Family Values Still Threaten GOP

[moralist]

Homosexuality has been relentlessly pitched for 50 years in film and literature. Big surprise, now it's the default sexuality.

The Leather Boys (1964)

The Producers (1968)

The Killing of Sister George (1968)

The Gay Deceivers (1969)

Midnight Cowboy (1969)

Staircase (1969)

Entertaining Mr Sloane (1970)

Myra Breckinridge (1970)

Something For Everyone (1970)

The Boys In The Band (1970)

Pink Narcissus (1971)

Some of My Best Friends Are (1971)

Cabaret (1972)

Deliverance (1972)

Pink Flamingos (1972)

A Very Natural Thing (1974)

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

Norman, Is That You? (1976)

The Ritz (1976)

Sebastiane (1976)

Alexander: The Other Side of Dawn (1977 - TV movie)

Desperate Living (1977)

Word Is Out (1977)

La Cage aux Folles (1978)

Gay USA (1978)

Cruising (1980)

La Cage aux Folles II (1980)

Zorro, The Gay Blade (1981)

Forty Deuce (1982)

Victor Victoria (1982)

Another Country (1984)

Before Stonewall (1984)

La Cage aux Folles 3 (1984)

The Times of Harvey Milk (1984)

Buddies (1985)

An Early Frost (1985)

Kiss of The Spider Woman (1985)

As Is (1986 - TV)

Mala Noche (1986)

Parting Glances (1986)

Law of Desire (1987)

Three Bewildered People in the Night (1987)

Maurice (1987)

Prick Up Your Ears (1987)

Withnail and I (1987)

'68 (1988)

The Everlasting Secret Family (1988)

The Fruit Machine (1988)

Fun Down There (1988)

Liberace: Behind the Music (1988)

Looking for Langston (1988)

Torch Song Trilogy (1988)

Coming Out (1989)

Common Threads: Stories from the Quilt (1989 - TV)

Longtime Companion (1989)

The Long Weekend O' Despair (1989)

Tongues Untied (1989)

The Garden (1990)

Resident Alien (1990)

Rock Hudson (1990)

and blah blah blah ... it gets worse, obviously

Homosexuality, like any other product, is advocated promoted advertised packaged and sold to the public.

As an aside... Zorro, the Gay Blade is one of the most hilarious movies ever made! And would be impossible to make today because of the leftist political correct fascist "thought police".

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

Gay Celebrities

Wild About Movies.com

June 10, 2014

CONFIRMED GAY

Roland Emmerich

Philip Seymour Hoffman (late)

Ellen Page

Satchel Ronan

Farrow Jon Lovett (boyfriend of above)

Tom Daley

Jack Dorsey

Harvey Levin (TMZ)

Barry Diller

Tim Cook (Apple)

Peter Thiel

Shepard Smith

Alan Cumming

Amber Heard

Anderson Cooper

Andrew Rannells

Barack Obama (source)

BD Wong

Ben Whishaw

Bill Condon

Brad Garrett (Everybody Loves Raymond)

Bradley Cooper

Bryan Singer

Chad Allen

Chandler Massey

Chiwetel Ejiofor

Chris Colfer

Clea DuVall

Clive Barker

Clive Davis

Colt Prattes

Colton Haynes

Cynthia Nixon

Darren Criss

Dave Franco

David Geffen

David Hyde Pierce

David Muir (ABC News)

Derek Hough (boyfriend of Mark Ballas)

Don Lemon (CNN)

Edward Norton

Eleanor Roosevelt (late)

Elijah Wood

Ellen DeGeneres

Eric Szmanda

Ezra Miller

Gayle King

George Clooney

Gillian Anderson

Heather Matarazzo

Hillary Swank

Ian McKellen

Jack Noseworthy

Jake Gyllenhaal

James Dean (late)

James Franco

James Van Der Beek (marriage of convenience)

Jared Leto

Jeremy Piven

Jeremy Renner

Jim Parsons

Jodie Foster

John Barrowman

John Travolta (marriage of convenience)

Jonathan Bennett

Jonathan Taylor Thomas

Jonathan Togo

Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Joseph Mazzello

Justin Timberlake (marriage of convenience)

Kelly McGillis

Kevin Spacey

Kristy McNichol

Lance Bass

Lindsay Lohan

Lucas Grabeel

Luke MacFarlane

Matt Bomer

Matt Dallas

Michelle Rodriguez

Montgomery Clift (late)

Nate Ruess

Nathan Lane

Neil Patrick Harris

Oprah Winfrey

Peter Berg

Portia DeRossi

Queen Latifah (Dana Owens)

Raymond Burr (late)

Richard Gere (marriage of convenience)

Ricky Martin

Robert Reed (late)

Robin Roberts

Rock Hudson (late)

Rosie O’Donnell

Ryan Seacrest

Sarah Gilbert

Sarah Paulson

Scott Evans (brother of Chris Evans)

Sean Hayes

Sean Pyfrom

Stephen Fry

Suze Orman

Taylor Kitsch

Taylor Lautner

Tom Cruise (marriage of convenience)

Tyler Perry

Victor Garber

Vin Diesel (bi)

Wentworth Miller

Will Estes

Woody Harrelson

Zachary Quinto

WE’RE 99.9% CONFIDENT

Adrian Grenier

Alex Pettyfer

Alexander Ludwig

Andrew Garfield

Andy Samberg

Anton Yelchin

Ben Barnes

Ben Savage

Billy Kay

Brad Renfro (late)

Brenton Thwaites

Chace Crawford

Chris Evans

Chris Klein

Chris Massoglia

Corbin Bleu

Daniel Radcliffe

David Gallagher

Devon Sawa

Eric Christian Olsen

Freddie Highmore

George Eads

Heath Ledger (late)

Ian Harding

Ian Somerhalder

Jack Quaid (son of Dennis and Meg Ryan)

Jai Courtney

Jake Able

James Badge Dale

Jamie Bell (marriage of confusion)

Jason Segel

Jeremy Irvine

Jesse McCartney

John Travolta (marriage of convenience)

Jonathan Tucker

Josh Hutcherson

Joshua Jackson

Justin Bartha

Leonardo DiCaprio

Liam Hemsworth

Lou Taylor Pucci

Lucas Black

Lucas Till

Michael Cera

Michael Clark Duncan (married to Omarosa, but that’s like Oprah being married to Steadman)

Miles Teller

Nick Carter

Nicolas D’Agosto

Nicholas Hoult

Paul Dano

Robert Pattinson

Ryan Gosling

Sebastian Stan

Shia LeBeouf

Tad Hilgenbrinck

Thomas Dekker

Toby Hemingway

Travis Fimmel

Trevor Morgan

Tyler Hoechlin

Zac Efron

The jury is still out on the following.

MAYBE SO ???

Max Irons

Henry Cavill

Michael Fassbender

Bo Barrett

Joel Edgerton

Luke Schroder (Ricky Schroder’s son)

Thomas Mann

Stephen Dorff

Colin Hanks

Chad Michael Murray (two failed marriages)

Joaquin Phoenix

Ethan Hawke (former marriage of convenience to a lesbian, we’re sure)

Uma Thurman (former marriage of convenience to a homosexual, we’re almost sure)

Tobey Maguire (marriage of convenience)

Jared Padalecki

Justin Chatwin

Ashton Kutcher (former marriage of convenience to a lesbian, Demi Moore)

Demi Moore (former marriages of convenience; Ashton Kutcher, Bruce Willis)

Anthony Clark

Yes. Tobey Maguire is married with kids. But so are Tom Cruise and John Travolta. Tobey Maguire’s marriage was the most manufactured Hollywood marriage in memory. Well, since the ‘marriage’ of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. It ‘seems’ to be a marriage of convenience. His wife? The daughter of the President of Universal, Ron Meyer – (president of the entire company Universal; movies, video, TV, theme parks, etc.) Now, Ashton Kutcher is the biggest mystery of all. Rumors have abounded for almost two decades that Demi Moore is a lesbian. Is Ashton Kutcher planning his biggest PUNK what with his foolish ‘marriage’ to Demi Moore, be it he is straight or gay?

And the WHO CARES list of confirmed living and dead homosexuals!

Adam Shankman

Alvin Ailey (late)

Andy Dick

Barney Frank

Billie Jean King

Bret Easton Ellis

Charles Nelson Reilly (late)

Christopher Rice

Clay Aiken

Danny Pintauro

David Bowie

David Brudnoy (late)

David Sedaris

Denholm Elliott (late)

Edward Albee (late)

Elton John (she is grandma to all the gays)

George Takei

Greta Garbo (late)

Guillermo Diaz

Herb Ritts (late)

J. Edgar Hoover (late)

Jane Lynch

Jann Wenner

Joel Grey

John Cameron Mitchell

John Waters

Johnny Mathis

Kathy Najimy

Lee Daniels

Leonard Bernstein (late)

Lily Tomlin

Linda Hunt

Liza Minnelli

Malcolm Forbes (late)

Marc Cherry

Mark O’Donnell (late)

Matt Drudge

Melissa Etheridge

Meredith Baxter-Birney

Nancy Kulp

Paul Bowles (late)

Pete Postlethwaite (late)

Peter Allen (who was married to lez, Liza Minnelli) (late)

Rachel Maddow

Ralph Waldo Emerson (late)

Rip Taylor

Rupert Everett

Ryan Murphy

Sam Champion

Simon Callow

Tab Hunter

Tim Gunn

Tim Nasson

TR Knight

Trevor Moretz (Born in 1986, he is the 6′ 3″ older brother of Chloe Moretz)

Wanda Sykes

Wilson Cruz

Like I said, queer is the Politically Correct default sexuality in Hollywood now.

The Gay Mafia is Real http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/adam-carolla-gay-mafia-is-705809

If You Cross Them You Get Whacked http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/04/bill_maher_there_is_a_gay_mafia_if_you_cross_them_you_do_get_whacked.html

Gay Mafia Crushes Michael Ovitz http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2002/08/ovitz200208

I'm sure you DON'T want to see a list of gay Objectivist celebrities.

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/homosexuality.htm

[SoAMadDeathWish]

^ Go back to stormfront.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Face the facts. Reality is real.

http://www.thebacklot.com/influential-gay-television-producers/10/2013/5/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/17/arts/television-radio-the-boys-in-the-writers-room.html
http://www.afterellen.com/top-gay-and-lesbian-tv-writers-profiled-in-created-by/12/2005/
http://books.google.com/books?id=gwhT8SIGEQIC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=gay+tv+writers&source=bl&ots=MX7lqAL2_8&sig=H0MqWPoZ4RIOs2UDW0BEHMX_eTQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qJOcU6TyC8SYyATE5YDICQ&ved=0CGcQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=gay%20tv%20writers&f=false

http://www.glbtq.com/literature/musical_theater.html

[Brant Gaede]

This thread is also becoming more and more fulminating fun!

--Brant

anyway, new technology affecting book publication, the news, etc., will also break up gay, unionized, liberal left-wing "mafia" -- go make your movie!

(I have to admit to hardly ever going to the movies or watching one on tv and I stopped watching most tv drama and comedy shows decades ago [with the exception of David Letterman until he got too much on with Obama])

[Wolf DeVoon]

-- go make your movie!

Too old to direct. Up at 6 a.m., work a 12-16 hr day, screen the dailies after dinner? -- I could do it 30 years ago, no problem.

[Reidy]

Among actors you omitted John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart, Spencer Tracy, Steve McQueen, Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson, Frank Sinatra, Warren Beatty and Marilyn Monroe. Among titles, every stage or screen musical ever produced.

[Brant Gaede]

Ovitz seems to have been undercapitalized, over-enemied, too big an ego would-be mogul with the wrong business plan.

--Brant

be like Howard Hughes

[Brant Gaede]

-- go make your movie!

Too old to direct. Up at 6 a.m., work a 12-16 hr day, screen the dailies after dinner? -- I could do it 30 years ago, no problem.

I studied film making and acting 40 years ago. Then I discovered that in the movie business I would only want to be a writer with his constant, creative focus and thinking. Everybody else's job is attentuated and chopped up--bursts of intense work plus sit on your ass waiting for--whatever, whomever and sweet-talking your actress to come out of her trailer and get it going.

--Brant

the only one who gets to be a genius, however, is the director, however rare such a director is--otherwise there's no use for it: Hitchcock, Peckinpah, Welles, Ford, Stone, Fritz - that guy Rand liked ("Metropolis") - Lang, Sturges, Capra

[anthony]

Whew! Lists and lists...Seems half the world is gay (at least in showbiz).

Basically... so what? It's a given that homosexuals are attracted to entertainment. They also (anyone notice?) have great talents in academia and other intellectual pursuits. And business. But enough with the collectivizing.

In theatre circles it's assumed (I have the feeling) that you are gay til shown otherwise. What gays think of me, working sometimes in theatre, (and connected to dance through my lady) and whether I have "a marriage of convenience" - I care not.

Although they are often most aware of sexual boundaries, and anyway too courteous to enquire.

I had the advantage of learning up close, when quite young. It came from mixing with many of the thousands of Afrikaner varsity and college students away from their farms in a highly conservative city, when gaydom was at its most concealed and socially repressed - in the early 70's. (Those girls were gorgeous and so innocent, then...). Along the way I'd get to know some young men who were sort of different to the average rugby playing, Dutch Reformed farmer's son. Being naive, it took some time to sink in that there was a whole other sexuality out there. Shocking, at first, I caught on quick until it all seemed fairly natural and innocuous. Occasionally I was unobtrusively approached, with no hard feelings when I turned down the proposal. Out of a few beery and tearful late night conversations, I came to see these guys would have done anything to not have to carry their self-perceived stigma. The obsessive fear of their parents ever finding out was awful to see. Nobody deserves to live like that, I thought, in full time deception and self-loathing. Where, I ask, was their choice? This was a lot more than a random urge, or so called lifestyle choice.

I've wondered how those men are today- but thankfully, Afrikaans society has become very liberally accepting of homosexuality now.

But of course I agree, over all, with Darryl about the matter of choice, but I think he's got it just slightly wrong about the scope of volition. A few 'choices' are made for you, and to fight them is to oppose who and what you are. Although I don't think it should ever be taken lightly, or not questioned and deeply introspected by a young person unsure of his sexuality. But when you know -you KNOW, and rationally, one's subsequent moral choice is to embrace it.

So the gays are coming! (If they'd ever departed).

Get used to it, fellows.

To gays I'd say -and do say to friends- you've done it. There's no more to fight for- now for chrissakes, get over it: ease off on the collective activism and aggro-defensiveness. Nobody has the right to the 'right' to be accepted and respected -more, loved- for being part of a group, and for being something one had no part in making.

[Wolf DeVoon]

A few 'choices' are made for you, and to fight them is to oppose who and what you are

Sorry to cherry pick such an excellent post that deserves to be read in full -- however, the bit I quoted above has special meaning for me. All of my days and nights are alive to the truth that I am intellectually handicapped. There is no shame in admitting it. We can't all be Black Beauties or Golden Retrievers. There's some slim consolation in the fact that I'm good at the obvious, but the 'non-choice' of being a dullard is a ceaseless burden. In my particular case, there is endless danger in over-estimating my ability. To oppose who and what I am is a loaded machine gun not to be toyed with.

Here's what a dumb person thinks:

The world has been shaped by clever, self-confident, successful players. It's a pity that hell is mythical, for they certainly deserve to suffer eternal punishment for their crimes -- of which LGBTQ 'rights' by judicial decree is the most egregious felony since Carolene Products.

[Brant Gaede]

A few 'choices' are made for you, and to fight them is to oppose who and what you are

Sorry to cherry pick such an excellent post that deserves to be read in full -- however, the bit I quoted above has special meaning for me. All of my days and nights are alive to the truth that I am intellectually handicapped. There is no shame in admitting it. We can't all be Black Beauties or Golden Retrievers. There's some slim consolation in the fact that I'm good at the obvious, but the 'non-choice' of being a dullard is a ceaseless burden. In my particular case, there is endless danger in over-estimating my ability. To oppose who and what I am is a loaded machine gun not to be toyed with.

Here's what a dumb person thinks:

The world has been shaped by clever, self-confident, successful players. It's a pity that hell is mythical, for they certainly deserve to suffer eternal punishment for their crimes -- of which LGBTQ 'rights' by judicial decree is the most egregious felony since Carolene Products.

That would be "Footnote Four"--not the decision itself because the real damage was previous expansion of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which came out of the cowered Court's reaction to FDR's attempt to pack it.

The intrusion of "positive rights" into "negative rights" was the inhertitable contradiction damaging the very idea of what rights are and should be. These rights need also be universally applicable. Therefore there are no gay rights, women's rights or the right to "a chicken in every pot"--or the right of government to do anything it wants to.

[william.scherk]

Choice begins to emerge as childhood play, but becomes important as sexual urges begin to emerge. As a child playing "house" a person may imagine the kind of life he or she wishes to lead, the role that he or she will play, and may think about or discuss such things as the number of children he or she wishes to have. However, it is when the urge to date someone of the opposite sex or the urge to kiss one's best same-sex friend or to tell that person that you love them that the need to make choices becomes a pressing issue.

Okay. You accept there are 'early' warning systems that a person may turn out gay, as I alluded to above. Children may display behaviour and express a gender-nonconformity in play before the important "sexual urges" emerge, so we may be able to predict the orientation of a given child or children. "Choice" of orientation may then by your theory begin in such otherwise unimportant things like playing with dolls, rough and tumble activities. Playing house, though not generally sexualized, will have gender roles. The pre-homosexual might then choose the maternal or helping roles.

Then -- bam, urges. Sexual urges. Urges to kiss a same-sex friend. Time to take a stand.

how many gays and lesbians report a 'conscious choice' of their sexuality? How many heterosexuals report a 'conscious choice' of their sexuality?

Unfortunately, I don't think that this would be a very accurate method of getting to the facts.

Oh dear. This is where I do not understand how you will provide further evidence for your theory. You certainly take your own personal case as 'evidence' of your theory of sexual orientation choice. To rule out asking heterosexuals about the specifics or mechanics of their conscious choice of orientation seems against reason. I am sure you could design a protocol, a structured interview, a tool, to instruct the subjects on your measure of choice. Same goes with asking the same questions of a gay cohort.

For one, I don't think that most people really understand the issue of choice. What is choice? I also think that homosexuals tend to be very evasive about this issue. Not all. Some are happy with their choice and willing to defend it as the right choice for them. I don't know whether it is because many gays aren't happy with their lives or because they fear social condemnation or both, but in my opinion, this whole notion that homosexuality is not a choice was concocted to avoid having to confront the correctness of that choice, either introspectively or when dealing with others.

This is unsettling. Not interested in the actual human beings and their actual responses/validation of your theory, you sweep away all that might speak to or against your theory of sexual orientation choice. As a concocted notion, rather than an honest telling of psychosexual history or sexual development. Because gays (as well as heterosexuals) are evasive.

This is not evidence adduced for your theory, but special pleading. As for "Some (gays) are happy with their choice and willing to defend it as the right choice for them," I would ask that you identify one or two of these 'some' gays, and let us examine their happiness/defense of their orientation, to see if what they are happy with/to defend is actually what you report -- conscious choice.

Some gays (me) report that they did not make a conscious choice. What do you do with that kind of counter-evidence?

If you theory is correct, then I made a conscious choice of sexuality. In other words, your theory predicts that gay people will report "choice" and never "non-choice." Why not test your prediction? Are you afraid of being wrong on this issue? I would hate to think that an Objectivish person would not put his own notions to a rational test.

My theory doesn't predict what gay people will report.

It predicts that -- all things being equal -- each gay person experienced having made a conscious choice, or series of choices, beginning in childhood, a choice to be gay over being heterosexual. It should predict that -- all things being equal -- heterosexuals experienced the same series of choices.

Now to test that theory by examining actual homosexuals and heterosexuals, this won't return predicted responses, because people are evasive, don't understand choice(!) or are otherwise unreliable.

The assertion of bias or defect or dishonesty seems like more special pleading.

Your theory still needs to account for other plausible non-choice processes. Maybe the extended theory would account for heritability by saying there is none, account for epigenetic factors (they are meaningless), it may account for anti-natal hormone effects (irrelevant), and it may account for other areas of study (politically-tainted). The male-brain/female brain/homosexual brain (formed by choice). Etcetera.

You might even account for early 'indicators' of future homosexuality in children, the so-called gender-nonconforming behaviour. I would expect you to assert that young Timmy femme-job and young Trixie butchgirl's non-conforming behaviour is not a predictor of adult homosexuality.

My claim is not that environmental factors have no predictive value. My claim is that all genetic and environmental factors, taken together, still are insufficient to absolutely predict sexual orientation. Such factors influence the choices that people make, but they do not make the choices.

Well, I believe a well-grounded theory of conscious choice would at the very least review all the purported factors from environment (including prenatal environment) and genetic/epigenetic transmission, would mention the heritability studies, would place itself against all the 'concocted notions.' Your theory as presented does not take all of these factors into account. More importantly it does not assemble even the minimum of evidence required to take the 'choice' centerpiece seriously -- evidence from human beings in the real world.

[...] because that gets us into a discussion of what emotions really are. Human emotions are the feelings that accompany a person's conscious thought processes. Everything that a person thinks, everything that he imagines, every concept that he forms or considers generates an internal emotional response. An emotion is a response to an evaluation of the contents of consciousness. Is the thing that I'm imagining good for me or not? Is it a pressing matter? Is it clear and comprehensible or is it confusing? Does it satisfy certain needs? Does it involve risk? All such considerations and many more color our emotional responses.

First, from Wikipedia, Plutchik's Emotion Wheel!

-- this is getting into Deep Objectivish territory, where Ayn Rand's pronouncements about emotion and cognition reign.

I have to unpack your reasoning again, Darrell, and place in your argument what is missing: sexual attraction, sexual interest, sexual urges. But let's start to attach your claims to a real person: "Every sexual thing that a pubertal boy thinks, everything sexual that he imagines, every sexual concept that he forms or considers generates an internal emotional response."

Does this tell us anything about the actual sexual urges or orientation of those pubertal urges? No, and Darrell, this is one example of where your theory needs a lot more process, detail and specifics.

Emotions must be distinguished from urges or whims which may pop up suddenly without conscious effort. Urges or whims are like pre-emotions; unexamined feelings. In this context, there is a difference between the urge to do something and the desire to do something. A desire, being an emotion, represents the final decision that a person makes before acting. A person always acts on his desire and never contrary to it. However, he may act contrary to his urges. I realize this is not standard usage, but it makes discussions of emotions clearer.

Let's continue to read in sexual attraction, sexual object preference, sexual imaginings, sexual urges. Emotions, whether the identified common emotions of Plutchik's theory, or the unnamed emotions of Rand's theory, must all be distinguished from sexual urges. Sexual urges and attractions are pre-emotion(s), unexamined sexual feelings.

Now, this may or may not be true, but I will go along with it for the sake of argument. Emerging into the harsh light of interrogation are these pre-emotive things, these almost animal-like things, urges that are sexual in nature, urges that accompany or initiate sexual thoughts or straightforward sexual arousal.

If I follow the turns of your paragraph, the 'desire' for (something) is an emotion. It does not closely correspond to any of Plutchik's observed emotion, but let's set that aside. The desire to satisfy a sexual urge -- whatever that sexual urge -- can be either be acted upon or not, and can be acted upon in a variety of ways (cold shower, aversion therapy, thought substitution/distraction, masturbation, sexual congress of some kind leading to orgasm).

Okay so far, but we have still not accounted for or explained the genesis of the sexual urge/orientation/feeling in the first place. We haven't qualified the urges either, whether they are gender-congruent or not. You seem to be affirming the consequent -- whatever the urges, they are always subject to conscious deliberation of alternatives. This merely assumes as evidence that which you conclude.

As before, I think we need to keep in play the very thing at issue: sexual orientation. We are no nearer to finding support for your theory than we were when you first presented it.

For example, consider a person who has an urge to eat ethylene glycol (anti-freeze). Supposedly, it is sweet tasting, so it would be natural to have an urge to eat it. However, after considering the fact that ethylene glycol is poisoness, the urge goes away and a rational person has no desire to eat it. The same cannot be said for a dog. A dog lacks a human's conceptual mechanism and so will act on its urge to eat the sweet tasting poison and die.

The example demonstrates the difference between an urge and a desire and also shows that a desire is the result of a conscious, conceptual thought process, and is not merely a response to a stimulus.

Many such examples exist demonstrating the conceptual nature of human emotional responses as related to many different emotions and I may share more of them in the future as I have time.

Well, I can't respond to this. The analogy is more than strained. If we are talking about the process of conscious choice of homosexual/heterosexual orientation, then we should be frankly speaking about sexual urges, feelings, desires, whims, orientations, choices. Analogizing homosexual orientation choice to drinking anti-freeze is an example of fallacious reasoning. False analogy.

Darrell, I am happy to agree to disagree with you. I have read all you wrote about homosexual orientation in an earlier thread, and it seems to me you have made your mind up on the issue**, and really don't have any clear idea how homosexual orientation emerges in other human beings.

To the political question, are you against or with Ed Hudgins on this topic? Whatever the genesis and regenesis of homosexuality, the danged gays have gone so far as to legalize gay marriage in a number of states, with more state laws set to tumble on appeals. Given the state of public opinion going in to 2016, do you have any advice for the Republican Party on this issue?

_____________________

** Darrell's bottom line from "Objectivism and Homosexuality":

My sexual desires did not develop without my consent. I choose to be heterosexual -- to have sex with women. I am not oriented in any particular direction by nature. Any inborn urges that I might have had when I was young have been examined and re-examined so many times by my conscious mind that they are nothing but a distant memory. The entire fallacy of sexual orientation is the creation of those that don't wish to examine the moral dimension of their behavior.

Edited June 15, 2014 by william.scherk

[Wolf DeVoon]

They overturned state constitutions in defiance of Windsor's prohibition of "intrusion on the power of the state to define marriage."

Federal law has become the plaything of queer district court judges and two lesbian Justices appointed by Bathhouse Barry.

Ed proposes to join their ranks, for covert reasons known only to TAS. It has nothing to do with straight Republican grassroots.

[BaalChatzaf]

They overturned state constitutions in defiance of Windsor's prohibition of "intrusion on the power of the state to define marriage."

Federal law has become the plaything of queer district court judges and two lesbian Justices appointed by Bathhouse Barry.

Ed proposes to join their ranks, for covert reasons known only to TAS. It has nothing to do with straight Republican grassroots.

What is this nonsense. Obama may be incompetent and obtuse, but he is straight.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

What is this nonsense. Obama may be incompetent and obtuse, but he is straight.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Sorry that you live in a cave, however there have been more than enough semi-credible to hmm need to be investigated by the Chicago homicide squad possible bi-sexuality.

The execution style death of the Rev. Wright's choir leader before the 2008 election and the possible connection to a homosexual underground and O'bama are out there.

His mother has openly accused the Chicago police department of covering the execution style murder.

Now we know that Chicago is the purest, most honest cities in America.

However, the mother might be right that there may be just a teensy tiny bit of corruption in Chicago.

A...

[moralist]

They overturned state constitutions in defiance of Windsor's prohibition of "intrusion on the power of the state to define marriage."

Federal law has become the plaything of queer district court judges and two lesbian Justices appointed by Bathhouse Barry.

Ed proposes to join their ranks, for covert reasons known only to TAS. It has nothing to do with straight Republican grassroots.

What is this nonsense. Obama may be incompetent and obtuse, but he is straight.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Barry is heterosexual...

...but because European liberal socialism is a feminine archetype, he governs like a female.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

There's a lot of implicit argumentum ad hominem going around here.

--Brant

and dumping on a particular variation of common human sexuality through its relatively common political orientation

don't the old scapegoats work any more?

[Selene]

Greg:

And you know that he is heterosexual vs. bi-sexual...how?

Do you have some crystal ball, or, divining stick that can make that determination?

A...

[Darrell Hougen]

Why would anybody want to pay $10 a year of tax in order to be able to vote when the most they can get from the government is about $10 before losing the right to vote?

While we're on the subject, I'd like to expound a little further on the beauty of my idea: Only people that pay in at least as much as they get from the government shall be allowed to vote.

Let's say that the productive members of society got fed up with paying taxes to people that were loafing around and abolished all of the welfare programs including Social Security. Then, since none of those people would be receiving anything from the government in the way of handouts, suddenly they would be able to vote. So, there would be an incentive to give moochers at least a little in order to prevent them from gaining political power.

Once the moochers got the right to vote, they could vote themselves large benefits, but if they did, they would once again lose the right to vote. So, there would be a built in incentive for them to vote for only modest benefits for themselves. If they did enough work, they could potentially keep the right to vote. And, at any rate, they would know that they would be at the mercy of the productive people once they could no longer vote.

Of course, there are other incentives for productive people to maintain programs like Social Security. After all, they will retire some day and may want a minimum guaranteed income in their later years. However, they would be less likely to greedily vote themselves large benefits because they would know that they wouldn't be able to vote to keep them later and would be at the mercy of the producers once they retired.

The result would not be to eliminate all government aid for the poor, but to keep the amount manageable. The same would be true of pensions.

Government handouts would become more like charity. A person cannot go to a charity and demand a certain benefit. It is up to the charity to determine how much to grant him. The same would be true under my voting scheme.

Darrell

I don't think I was being as clear as I thought.

If you can't get more from the government than what you pay in, then why bother having a government at all? If this rule could actually be implemented, then participating in politics would be as stupid as buying a $10 bill for $20.

Perhaps I was the one that was being unclear. I'm only talking about direct money payments. Clearly, government costs money. Therefore, it doles out less than it takes in. It is a net money pit. So, on average, more money must be paid in than paid out. If that were not the case, the government could not exist. So, on average, people must pay in more than they get out.

So, why have a government? Well, there are indirect benefits of government. The military exists to protect the citizenry from foreign invaders. The police exist to protect ordinary citizens from criminals by catching law breakers. The courts exist to administer the law and settle disputes.

There are enormous benefits to living in a peaceful, well ordered society. Arguably, those benefits far outweigh the costs of supporting proper government. But, those are indirect benefits. The direct money payments to individuals must always be less, on average, than the total amount of taxes paid in.

Darrell

[Wolf DeVoon]

The military exists to protect the citizenry from foreign invaders.

-- from Mexico and Guatemala? Canada?

[Darrell Hougen]

Homosexuality has been relentlessly pitched for 50 years in film and literature. Big surprise, now it's the default sexuality.

The Leather Boys (1964)

The Producers (1968)

The Killing of Sister George (1968)

The Gay Deceivers (1969)

Midnight Cowboy (1969)

Staircase (1969)

Entertaining Mr Sloane (1970)

Myra Breckinridge (1970)

Something For Everyone (1970)

The Boys In The Band (1970)

Pink Narcissus (1971)

Some of My Best Friends Are (1971)

Cabaret (1972)

Deliverance (1972)

Pink Flamingos (1972)

A Very Natural Thing (1974)

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

Norman, Is That You? (1976)

The Ritz (1976)

Sebastiane (1976)

Alexander: The Other Side of Dawn (1977 - TV movie)

Desperate Living (1977)

Word Is Out (1977)

La Cage aux Folles (1978)

Gay USA (1978)

Cruising (1980)

La Cage aux Folles II (1980)

Zorro, The Gay Blade (1981)

Forty Deuce (1982)

Victor Victoria (1982)

Another Country (1984)

Before Stonewall (1984)

La Cage aux Folles 3 (1984)

The Times of Harvey Milk (1984)

Buddies (1985)

An Early Frost (1985)

Kiss of The Spider Woman (1985)

As Is (1986 - TV)

Mala Noche (1986)

Parting Glances (1986)

Law of Desire (1987)

Three Bewildered People in the Night (1987)

Maurice (1987)

Prick Up Your Ears (1987)

Withnail and I (1987)

'68 (1988)

The Everlasting Secret Family (1988)

The Fruit Machine (1988)

Fun Down There (1988)

Liberace: Behind the Music (1988)

Looking for Langston (1988)

Torch Song Trilogy (1988)

Coming Out (1989)

Common Threads: Stories from the Quilt (1989 - TV)

Longtime Companion (1989)

The Long Weekend O' Despair (1989)

Tongues Untied (1989)

The Garden (1990)

Resident Alien (1990)

Rock Hudson (1990)

and blah blah blah ... it gets worse, obviously

I haven't seen most of the movies on the list, but one that I have seen isn't on your list.

Making Love (1982) with Kate Jackson of Charlies' Angels fame.

I thought Making Love was much more realistic than Brokeback Mountain and a couple of decades earlier. The end was sort of lame, but the way in which the main character was drawn into a homosexual relationship was much more realistic. I'm not sure what all the excitement was about Brokeback Mountain when one considers the existence of so many movies about being gay. I guess that the media likes to gen-up excitement for one of their favorite topics no matter how many times it has been previously dramatized or reported.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Among actors you omitted John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart, Spencer Tracy, Steve McQueen, Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson, Frank Sinatra, Warren Beatty and Marilyn Monroe. Among titles, every stage or screen musical ever produced.

What makes you think Clint Eastwood is gay? I've seen things that indicate that he is straight and nothing to contradict that --- not that I really care, but not everyone is gay, you know.

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

Among actors you omitted John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart, Spencer Tracy, Steve McQueen, Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson, Frank Sinatra, Warren Beatty and Marilyn Monroe. Among titles, every stage or screen musical ever produced.

What makes you think Clint Eastwood is gay? I've seen things that indicate that he is straight and nothing to contradict that --- not that I really care, but not everyone is gay, you know.

Darrell

He's being sarcastic.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Obama Takes Gay Rights Into His Own Hands

Federal legislation to make employment discrimination illegal has died repeatedly in the GOP-controlled House,

so the president is doing it himself with an executive order. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/16/obama-takes-gay-rights-into-his-own-hands.html