossible, since I worship you as my hero. Please try not to be mistaken again; it’s so disillusioning.

[Doobieous]

**

But matt, I worship you as my hero!

That’s obviously impossible, since I worship you as my hero. Please try not to be mistaken again; it’s so disillusioning.
**

Do I have to separate you two with a yard stick?!

kidding, guys

[gobear]

Thansk to Matt and Esprix for your sensible advice. I wrote my previous post after a couple of disastrous dates with guys I had met on the 'Net. The real world is a lot better place to meet people.
Regarding the 10 percent controversy, couldn’t we say the queer spectrum is actually 100 percent of the population, with absolute heteros bunched at the right side of the bell curve? In my experience, folks who are completely gay or completely straight form small minorities, and most folks have some degree of bisexual urges within them. Were it not for societal and religious pressures, I think most otherwise straight guys would not turn down a helping hand from a buddy, and I have yet to meet a completely heterosexual woman. What do y’all think?

[Esprix]

tracer asked:

What if, instead, he had dodged the question by saying, “It’s none of your business”?

I don’t think any answer other than, “Yes, I’m gay,” or, “No, I’m straight,” is going to sound any less than “Well, I’m gay, but I don’t want anyone to know it.” I’d give him more credit for “it’s none of your business” over “oh, let’s just ignore the question altogether” any day. The answer he gave just sounded very uncomfortable.

psiquest wrote:

Other than the quoted gay & lesbian stats, nope. I said estimate for the 10%. I can hunt down the sources for the gay & lesbian stats if you like.

Tut tut - quoting stats without a cite? Bad form, particularly here in the SDMB. Give me 10 "Oh, Mary!"s and get down on your knees and… pray.

matt_mcl wrote:

That’s obviously impossible, since I worship you as my hero. Please try not to be mistaken again; it’s so disillusioning.

{sigh} Fine, fine, I’ll try better next time.

Doobieous wrote:

Do I have to separate you two with a yard stick?!

No, but perhaps you could spa… um, er, never mind!

goboy

Thansk to Matt and Esprix for your sensible advice.

No problem - thanks to you for joining our merry little band.

I wrote my previous post after a couple of disastrous dates with guys I had met on the 'Net. The real world is a lot better place to meet people.

Keep up hope, though. I’ve met tricks, friends, boyfriends and lovers all over the 'net, and regret very few meetings. Still, getting your friends to have large parties where you can mix and mingle with their other cute friends is a great way of meeting folks, IMHO.

Regarding the 10 percent controversy, couldn’t we say the queer spectrum is actually 100 percent of the population, with absolute heteros bunched at the right side of the bell curve? In my experience, folks who are completely gay or completely straight form small minorities, and most folks have some degree of bisexual urges within them.

This has always been my own pet theory, as nature runs on a bell curve - therefore, the vast majority of folks are actually bisexual. My personal opinion is that this also contributes to the “gays choose to be gay” mindset because, let’s say that if 80% of the population were bisexual to some greater or lesser degree (leaving 10% wholly homosexual and 10% wholly heterosexual), and yet self-identified bisexuals do not currently make up 80% of our population, then, in effect, that 80% bisexual portion of the population did “choose” to be straight by choosing not to act on their same-sex impulses and self-identify as heterosexual. Huh? Huh? Am I right here?

Were it not for societal and religious pressures, I think most otherwise straight guys would not turn down a helping hand from a buddy,

Thankfully there are some that don’t…

… and I have yet to meet a completely heterosexual woman. What do y’all think?

Well, I’ve met completely hetero women, but it has been my observation that most women are much more open to expressing their beliefs, feelings and sexual fantasies than most men. Personally, I think it’s a societal thing, but I could be wrong.

Esprix

[hawthorne]

(Esprix):
And outing in self-defense is just that, and outing for disingenious purposes is not ethical.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

On its face it says that if you are in a spot, it is okay to reveal stuff that you would not reveal otherwise; if you you “out” for bad reasons, it’s bad. Granted, but not very informative (note: this is addressed to gay guy, not to others who have replied in earnest and/ or in chilling silhouette).

What constitutes “ingenuous” circumstances? Distinguish (if you will) between (i) a legislator sponsors a homophobic programme; (ii) fails to support a pro-gay programme; (iii) is a member of a party which does (i) or (ii); (iv) engages in homophobic rhetoric.

picmr

[Eureka]

Esprix said:

There is middle ground, and I’ll betcha talking with some of the non-fundie Christians on this board might be able to help you see that. Nice buncha folks, they is.

The problem is that I’d rather associate with those who are more fundie than I as opposed to those who are less. I’m sure there is middle ground, I’m not sure that this is an issue of great enough significance to ME PERSONNALLY for me to look hard for it and try to promote it.

I said:

Pastor Y. fell into the common trap of looking for further proof that homosexuality is wrong and came up with “because AIDS is a terrible way to die”.

Esprix responded:

Indeed it is. Does the pastor also think that heterosexuality is wrong? I mean, that is the #1 vehicle of transmission world-wide.

Pastor Y. would probably say that sex outside of marriage is wrong. If heterosexuals had sex only with their spouses, the transmission of AIDS would decrease dramatically.

Esprix again:

How do your religious beliefs figure into your thoughts about legal protections and rights for the gay community?

I’m not opposed (in principle)to legislation which protects the gay community from being bashed for being gay. I’m not even sure that I’m opposed (again, in principle) to legislation which would make it easier for members of the gay community to live together and have the same property rights and such which committed heterosexual couples have. But, were I in a position where my opinion was asked (such as in California with a proposition on the ballot) I’d probably vote against granting more rights to gays, as a statement that I feel that homosexual activity is morally wrong.

I said:

I hate comparisons to other civil rights movements, because I think there is something inherently different between being homosexual and being “not exactly blue-eyed blond” (as my mother described a certain light-skinned black man at our church) or being female.

Esprix wondered:

Can you explain this “inherent difference?” I’d think that one group of people being treated as second-class would be just as unfair as another being so treated.

Can I explain? Probably not, but I’ll try anyway.
While the gay community insists loudly that being gay is no more a choice than being black or female, I’m not sure I’m convinced. (Before you waste your time trying to persuade me, I’ll admit that the arguments seem better on your side). I think that this inherent difference comes down to you may not have a choice about whether you are attracted to men or women, but you have a choice about whether you act on your attraction. You choose to behave in a way I consider immoral. Any movement towards society not seeing it as immoral but as normal is a movement away from what I see as God’s will. (The problem, of course, is that unless homosexuality is the unforgivable sin, your behavior may actually be more moral than that of many heterosexuals. And the other problem is that what one person or group sees as God’s will is not the deciding factor in what laws are or should be in this country.)
But, it all comes down to, you have a choice about your behavior, though you don’t about your skin color or your gender.

[pepperlandgirl]

Ok, I originally told this to Esprix via AOL IM. He suggested I post it in this thread, so here it goes!

Before I came to the SDMB, I never had a problem with homosexuals,(As in, PREPARE TO BURN IN HELL PERVERTS!), but I also could not understand it. That created a huge stumbling block for me. In my mind homosexuality was almost always about “sex” not about love…Then one night I was laying in bed, next to my BF, trying to sleep. And I realized I loved him, completely, totally, with all my heart. And I would love him with or without a sexual relationship. I love him because he completes the other half of me. THe ragged side, so to speak…In other words, I realized how important love is for the first time. I realized it didn’t matter who or what it came from. It hit me right up side the head…to quote the Beatles “All You Need is Love” =)…Plus, I love men and everything they do. So it stands to reason that men love men too…just cuz men are so lovable…I know I am not telling you anything you don’t know already… But I know one of the reasons Esprix started the Ask the Gay Guy threads is to get rid of ignorance, stereotypes, etc etc…and as far as that goes, it’s succeeded with me.

Ok, there’s my piece. Thank you for reading it. =)

[Esprix]

picmr asked:

On its face it says that if you are in a spot, it is okay to reveal stuff that you would not reveal otherwise; if you you “out” for bad reasons, it’s bad. Granted, but not very informative (note: this is addressed to gay guy, not to others who have replied in earnest and/ or in chilling silhouette).

What constitutes “ingenuous” circumstances? Distinguish (if you will) between (i) a legislator sponsors a homophobic programme; (ii) fails to support a pro-gay programme; (iii) is a member of a party which does (i) or (ii); (iv) engages in homophobic rhetoric.

If any public official sponsors anti-gay legislation they’re going to get put on the spot. If they’re in the closet, they run the risk of being revealed. Only the person with that evidence can make the decision whether to out them or not.

So say I had evidence of Senator Hapablatt being gay (like, oh, I videotaped our night of sexual abandon). Would I blackmail him? No. But he knows he’s gay, and he knows by being in the public eye he runs the risk of being found out and/or outed. So let’s say the senator is liberal and pro-gay without being out himself. Well, fine, that’s his choice. Say he doesn’t vote for a pro-gay bill. That’s iffy - I suppose it would depend on the importance of the bill. Personally, though, I still don’t think I’d give the tape over to the press. However, if he got up in chambers and went on an anti-gay tirade and then voted for a decidedly anti-gay bill, then I wouldn’t have much problem turning the tape over. In my opinion, that’s self-defense. Yes, it’s a hard line between personal privacy and your life belonging to the people who voted you into office, and I’m glad I don’t have that videotape, but there are times where I feel it’s justified when someone is actively and hypocritically working against a group of people’s rights. (Frankly, I can’t think of anyone who was outed under such circumstances - most were hoisted by their own personal pitards, like Barney Frank - and even if someone did claim someone was gay, without that videotape it’s pretty hard to prove and easy to deny, until the press decides they’re bored and follow him to his favorite gay bar with a press of photographers, a la “The Birdcage.”)

Outing is, all said, a nasty business.

Esprix

[Esprix]

The problem is that I’d rather associate with those who are more fundie than I as opposed to those who are less. I’m sure there is middle ground, I’m not sure that this is an issue of great enough significance to ME PERSONNALLY for me to look hard for it and try to promote it.

Well, no one’s asking you to “promote” homosexuality, but in the society in which we live, it is an issue, and it will affect you at some point, so having a clear opinion about it from rational sources may help you.

Pastor Y. would probably say that sex outside of marriage is wrong. If heterosexuals had sex only with their spouses, the transmission of AIDS would decrease dramatically.

Agreed, and that seems to be the prevailing Christian ethic. So since homosexuals can’t “marry” in the traditional sense, how about life-long committed monogamous same-sex couples? Certainly there’s no risk of STD transmission there, and there’s a commitment of love to boot.

I’m not opposed (in principle)to legislation which protects the gay community from being bashed for being gay. I’m not even sure that I’m opposed (again, in principle) to legislation which would make it easier for members of the gay community to live together and have the same property rights and such which committed heterosexual couples have. But, were I in a position where my opinion was asked (such as in California with a proposition on the ballot) I’d probably vote against granting more rights to gays, as a statement that I feel that homosexual activity is morally wrong.

Well, so far no one has been able to come up with a list of “special rights” the gay community mythically seems to be asking for - equal treatment under the law, the right to happiness free from persecution, justice and respect all seem to be fairly basic rights to everyone. And, personally, I think the California prop-22 was just plain mean-spirited, but that’s just my opinion - obviously California voters didn’t agree.

While the gay community insists loudly that being gay is no more a choice than being black or female, I’m not sure I’m convinced. (Before you waste your time trying to persuade me, I’ll admit that the arguments seem better on your side).

As someone once pointed out to me, even if it weren’t inherent, the right to choose still remains an unalienable right. Still, my belief, and the whole of the medical and scientific communities agree, that sexual orientation is not a choice.

I think that this inherent difference comes down to you may not have a choice about whether you are attracted to men or women, but you have a choice about whether you act on your attraction. You choose to behave in a way I consider immoral.

Ah, the old “it’s ok to be gay, but just don’t do those gay things” argument.

Esprix

[Esprix]

pepperlandgirl wrote:

Before I came to the SDMB, I never had a problem with homosexuals,(As in, PREPARE TO BURN IN HELL PERVERTS!), but I also could not understand it. That created a huge stumbling block for me. In my mind homosexuality was almost always about “sex” not about love…Then one night I was laying in bed, next to my BF, trying to sleep. And I realized I loved him, completely, totally, with all my heart. And I would love him with or without a sexual relationship. I love him because he completes the other half of me. THe ragged side, so to speak…In other words, I realized how important love is for the first time. I realized it didn’t matter who or what it came from…

Well bully for you! Love truly does conquer all. I hope you and your squeezie stay happy.

Plus, I love men and everything they do. So it stands to reason that men love men too…just cuz men are so lovable…

Well, most of 'em…

I know one of the reasons Esprix started the Ask the Gay Guy threads is to get rid of ignorance, stereotypes, etc etc…and as far as that goes, it’s succeeded with me.

I and my cohorts appreciate a good success story. I think I can say we’re all happy we made some small difference.

Esprix

[gobear]

As Esprix wrote, outing is indeed a nasty business. Certainly, Ricky Martin or Rosie O’Donnell should be allowed to remain quiet about their sexual orientations, although it would be nice if they could live honestly and give homosexuality a friendly face.
On the other hand, gay-baiting hypocrites like Terry Dolan, J. Edgar Hoover, and Roy Cohn should have had the closet door ripped off the hinges while they were still alive to suffer the consequences.
Pepperlandgirl, that was a very sweet sentiment. I wish more people could have your kind heart and open mind.