Not at all. I am legitimately, straightforwardly asserting that an individual’s vociferous advocacy of family values is sufficient evidence to conclude that said individual secretly enjoys the anal insertion of gourds and similar produce while simultaneously receiving a genital tonguebath from a baby aardvark.
Why, do I sound sarcastic?
Yeah, but 'cmon – who doesn’t??
My error. Let the MPSIMS-level roasting re-commence. It’s just my NYC-training - everything sounds sarcastic to us.
Not the least bit surprising.
Liking it has nothing to do with it. It fits the personal experience of a large number of people. Who are the guys who end up surprising everyone by making out with a dude at a party when the alcohol has been flowing? Always, always, always the ones who bleat the loudest about how disgusting homosexuality is.
Er, no. It makes national news when those people are publicly crusading against the very things they’re into, generally claiming that those things are immoral or dangerous. Lots of people fake their way into a group every day without it making the national news.
Problem is you’re putting the cart before the horse. A deeply-closeted homosexual afraid of being outed may be externally homophobic – but homophobia does not necessarily mean one is a homosexual.
In other words, although it might follow in some (many? most? few?) cases that membership in a particular despised/targeted/discriminated group may cause one to camouflage oneself with either outward animosity to that group or an extreme philia for the opposite group, it doesn’t follow that such external behaviour masks a membership in said original group.
Either that, or David Duke is a black person in denial.
Well… he had to watch all that smut in order to edit it out, so it probably corrupted him.
This is just another example of those hollyweird libruls ruining America! :mad:
Statistically more or less true, or at least bisexual. It’s been show that homophobic people are more likely than average people to find homosexual imagery arousing.
There’s an inductive fallacy here, isn’t there? - All cats are animals, therefore all animals are cats.
There’s also a significant element of confirmation bias too - stories like this are automatically more interesting to the media than they would be if the perp was just some random joe.
This part:
They teach girls to read in Utah?
I know it’s not really germaine but cite?
Maybe not, but just to be Devil’s Advocate here…
There are those who claim that porn causes aberrant behavior. If true, then the censors would be the most affected and the most aberrant. (What a sacrifice they make to protect the multitudes!)
Never mind the censors who don’t succumb; this example seems to prove that they were right.
Not mine to cite, but a 1996 study, Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal? , got quite a bit of attention. Not sure how rock hard the science is, but males in the study with homophobic views demonstrated sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli.
As the author of the OP’s cite, I wouldn’t say “facetious”. But then, I’m surprised at it being called a “cite”.
YAD is comedy polemic. Has been since the very start. Never intended to be fair, evenhanded, or to raise the level of discourse. But it’s not facetious in the sense that I didn’t mean it. I think it’s a reasonable and largely harmless assessment of the odds to assume that any given person espousing purity in public is not practicing it in private. Also, it’s funny.
But, in general to the thread, it’s probably best not to analyze my columns as if they were putting forth a logical argument. That way lies madness.
Hey, welcome!
<humor to humorless translator ON>
You do realize that there are two separate links in my original post, yes?
One is a legitimate, factual news article.
The second is an over the top rant, penned by our new and greatly esteemed visitor, from which I took my cue in starting this thread (translation: “shamelessly ripped off”).
Clear now?
<translator OFF>
Now you are just taking all the fun out of the thread. Booo!
snerk 
Yes, I read them both.
I understood that when I read that, thanks.
Ok.
Nope. I think the original rant was funny, but only because I thought he was serious, and it’s funny to laugh at people with such absurd views. Unless it’s somebody I have an opportunity to interact with, then it’s kind of creepy. However, if the opposite is true, and you’re making fun of him (it’s kind of hard to tell, really), you should leave the humor translator on for me a bit longer. 
That’s the study I was referring to.
You’re right; it doesn’t. And I never said it does, BTW; any attempt to accuse me of same is based on either a straw-man fallacy or an overly broad reading of my posts. But it’s an indicator with, IME, a higher rate of success than any of the classic ones (played with Barbies, likes pink, doesn’t like sports, doesn’t have good luck with women, etc). And it’s a more relevant indicator, because in many of the LGBT homophobes’ cases, their homophobia has a direct negative effect on our nation and especially other LGBT people.