Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Homophobic senator Roy Ashburn comes out as gay

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Had to pick meself up I laugh so much.

    So is he going to now campaign to take back all the vile things he’s said and supported.

    Doesn’t this prove my comment in another thread about closet gays. They’ll go to any lengths to hide it even at the suffering of others. Makes you wonder about several of our own.

    Now Tebbit… Your turn.

  2. There’s a surprise. Not. He still doesn’t seem very happy with his sexuality. I was hopeful that having come out so quickly when found out, he’d be more at ease with himself, but he seems to be struggling and going on about how people should pray for him. Why? So he’s not gay any more??

  3. This had me laughing for ages!
    The man has been campaigning and speaking out against his OWN freedom!
    Hahahaha!

  4. Homophobes are far more likely to be closet cases than non-homophobic people.

    This moronic scumbag proves it.

    I want to hear the kiss and tells. This hateful f****r deserves to squirm.

  5. I f**king love this! While I pity the man believing he had to live in the closet, going around opposing rights for others out gay people who have more bottle than he did is reprehensible.

    Ah, sweet, sweet justice….

  6. aww did the ickle boy think the mythical man in the clouds would strike him dead if he dared to think for himself?

    the sweet sweet irony.

  7. Dionysian 9 Mar 2010, 1:27pm

    He spent all that time on holiday with Aslan and chums and he didn’t even bring us back some Turkish Delight!

    I love the way he contradicts himself as well:
    “I felt with my heart that you know being gay did not affect, wouldn’t affect, how I did my job.”

    Yet he tried to stay closeted for so long? If it wouldn’t affect the way you work (and yes, if his constituent overwhelmingly tell him to vote a certain way he should) why did it take your arrest and charge for you to fess up?

  8. Vincent Poffley 9 Mar 2010, 1:38pm

    So, to hide his homosexuality he engaged in flamboyant displays of heterosexual marriage and political homophobia eh? I’m not surprised, it’s quite common. I also note that now he is playing the “my religion is very important to me” tune, so I would not be at all surprised to find out that he is a closet atheist too.

  9. Let him continue in the Senate under the condition that he is OUT at all times and that he mounts an on-going campaign to encourage all others in government who know they have more than just a streak of gayness in them to explore it, love it, and enjoy it!

  10. “He justified this by saying he voted how he expected his constituents wanted him to.”
    How can we have equality when straight and gay people vote against it?

  11. I f*****g love this! While I pity the man believing he had to live in the closet, going around opposing rights for others out gay people who have more bottle than he did is reprehensible.

    Ah, sweet, sweet justice……

  12. What a tosser. Elected politicians are representatives, not delegates. Just voting for what your constituents want means chaos and mob-rule. I suspect he was voting the way that would keep him his seat and mad fundamentalist campaigners off his back.

  13. “He justified this by saying he voted how he expected his constituents wanted him to” <—-Looks to me like an extreme case of prostitution.

  14. I feel a good measure of contempt for the man, because he’s deliberately lied about himself, and done things to hurt gay people over the years. But I also feel angry about the internalised self-hatred and guilt he’s felt all these years, the crap he’s been fed since birth which has poisoned his own life and led him into being such a pathetic example of humanity.

    There are so many brave, bold, admirable people out there; lots of honest people too; I just feel at this stage the guy should step back from public life while he re-evaluates who he is and where he is, but until he does something to make up for the hurt he’s caused, he’s not a fit person to hold office.

    I do hope that if anyone is wondering about whether or not they ought to come out, that they’ll look at this pathetic hypocritical mess of a man and realise that there’s no substitute for honesty.

  15. Mumbo Jumbo 9 Mar 2010, 2:58pm

    “I’ve always believed that I could keep my personal life personal and my public life public………I felt with my heart that you know being gay did not affect, wouldn’t affect, how I did my job.”

    But Roy, you didn’t keep your personal life and private life separate and it did affect how you did your job.

    Like so many others in yur situation, you voted, spoke out, preached or acted against gay people to make people think you were straight.

    Having said that, I hope you realise the mistakes of your life and, having finally decided to be honest with yourself, become a better and happier man who finds acceptance of himself and others.

    Then the pain you have caused yourself and others might not be a total waste.

  16. William Beckman 9 Mar 2010, 3:02pm

    The thing is that the majority of us who are still closeted, whether it be because of family issues, church issues, or the general unaccepting area that we live, do not go out out run for office, degrade others like ourselves with our words and actions, etc… but then to have the audacity to be frequenting gay bars???

    I think that a line should be drawn between being the definitions of being closeted and just plain being a liar and rubbing people’s faces in that lie,(and thinking that some how you are going to get away with it) which I feel is what this man did.

  17. I’m torn in disliking this man and seeing a sister in trouble.

    What’s a gay to think?

  18. “I’m torn in disliking this man and seeing a sister in trouble.”

    Does it have to be a choice? Can we not appreciate the sick humour of it, be appalled at the damage he’s done to everyone from his family to the people he was elected to serve, AND recognise that the guy is deeply damaged and in need of appropriate help?

    The recaptcha words for this comment, by the way, are: masseur police. I kid thee not.

  19. jonnielondon 9 Mar 2010, 4:30pm

    Psychologists tell us that gaybashers, or the most homophobic people are often gay themselves.

  20. What a coward.

  21. Oh dear!! another gay nman racked with guilt because of some faith or other!! as Iris says, whats he praying for? well, noit to gay or not to be tempted into a gay relationship obviously, and thats nere going to happen. Come on Senetor Ashburn accept who and what you are and get on with the rest of your life. it’ll be a million times better now you’ve been honest, don’t beat yourself up over it.

  22. Really,

    had a wife, fathered 4 children through Straight sex, but is really gay..
    I guess he was thinking about England through it all.
    Gemme a break!

  23. My vomit bowl overfloweth.

  24. Rev Laurie Roberts 9 Mar 2010, 6:02pm

    I love this comment ! Wish I’d made it !

    ‘So, to hide his homosexuality he engaged in flamboyant displays of heterosexual marriage and political homophobia eh? I’m not surprised, it’s quite common. I also note that now he is playing the “my religion is very important to me” tune, so I would not be at all surprised to find out that he is a closet atheist too.

    Comment by Vincent Poffley — March 9, 2010 @ 13:38

    Hope he can start being himself — and maybe if he got laid it would put s spring in his – er- step !

  25. Rev Laurie Roberts 9 Mar 2010, 6:05pm

    Definately a sister in trouble

  26. Rev Laurie Roberts 9 Mar 2010, 6:06pm

    Waht lizzie said

  27. 19.
    Hey jonnielondon
    You said, “Psychologists tell us that gaybashers, or the most homophobic people are often gay themselves.”

    I’ve seen such comments before but I’ve never seen any
    accepted studies that show that it’s true.

    Please show me authoritative sites where I can read what you
    state to be facts are indeed accepted psychological facts.

    I’m doing my own research and would appreciate whatever you
    offer.

  28. Wiki it…

    ^ a b Adams HE, Wright LW, Lohr BA (August 1996). “Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?”. J Abnorm Psychol 105 (3): 440–5. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.105.3.440. PMID 8772014. Summarized in an American Psychological Association press release, August 1996: “New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal

  29. Rev Laurie R, i don’t consider myself to be “a sister in trouble” please explain!

  30. Mumbo Jumbo 9 Mar 2010, 7:33pm

    Comment #27 by Hank

    Consult your own psychiatric records.

  31. Rachel Titley 9 Mar 2010, 8:02pm

    Comment 12: “Elected politicians are representatives, not delegates. Just voting for what your constituents want means chaos and mob-rule.”
    What else does ‘representative’ mean, if you don’t represent them? As much as he’s hurt people and been a hypocritical prick, he is there to represent the people who voted for him, not his own views. If, as is likely the case, they don’t actually oppose gay rights, then yes he’s a prick and was just trying to hide it from himself and everyone else. But if the voters /wanted/ him to vote that way, he sounds like one of the few decent politicians around, and it’s society at large that’s to blame.

  32. Carl Rowlands 9 Mar 2010, 9:16pm

    He will at some time come to realise how much time he has wasted worrying and denying his true feelings. It is then that he will realise what a complete tosser he is! It is one thing to be closeted and in denial, it is another to be closeted and be a vicious homophobic tw*t with the ability to have such a major impact on the lives of others. Is he a sister in need of help? I don’t think so, he has certainly made his bed, he now has to lie on it, Get on with it!

  33. Mumbo Jumbo 9 Mar 2010, 9:52pm

    Comment 31 by Rachel Titley

    Riondo is correct and it is important to understand why.

    The UK is a representative democracy – not a direct democracy.

    This means an elected member of parliament has the responsibility of acting in the people’s interest. He or she is not, however, their proxy.

    In other words, an MP does not not necessarily have to act according to the wishes of their electorate (not all of whom will have voted for them in any case) but has, by way of being elected, the mandate to act as he or she sees best.

    Clearly, an electorate that is not satisfied with the way an MP exercises this mandate may choose another candidate at election time.

    I hope this helps.

  34. Mumbo Jumbo 9 Mar 2010, 9:56pm

    I should, of course, add that USA is also a representative democracy and that the same applies to their elected representatives.

    It’s been a long day.

  35. Lizzie, the “sister in trouble” is a left-over camp expression of the 1950s when gay men used to refer to themselves as she and her. There are a number of gay men who still, when they are together, refer to themselves as if they were women. Sad but it still goes on. Go to a some drag pub and the drag-queens will be at it non-stop. You’ve heard it on old TV shows as well. “Ooooh, get ‘er! What ‘er problem!” It’s all very diminishing and pejorative, though some on here will now say it’s just good fun. But it isn’t. It’s very self-destructive and doesn’t emanate from a well-adjusted psychology.

  36. This chap is really the ideal politician, isn’t he? Does “what his constituents want” regardless of his own conscience.

    Still, at the very very least he’s come out now and not hidden behind the “It’s a slip-up, I’m having counselling” excuse people like ‘Pastor’ Haggard do.

  37. Hey Paul MC,

    I copied your reference as it’s shown in Abstract form:
    “Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?.”
    By Adams, Henry E.; Wright, Lester W.; Lohr, Bethany A.
    Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Vol 105(3), Aug 1996, 440-445.

    “The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35 ) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980).

    The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos.
    Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

    The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)”

    MY COMMENT:

    You have a tiny % of homophobic men (35) and non-homophobic men (29) that you suggest is a valuable study to show homophobic men somehow are “closet homosexuals” or “something to that effect”, because they exhibited sexual arousal when viewing homosexual stimuli – and from this the authors and you extrapolate that “homophobia is associated with an underlying homosexual desire, etc.”

    Before you use these 35 homophobic men as your “group”, you must examine their personalities much deeper, and it’d take a much greater sample to get a meaningful understanding of homophobia and homosexual behavior.

    For instance, how would the personalities of these 35 men fit/respond to such sexual categories as:

    exhibitionism ,fetishism, masochism, normophilia, pedophilia, rough sex, S&M ,transvestic fetishism, triptorelin, urolagnia, voyeurism, zoophilia.

    There are many more categories of sexual behavior, but the above will suffice at this time.

    Once you get a detailed profile (of how people fit into any/all of the above) of any group being used in trying to explain the complexities of heterosexual or homosexual behavior, then perhaps it’ll be acceptable as useful information.

    Until then, I don’t believe that strong anti-homosexual feelings
    hold any underlying feelings(unconscious, unaware, etc.) to act out in any form of homosexual behavior

  38. Rev Laurie Roberts 10 Mar 2010, 12:45am

    ev Laurie R, i don’t consider myself to be “a sister in trouble” please explain!

    Report this comment to us

    Comment by Lizzie — March 9, 2010 @ 19:08

    I was just quoting the jocular comment Someone left above, about the senator, in a jocular way myself–but it was HIM who is the sister in spirit someone quipped above — not you ! ; -)

  39. Rev Laurie Roberts 10 Mar 2010, 12:48am

    OK sisters this has been such fun ! ; -)

    laurie

  40. Jean-Paul Bentham 10 Mar 2010, 1:17am

    I am not closeted, but it is part of my right to privacy to choose with whom I share the information about my sexual orientation.

  41. Bill Perdue 10 Mar 2010, 1:23am

    In spite of the opinions of apologists for homohating politicians there really are no excuses for the mindless homophobia of the vast majority of Republican legislators and the majority of Democrat legislators in most states and at the federal level.

    Ashburn is not gay, or queer or anything of the kind. He’s a homosexual scumbag whose chances of getting free sex is approaching zero. Here’s the link to the site 1,000,000 Gay Men and Allies Against Roy Ashburn Having Sex Ever Again. ”http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=380052532672&ref=search&sid=1269483231.304500720..1&v=info
    The need to get elected is the justification for most of the official and legal bigotry in American politics just as the need to squeeze money from illiterate lumpen (1) strata in the US is the reason for cult homohating.

    The kind of reasoning that says “I was just trying to get elected” in no way differs from Adolf Eichmann’s defense “I was just following orders…” Those who vote against equality and for discrimination on questions like same sex marriage are functional bigots like Ashburn. There are no valid excuses to justify voting for discrimination – whether it comes from Democrats or Republicans, Tories or Labour. (And congratulations to the Scottish LibDems stance for equality in marriage. Whatever their motives they’ve put reluctant Labour and the reactionary Tories on notice.)

    Ashburn wouldn’t be able to make heads or tails of what Oscar Wilde meant when he said ” … I have no doubt that we shall win, but the road is long, and red with monstrous martyrdoms.” if his life depended on it because pigs like Ashburn create martyrs.

    (1) Lumpen refers to dispossessed or displaced people cut off from their prior social and economic class. German and Austrian shop owners and middle class small farmers, dispossessed and displaced by World War One and the rearrangement of borders by the Treaty of Versailles formed a large lumpen layer that was effectively exploited by Hitler.

  42. My respect for the guy vanished after I learned that one time he voted against Republican Party’s policy on taxation by taking the side of democrats in California Legislature.

  43. Re: DavidW.

    “I feel a good measure of contempt for the man, because he’s deliberately lied about himself, and done things to hurt gay people over the years.”

    Can you specify what exactly how he “done things to hurt gay people over the years”?

    In my view, you are talking total nonsense.

    He did not hurt gay people at all. In fact, he introduced the measure in the State of California to save gay and non-gay people’ lives with vaccination. Moreover, he made his contribution in changes of welfare system in the State of California. How this possibly could hurt gay people?

    As for the Milk’s Day – Senator did it right. That lousy and drugs-consuming guy, Harvey Milk, never deserved to be honored in the State of California. I am sure of that.

    As for the expansion of special legal protection of gays, Senator was right to support it: there plenty laws for such purpose and Californians doesn’t need unnecessary laws for pleasing some hysterical and arrogant gay-politicians.

  44. Re: Mumbo Jumbo — March 9, 2010 @ 14:58.

    “Like so many others in yur situation, you voted, spoke out, preached or acted against gay people to make people think you were straight.”

    Why to lie? Did you, Mumbo Jumbo, ever heard Senator’s speeches in California, being in the same time in U.K.? You didn’t.

    Shame on you, fraudster!

  45. Ah, Hank again. How delightful.

    “Until then, I don’t believe that strong anti-homosexual feelings
    hold any underlying feelings(unconscious, unaware, etc.) to act out in any form of homosexual behavior”

    What you believe is irrelevant Hank – you also believe in world wide conspiracies about GLBT people taking over the world to wipe out christianity and the approaching ‘end of day’ based on your unique and highly ‘intellectual’ interpretation of the bible ‘code’.

    That qualifies as a mental illness.

    The reality is, Hank, you fear the results of this study – as you are venomously homophobic, it tells US more about you that you ever could in a comment. Its proven physiology (given you always quoting the American Psychological Association) that when one has a blind irrational hate for another group of people, the reasons are usually deeply personal, not logical, in essence you hate in us what you cannot have yourself – pride in who we are, and stable loving same sex relationships.

    No smoke without fire, Hank, as the good Senator here has shown us!

    In fact, Hank, you hasty comments to debunk that research reveal something quite the opposite to your “100% straight” protestations….

  46. Sister Mary clarence 10 Mar 2010, 12:17pm

    Oh Will, you always were and still are a master at Hanking.

    Come on Hank post another comment, so that Will can let rip again!!

  47. “Hanking”…. now there’s a new verb to add to the dictionary!

    Hanking verb.

    1. To render a foolish argument void
    2. The act of laughing at foolish statements
    3. To disprove bigoted and unfounded statements
    4. To ridicule an individual with diminished intelligence or lack of understanding in science.

    Idiom: Hank
    He made a complete Hank out of himself by saying something really stupid and bigoted

    Yeah, Sister Mary, I can see that working…. :)

  48. And, Will, the final line of that entry will be:

    And sometimes used as pejorative term for nonsense, as in “His speech amounted to no more than a complete load of hank”.

  49. KARMA….

  50. Eddy, I believe it can also be a noun:

    That chap is such a small minded bigot, even his friends think he’s a complete and utter Hanker

  51. And, yea, Will, I hear there has even been overheard an instance of the word being used as yet another verb, as in:

    That individual is nothing but a destructive exhibitionist for you cannot call any of his outpourings serious writing: they are all little more than perfect examples of his unmitigated hanking!

  52. Jean-Paul Bentham 10 Mar 2010, 6:47pm

    @47-

    Hanking is as good as a spanking!

  53. Will, you said, “Its proven physiology (given you always quoting the American Psychological Association) that when one has a blind irrational hate for another group of people, the reasons are usually deeply personal, not logical, in essence you hate in us what you cannot have yourself – pride in who we are, and stable loving same sex relationships.”

    MY COMMENT:

    First of all Will, you have to differentiate between homophobia and anti-homosexuality. There’s a world of difference that you people don’t seem to understand. I’ll let you figure out the difference of the two meanings. I’m definitely in the anti-homosexual category, not in the homophobia category.

    Also, referring to using any APA studies, esp. referring to homophobia and underlying homosexual desires, or whatever you tried to infer from the study referred to.

    I point out the nonsense of trying to categorize the 35 homophobic men who somehow reacted positively to homosexual stimuli…it holds no value as a psychological study.

    Do you think in the 35 men, there might be some differences of reaction due to the following personality characteristics?

    A homophobic man who was involved in exhibitionism
    A homophobic man who was into fetishism
    A homophobic man who was a masochist
    A homophobic man who was into rough sex
    A homophobic man who as into voyeurism
    A homophobic man who masturbated excessively
    A homophobic man who was into zoophilia

    The list of behavior goes on and on — it all has a bearing on
    studying human sexual behavior.

    The APA study referred to is worthless because it doesn’t consider the differences that make up their “homophobia” group.

    I have a great deal of pride in who I am, and how I treat my fellow human beings. I also know there’s much that needs to be known about the complexities of human sexuality, and what we know today may not apply to what we discover tomorrow. So I’ll leave it at that, along with I don’t hate homosexuals

  54. “First of all Will, you have to differentiate between homophobia and anti-homosexuality”

    First of all Hank, you have to separate ‘out’ gay with closet ‘ex’-gay. I’m out gay, i.e. proud of who I am and what I have accomplished in my life, and you are ‘ex’-gay closet type. i.e. weak.

    “I point out the nonsense of trying to categorize the 35 homophobic men who somehow reacted positively to homosexual stimuli…it holds no value as a psychological study.”

    No, you’re right. Its a SCIENTIFIC STUDY, psychological…. this means its based in scientific standards. Conclusion of the study is verifiable. A psychological study is an observation. Very different. As you reacted so negatively to it, I can conclude you are unsettled by the results…. are you unsettled, Hank? Hmmm? You can tell us, we’re ALL gay here, or so it would seem. Some out more then others.

    “I have a great deal of pride in who I am, and how I treat my fellow human beings”

    Yeah, me too… but you don’t see me in Christian sites ranting like a deluded lunatic…. ergo, I’m not a Christian… like the way you’re ‘not’ gay and therefore would never be onj a gay site…. oh, no wait…. well, sweetie, time to pull those electrodes off the testicles and come out baby! No one here will mind. Seriously, we’re very accepting of reformed ex-gays. You’ll love typing on these forums as “one of us”.

    “So I’ll leave it at that, along with I don’t hate homosexuals”

    Course you don’t…. you LOOOOOVE homosexuals. Opps, was that too upfront? I can never tell!

    LOL! Hank you’re a scream…. I suspect you were an ex-gay, you alluded to it often enough, but after this little tirade of yours?!!?! Protest – TOO – Much!!!! Well, lets just say, I’ll never see you the same way again!

  55. WILL, you said, “….and you are ‘ex’-gay closet type. i.e. weak.”
    What a stupid comment, and all of you homosexuals use that same trite remark. No…I’m not an “ex-gay closet type.”
    I’ve always been heterosexual….never had homosexual thoughts or desires…etc. I’m sorry that you’ll have to come up with some other nonsense phrase.

    Regarding my comment “I point out the nonsense of trying to categorize the 35 homophobic men who somehow reacted positively to homosexual stimuli…it holds no value as a psychological study.”

    WILL, you said, “No, you’re right. Its a SCIENTIFIC STUDY, psychological…. this means its based in scientific standards. Conclusion of the study is verifiable.”

    Let me get this straight. From a group of 35 men, you’re saying this tiny group is totally acceptable to the scientific community to extrapolate it out to MILLIONS of men and make it a meaningful result regarding heterosexual respondents to homosexual stimuli.
    PLEASE….let’s be realistic….this study would be “laughed out” if it was tried to be used to make any scientific point.

    WILL, you said, “A psychological study is an observation. Very different. As you reacted so negatively to it, I can conclude you are unsettled by the results…. are you unsettled, Hank?”

    No I’m not unsettled, I’m somewhat amused that you’d try to imply that by my questioning the validity of the study is anything more than evaluating SCIENTIFIC from ABSURDITY.

    WILL, you said, “Hmmm? You can tell us, we’re ALL gay here, or so it would seem. Some out more then others.”

    I don’t know how else to say it so that you’ll believe it. I’m heterosexual…if you want to live a homosexual lifestyle …OK….I’m not arguing how you behave.

    WILL, you said “….like the way you’re ‘not’ gay and therefore would never be on a gay site…. oh, no wait…. well, sweetie, time to pull those electrodes off the testicles and come out baby! No one here will mind. Seriously, we’re very accepting of reformed ex-gays. You’ll love typing on these forums as “one of us”.

    I truly get a great deal of insight from the comments on this site. Don’t forget that homosexuality is a very volatile subject and it’s discussed in politics, education, entertainment, medicine, psychology, sociology, etc. so I do indeed use many of the more rational comments on this site to help me get more understanding of LGBT thoughts and actions. There’s no other site that gives me this type of insight, so I’ll continue looking at some of your topics.

    WILL, you said “So I’ll leave it at that, along with I don’t hate homosexuals”Course you don’t…. you LOOOOOVE homosexuals. Opps, was that too upfront? I can never tell!

    No I don’t LOOOOVE homosexuals any more than I LOOOVE heterosexuals. But as with heterosexuals, some homosexuals are un-loveable ….so let’s leave it at that.

    WILL….you said “LOL! Hank you’re a scream…. I suspect you were an ex-gay, you alluded to it often enough, but after this little tirade of yours?!!?! Protest – TOO – Much!!!! Well, lets just say, I’ll never see you the same way again!”

    You can “see me whatever way you want” but I’m heterosexual and you’re homosexual and let’s be happy as we are. You’ll be hearing from me again….I enjoy our tete-a-tete.

  56. “What a stupid comment, and all of you homosexuals use that same trite remark. No…I’m not an “ex-gay closet type.””

    Really? Why so angry at the results of the study? Oh, come now, you can tell us, Hank. We’re all old friends here.

    “Let me get this straight. From a group of 35 men, you’re saying this tiny group is totally acceptable to the scientific community to extrapolate it out to MILLIONS of men and make it a meaningful result regarding heterosexual respondents to homosexual stimuli.”

    Er, Hank, all scientific studies use a finite and small sample size. Its normal. How silly of you to say otherwise. Even polls use a standard sample size. The numbers are irrelevant, the result is that homophobic (ALL homophobic men) in the study showed homosexual responses. Ergo, they were closet cases.

    Now, if you understood science, you’d be less focused on the numbers. Its the magnitude of the result that matters. And as this is not a psychological study, which are based on interpreted observation, the study is repeatable, measured, controlled, and reproducible. In order words:- accurate.

    “I don’t know how else to say it so that you’ll believe it. I’m heterosexual…if you want to live a homosexual lifestyle …OK….I’m not arguing how you behave.”

    Behave??? 8 year monogamous relationship with my partner is a “behaviour”? Oh, come now Hank, you ARE being a bitch today, aren’t you? Well, protest away. We don’t mind.

    As far as I can see, the study tells me what I suspected… homophobes like you are closet cases. You’ve basically told us before you’re ex-gay… all about “being able to change”, wasn’t it? All adding up now, isn’t it, Hanketta?

    “I truly get a great deal of insight from the comments on this site.”

    Yeah, and your hissy fit over this study has given me a new insight too. Not a surprise, but amusing none the less. You’ve given away that you are WAY to eager to dispel this study. One can’t but help wonder why….. oh, the questions one has, eh?

    Homophobes are generally overly eager to dispel the gay rumours…. its what makes them easy to spot. They usually end up in gay bars. Ted Haggard, Christopher Austin, Colin Cook, Terrance Lewis, John Paulk:- all “ex-gay”. All homophobes. All proven closet cases.

    “You can “see me whatever way you want” but I’m heterosexual and you’re homosexual and let’s be happy as we are. You’ll be hearing from me again….I enjoy our tete-a-tete.”

    Oh, me too Hank, me too! These are just darling conversations. I will miss them when you decide to shun the religious nonsense and join the fold. As a scientist, and you of all people know how well versed I am in this area, I accept empirical evidence only, and you have given me loads with your little tirade… me thinks the study is more accurate that it claims to be!

    “But as with heterosexuals, some homosexuals are un-loveable ….so let’s leave it at that.”

    Ah, yes. I quite agree. Have you seen David Skinner here yet…. he thinks like you, but a far more odious religious nut. Not as smart either (a complement to you, but it is all relative, after all). Probably a closet case too. No smoke without fire, Hank old boy!

    Oh, Hank. Did you ever wonder why some people can accept who they are with pride, gay men like me, and go on to make a stunning life for themselves with a beautiful partner? And then some others fall into the sea of self delusion and self recrimination? Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt, you know. Do you ever wonder what makes them weak and makes people like me strong? Where one falls, others can soar?

    Just food for thought. I personally pity the closet cases, but with people like you and Skinner out there branding them “sinners”, you can kinda see where it comes from… don’t you agree?

    …I, on the other had, find religious extremists only makes me want to stand up to you more. Some might call it bravery. I would call it self worth.

  57. WILL…..you said…”Er, Hank, all scientific studies use a finite and small sample size. Its normal. How silly of you to say otherwise. Even polls use a standard sample size. The numbers are irrelevant, the result is that homophobic (ALL homophobic men) in the study showed homosexual responses. Ergo, they were closet cases.

    Now, if you understood science, you’d be less focused on the numbers. Its the magnitude of the result that matters. And as this is not a psychological study, which are based on interpreted observation, the study is repeatable, measured, controlled, and reproducible. In order words:- accurate”

    MY COMMENT: Since the beginning of my comment was in reply to Paul MC who offered the following:

    “Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?.”
    By Adams, Henry E.; Wright, Lester W.; Lohr, Bethany A.
    Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Vol 105(3), Aug 1996, 440-445.

    As I understand the scientific approach for valid results, qualified researchers are reluctant to settle scientific questions on the basis of just one empirical study. Instead, important questions such as the relationship of homophobia and homosexual arousal should generate a flurry of studies to see whether key findings will stand the test of replication.

    (Replication is the repetition of a study to see whether the earlier results are duplicted)’

    So why do you only present results that happened in 1996? Why aren’t there any newer and more numerous studies on this important question dealing with homophobia and homosexual arousal? Is there a chance of inconsistent and contradictory results that would make you rethink the results?

    Good scientific work is not afraid to delve into serious questions and see if there inconsistent research results turn up.. (Until you show me that your’s qualifies as a scientific approach, your single study is meaningless in the scientific community, and to me)

    (I refer to this taken from my psychology book, which is what I would accept if properly handled)
    “If, and when you offer a series of studies/research that deal with this issue – and can be viewed through meta-analysis ( which combines the statistical results of many studies of the same question, yielding an estimate of the size and consistency of a variable’s effects)”

    WILL, your comment when I said…”What a stupid comment, and all of you homosexuals use that same trite remark. No…I’m not an “ex-gay closet type.””
    Really? Why so angry at the results of the study? Oh, come now, you can tell us, Hank. We’re all old friends here.

    MY COMMENT: ” When I said “Let me get this straight. From a group of 35 men, you’re saying this tiny group is totally acceptable to the scientific community to extrapolate it out to MILLIONS of men and make it a meaningful result regarding heterosexual respondents to homosexual stimuli.”

    I’m not angry, but “turned off” because you try to pass it off as a valid study, when it doesn’t meet the above mentioned approach to be a scientific study.

    Also, I believe many of the homosexual comments have underlying guilt and unhappiness in their lifestyle when they try to paint me as ex-gay or a closet homosexual. I do sense there’s much that you people aren’t admitting to me or to yourselves.

    WILL, when I said, “I don’t know how else to say it so that you’ll believe it. I’m heterosexual…if you want to live a homosexual lifestyle …OK….I’m not arguing how you behave.”

    Your response….”Behave??? 8 year monogamous relationship with my partner is a “behaviour”? Oh, come now Hank, you ARE being a bitch today, aren’t you? Well, protest away. We don’t mind.

    MY COMMENT: Perhaps you have a monogamous relationship, but studies tell a different story where gays are cruising looking for sex in many places and taking crazy chances. I know heterosexuals also do stupid sexual acts – which I don’t accept either.

    WILL, you said, “As far as I can see, the study tells me what I suspected… homophobes like you are closet cases. You’ve basically told us before you’re ex-gay… all about “being able to change”, wasn’t it? All adding up now, isn’t it, Hanketta?

    MY COMMENT; Same old trite response, perhaps driven by a sense of guilt and transference of desire.

    WILL, you said…”Homophobes are generally overly eager to dispel the gay rumours…. its what makes them easy to spot. They usually end up in gay bars. Ted Haggard, Christopher Austin, Colin Cook, Terrance Lewis, John Paulk:- all “ex-gay”. All homophobes. All proven closet cases”

    MY COMMENT: Firstly….these people ARE HOMOSEXUALS and only secondarily homophobic in their dishonest behavior if they indeed have difficulty living a truly heterosexual life. True heterosexuals are not “tempted” with homosexuality – perhaps those people are confused,. disoriented, mixed up, etc. with their self-confidence and maturity level.
    .
    WILL….you said, “Ah, yes. I quite agree. Have you seen David Skinner here yet…. he thinks like you, but a far more odious religious nut. Not as smart either (a complement to you, but it is all relative, after all). Probably a closet case too. No smoke without fire, Hank old boy!”

    MY COMMENT: Same old trite, shopworn response….please Will, try a new approach, this one is getting boring.

    WILL….you said, “Just food for thought. I personally pity the closet cases, but with people like you and Skinner out there branding them “sinners”, you can kinda see where it comes from… don’t you agree?
    …I, on the other had, find religious extremists only makes me want to stand up to you more. Some might call it bravery. I would call it self worth.”

    MY COMMENT: You have no depth about the teachings of Jesus Christ because you only see and accept the negativity of true Christianity. I feel sorry for you in that respect

  58. Oh, Hank… this study HAS upset you, hasn’t it?

    How fascinating.

    “So why do you only present results that happened in 1996? Why aren’t there any newer and more numerous studies on this important question dealing with homophobia and homosexual arousal? Is there a chance of inconsistent and contradictory results that would make you rethink the results?”

    How the hell should I know why there are no more studies? Maybe nonce cares but you. Just becuase one study hasn’t happened since, does not invalidate the result of this one, you silly man! And yes, if contradictory results came out, that were scientific, I would look at them. But you’re not willing to look at these, so why would my scientific appraisal count?

    Tell you what – You go do you own study then. Then come back to me and we can run a comparative analysis. Until then, this study stands under its own merit, and I accept its findings. In fact, you actions here only back it up.

    So, in the mean time, while you are setting up your ‘study’, Explain to me this: “Ted Haggard, Christopher Austin, Colin Cook, Terrance Lewis, John Paulk:- all “ex-gay”. All homophobes. All proven closet cases.”

    Very desperate gambit there Hankie to prove this study wrong. Very desperate. Wonder why?

    “Will, try a new approach, this one is getting boring.”

    Au contraire, my dear Hank, this is a whole new opening for you…. and I am intrigued. We wont be dropping this any time soon. You’re protesting WAY too much here. And I smell a weakness.

    “You have no depth about the teachings of Jesus Christ because you only see and accept the negativity of true Christianity. I feel sorry for you in that respect”

    Who cares what you think. As I said, I have a VERY happy and comfortable life. You’re validation is neither needed or necessary.

    And the more you protest (hissy fit in fact) here you’re straight, the most you lead me to believe you’re not…. protest away. This is indeed a choice moment.

    Oh, I know you’ll say you don’t care what we think….

    …….but obviously you do.

  59. Hanker, wrote at #53:

    “I’m definitely in the anti-homosexual category, not in the homophobia category.”

    And this is so laughable that I cannot be bothered reading any more of this deluded little man’s warped thoughts!

    “I’m anti-homosexual but I’m not homophobic”! It’s hilarious.

    Hank, you are riddled with a completely unnecessary detestation of homosexuality.

    Learn to accept and enjoy the same-sex attraction which you embody, Hank.

    Only then will you be at peace. Only then will you escape the cancer of hatred that currently consumes when you appear on these pages. You know what I’m talking about. You know that awful deep ingrained feeling of guilt that you sense as soon as you begin to spit your hatred of your very own same-sex attraction.

  60. WILL, you said, …”So, in the mean time, while you are setting up your ‘study’, Explain to me this: “Ted Haggard, Christopher Austin, Colin Cook, Terrance Lewis, John Paulk:- all “ex-gay”. All homophobes. All proven closet cases.”

    Apparently you have more insight into the above people. You say they’re all “ex-gay”, all homophobes….all proven closet cases” So what’s your point….what does their behavior have anything to do with me….

    Your mind in “locked into” trying to insinuate some homosexual feelings/desires/comments, etc. that somehow is part of my life. Using some psychology on you, I do believe you’re reflecting transference in connecting me with you. Reread your psychiatry literature and you’ll see you’re deluding yourself.

    Also, so which is it? ”Are they ex-gays… closet cases…faux heterosexuals…sexual deviants… Please explain your rationale in your statement about these guys.

    WILL, you also said, “ Maybe none cares but you. Just becuase one study hasn’t happened since, does not invalidate the result of this one, you silly man!

    MY COMMENT; I don’t know where you’re getting your information about statistical interpretation but you don’t make scientific sense.

    First, let’s talk about : The margin of error – a statistic expressing the amount of random sampling error in a project’s results. The larger the margin of error, the less faith one should have that the poll’s reported results are close to the “true” figures; that is, the figures for the whole population.

    Your biggest mistake is you’re using a tiny control group (35) men and extrapolating the results out into a “true” group composed of many millions of (homophobic men?) that make up the whole population. Nobody in the scientific community would accept this as a valid study. The reliability factor in this case would hover near 0% acceptability.

    The reason this type of study has not been replicated is that its premise is totally bogus and only biased pro-homosexual researchers would endeavor to attempt a second study.

    Again I ask you Will, in selecting a group of “homophobic” men, do you think they’re all the same, or do you think they have huge differences depending on such behavioral characteristics that might include:
    A homophobic man who was involved in exhibitionism
    A homophobic man who was into fetishismA homophobic man who was a masochist
    A homophobic man who was into rough sex
    A homophobic man who as into voyeurism
    A homophobic man who masturbated excessively
    A homophobic man who was into zoophilia

    The list of behavior goes on and on — it all has a bearing on
    studying human sexual behavior and you seem oblivious to the
    scientific factors involved in a valid and reliable study.

    WILL….you need to get your facts straight before you try to make your point, which you definitely haven’t done.

  61. Eddy, you said,
    “Hanker, wrote at #53: “I’m definitely in the anti-homosexual category, not in the homophobia category.”
    And this is so laughable that I cannot be bothered reading any more of this deluded little man’s warped thoughts!

    MY COMMENT:
    Eddy, you need to broaden your mind before you laugh yourself sillier than you already are when you quote me as “I’m anti-homosexual but I’m not homophobic”! It’s hilarious.
    Hank, you are riddled with a completely unnecessary detestation of homosexuality.”

    EDDY, Do you have a dictionary? I’ll explain the difference of my stand on homosexuality:

    The definition of “phobia” is an irrational, excessive, persistent fear of something or someone.

    The definition of “anti” is being opposed to some policy, proposal, action.

    There’s a world of difference that apparently you don’t comprehend.

    Eddy, you said, “Learn to accept and enjoy the same-sex attraction which you embody, Hank.
    Only then will you be at peace. Only then will you escape the cancer of hatred that currently consumes when you appear on these pages. You know what I’m talking about. You know that awful deep ingrained feeling of guilt that you sense as soon as you begin to spit your hatred of your very own same-sex attraction.

    MY COMMENT: No, Eddy, you don’t know what you’re missing by not enjoying all that a beautiful, attractive, intelligent , healthy developed female offers to someone like me. I do pity your missing out.

  62. Oh, Hank. You’re just repeating yourself, love. Shhhh. Calm, now. Oh. and I have my facts all right, you’re just desperate to discredit them.

    My, my, my…. eager, oh, so eager, to get OUR approval that you’re “not gay”, aren’t you? Very illuminating.

    Do you think it working?

  63. Jean-Paul Bentham 11 Mar 2010, 8:50pm

    If you were really fulfilled with your heterosexual relationship, you wouldn’t be obsessed with what goes on in other peoples’ bedrooms.

    Common sense, that’s all.

    Enjoy your life and spread that joy. Teach by example, like we do.

  64. So now our Hanker seeks to deign a clear moral distinction between his homophobia and his being anti-gay. Laughable! Laughable.

    At least you come so far as to admit the existence of homophobia. Now you just have to admit that you suffer from it. Instead you’re trying to claim that you don’t suffer from it but that you have a perfectly natural, right and proper, policy against gay policies, that is, that the whole thing is a logical and rational construction within your head!

    Like HELL it is, Hanky baby, and you know it.

    There’s a cancer of hatred gnawing away inside of your guts, in destestation of the same-sex attraction that you feel within you . . . and that my sweetie liddle Hanky baby is called . . . homophobia!

    And then our ever so rational Hanky proclaims from his great high pediment above the degraded morass: “Eddy, you don’t know what you’re missing by not enjoying all that a beautiful, attractive, intelligent , healthy developed female offers to someone like me. I do pity your missing out.”

    But, Hanky, my liddle baby-baby, wah, wah, wah (cuddle, cuddle), but your daddy he loves da women too! He just prefers to have da sex with da guys. Gettit? Your daddy, loves the beautiful, the attractive, the intelligent, and the healthy developed females very much! Is liddle baby BLIND? Daddy has no problem with da women. He knows lots of them. They come visiting all the time. Is Hanky blind as well as bigotted? It’s just that Daddy just prefers da guys when it comes to sex. And the women that Daddy knows don’t mind at all, cause some of them like Daddy but they prefer the women when it comes to beddy-byes! Gettit, Liddle Hanky-Baby, with the brain the size of fuc*in pea?

  65. “No, Eddy, you don’t know what you’re missing by not enjoying all that a beautiful, attractive, intelligent , healthy developed female offers to someone like me. I do pity your missing out.”

    LOL! Please, Hank, stop the lame protestations for the love of jaysus…. we “know” you’re straight! LOL! You’re beginning to sound like a petulant child who’s been found out drawing on the walls.

    Here’s some more for you:

    Theorists including Calvin Thomas (professor at Georgia State University) and Judith Butler (American post-structuralist philosopher) have suggested that homophobia can be rooted in an individual’s fear of being identified as gay. Homophobia in men is correlated with insecurity about masculinity.

    I think you tick that box, Hank.

    They have argued that a person who expresses homophobic thoughts and feelings does so not only to communicate their beliefs about the class of gay people, but also to distance themselves from this class and its social status. Thus, by distancing themselves from gay people, they are reaffirming their role as a heterosexual in a heteronormative culture, thereby attempting to prevent themselves from being labelled and treated as a gay person. This interpretation alludes to the idea that a person may posit violent opposition to “the Other” as a means of establishing their own identity as part of the majority and thus gaining social validation. This concept is also recurrent in interpretations of racism and xenophobia.

    You have shown many traits of racism and intolerance to other creeds and nationalities (not to mention the “gay conspiracy”), Hank.

    Various psychoanalytic theories explain homophobia as a threat to an individual’s own same-sex impulses, whether those impulses are imminent or merely hypothetical. This threat causes repression, denial or reaction formation.

    Hmmmm. I have to thank you Hank, you’re feverish cries of “I love boobies, so I’m better than you” have opened my eyes to the extent that so-called homophobes like you nothing more than a cesspool of sexually repressed feelings and unresolved and self recriminations.

    And the way you accept unscientific proof’s such as the globally discredited tripe from NARTH and “Dr” Paul Cameron over a REAL scientific studies is very revealing as to your desperation to hide something or refuse to accept something.

    Fascinating, isn’t it?

    And your desperation to have us agree with you that you’re “straight”…. well, two words:- Speaks. Volumes.

    Oh, this IS fun, isn’t it?

  66. “If you were really fulfilled with your heterosexual relationship, you wouldn’t be obsessed with what goes on in other peoples’ bedrooms.”

    Nail on the head, JP…. and I am amazed just how many studies here are to back up this statement. I have to thanks Hank, he’s opened my eyes…. next time I see a homophobe, I’ll have to do the old cliché of “keeping by back to the wall” :)

  67. Hey Will, you say, “Here’s some more for you:”

    Theorists including Calvin Thomas (professor at Georgia State University) and Judith Butler (American post-structuralist philosopher) have suggested that homophobia can be rooted in an individual’s fear of being identified as gay. Homophobia in men is correlated with insecurity about masculinity”

    MY COMMENT: After reading about your “experts on homophobia” I
    think their emphasis and engrossment on sex goes far beyond
    anything I come close to with an interest in sexual behavior that seems to concern you.

    Would you care to give your opinion as to the (sexual identification, sexual preference, etc.) of these two people as to offering an unbiased view in their writings?

    Here’s a brief view of your two people:

    Department of English
    Calvin Thomas
    Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1990
    Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
    Literary Theory and Cultural Studies

    Dr. Thomas works in critical theory and modern and postmodern literature and culture. His research involves feminist, psychoanalytic, and deconstructive interrogations of gender, sexuality, and the body.

    His study Male Matters: Masculinity, Anxiety, and the Male Body on the Line examines repressions of the male body in social constructions of normative masculinity and the role played by writing–as material act or “bodily function”–in the disruption of gendered identity.

    . Long interested in the relation of men to feminism, Dr. Thomas is also concerned with the implications of “straight” negotiations with queer theory, and his co-edited volume Straight with a Twist: Queer Theory and the Subject of Heterosexuality examines this contestatory terrain.

    His latest book is called Masculinity, Psychoanalysis, Straight Queer Theory: Essays on Abjection in Literature, Mass Culture, and Film (Palgrave-Macmillan,2008).

    Dr. Thomas is a Research Affiliate of the Centre for the Interdisciplinary Study of Sexuality and Gender in Europe, University of Exeter, UK.

    Some published works include:
    Male Matters=Straight with aTwist =Masculinity,Psychoanalysis,StraightQueerTheory

    Masculinity, Psychoanalysis, Straight Queer Theory: Essays on Abjection in Literature, Mass Culture, and Film (Palgrave-Macmillan,2008).

    Male Matters: Masculinity, Anxiety, and the Male Body on the Line (University of Illinois Press, 1996)

    Straight with a Twist: Queer Theory and the Subject of Heterosexuality, editor, with Joseph Aimone and Catherine MacGillivray (University of Illinois Press, 2000).

    MY COMMENT: Regarding Judith Butler, I offer the following:

    Quoting “Im Ok-Hee, author of the book Reading Judith Butler, 2006 and also co-representative from The Center for Women’s Culture and Theory came to Korea University (KU) for five days to give lectures on Butler’s theories.”

    She, notes:

    “Judith Butler: Born in 1956 and have received Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale University, Butler is a prominent American post-structuralist philosopher of fields such as feminism, queer theory and political philosophy. She is currently professor in the departments of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at the University of California, Berkeley.

    “So, who is Judith Butler and what are her theories? “In short, she is someone who gave a clear theory on gender problems,” said Im.

    “In a world where heterosexuality dominates all sexual relations and leaves other alternatives as abnormalities, Butler suggested a new paradigm regarding gender and sex through a concept called gender performativity. Compared to former feminist theories involving race, class, and sex, Butler’s theory opened feminism to focus more on gender.

    “The core of her theory is that sex and sexuality is not fixed in each individual, but is performed voluntarily. According to Butler, gender is literally free floating and any individual is capable of performing any gender one wants. “Butler’s discourse on sexual identity is not limited to race, class and sex, but more radically dismantled towards the concept of gender,” said Im.

    WILL: You need to do better!
    I’ll need more scientifically qualified people for commenting on the homophobia/homosexual relationship. These two people don’t
    impress me as being unbiased and totally objective in their views.

  68. Hey Jean Paul, when you say, “If you were really fulfilled with your heterosexual relationship, you wouldn’t be obsessed with what goes on in other peoples’ bedrooms.”

    What kind of world are you living in Jean P? Interest in sex is
    everywhere ….all the time…I could give you thousands of
    examples, but the 3 below are typical of how sex has permeated
    our society — get used to it — it’s probably the most viewed
    and discussed topic these days worldwide.

    By Nancy McAlister
    Times-Union television writer,

    PASADENA, Calif. – Don’t expect the folks on Friends and Veronica’s Closet to take vows of celibacy. But viewers may find future NBC shows have fewer sexcapades, particularly the extramarital variety.

    Less gratuitous sex and more traditional families are part of the prime-time vision of new NBC entertainment chief Scott Sassa. In his first news conference as the network’s top programmer, Sassa said he’d like to see a little more balance in what NBC does, including presenting more households like Mad About You with a mother, father and children.

    ”We need to have less of an emphasis on sex,” Sassa said, praising the prolonged, unresolved sexual tension on the classic sitcom Cheers. ”For the most part, when sex is used in a smart way, it works out OK. In some cases, I think we could use a few more words in between ‘Hello’ and ‘Would you sleep with me?’ We need to figure out how to use sex appropriately and responsibly.”

    MUSIC AND SEX:

    A study of the lyrics of popular music was conducted to test the hypothesis that from the 1950s through the 1970s such songs placed a progressively greater emphasis upon physical as opposed to emotional love.

    Researchers analyzed the lyrics of the five most popular songs listed in “Billboard” magazine during every year from 1950 to 1980.

    2.7% of the songs released during the 1950s were rated “somewhat” or “very” physical, while 11.4% of those from the 1960s and 40% of those songs released during the 1970s were so rated.

    Love songs published during the 1950s and early 1960s often described persons yearning for their first love or the rapture of a couple’s first encounter. Their romantic love was associated with dreams, hearts, and sacrifice, and portrayed as exclusive, true, and eternal.

    During the 1960s, lyrics became more ambiguous, and sexual desire became a more dominant theme.

    By the 1970s, the traditional values were broadened: persons described in modern love songs often met, spent a single night together, then parted without any emotional bond or commitment. Today even songs with the most explicit lyrics become number one hits.

    SEX IN DESIGN

    Sex in Design/Design in Sex to open at the Museum of Sex on January 31, 2008: Exhibition Will Highlight the Best Sexually Inspired Contemporary Designs From Around the World
    New York, NY- November 2007- The Museum of Sex is proud to announce the opening of its thirteenth exhibition on January 31, 2008. Entitled Sex in Design/Design in Sex, this exhibition will be showcased in a gallery created by Pentagram Design, Inc. and will be on view through April 2008.

    Design has the power to shape experience; lending intensity to sexual encounters and adding a sensual thrill to everyday objects. From subtle manifestations to overt declarations, sexual imagery appeals to the universal human desire for pleasure. Sex in Design/Design in Sex highlights the best and most compelling sexually inspired contemporary designs from around the world.

    Jean P….you can’t pick up a magazine without the feature article emphasizing SEX….look at how many television programs deal with “jumping into bed” on the first date….politicians
    and world leaders committing adultery…etc. Get with the times!!! I’d appreciate your response to my examples.

  69. Hank, I didn’t even bother to read any of that. As you cannot understand the basics of scientific studies, why would I hold anything you demonstrate in any retard? Ergo, what you say is irrelevant.

    No, lets be honest here. The study in question shows that its MOST PROBABLE you’re a closet case homosexual. It explains your obsession with us. It also explains why you are here so often. It establishes why you are SO desperate to prove yourself “straight”. Every protest you make here cements that belief.

    Good night.

  70. Hey Will, what do you think….Calvin Thomas…Judity Butler…
    heterosexuals….or homosexuals…or bisexuals.
    They sure do a lot of research/writing about homosexuality…
    queer theory…sexual identity..normative masculinity … etc.
    I can accept scientific research…not biased opinions.

    They seem to have the problem…not me.

  71. “They seem to have the problem…not me.”

    They don’t spend their time in gay sites preaching about the “end of days” and a “new world order” conspiracies involving elaborate and ludicrous conspiracies, do they Hank?

    You do.

    Now who do you think might “have the problem”, eh?

    I know what closet case homophobe I’m going to pick.

  72. Will, I see that Hank at #67 referred to rational academics working in gender theory and then stated “These two people don’t impress me as being unbiased and totally objective in their views” without even so much as saying a SINGLE WORD as to why he, the little Hank, is not impressed! Extraordinary, isn’t it. (Extraordinary that he doesn’t see how laughable that action is. At a debate at any decent university he would be booed out of the room.)

    Little Hank, your indoctrinated brain, full of received garbage (garbage received from texts penned by primitive and ignorant peoples), is not capable of unravelling and comprehending the work of these two thinkers, so you could not possibly even BEGIN to prove that there work is not objective.

    THEY are original THINKERS.

    YOU are NOT an original thinker. YOU parrot the fearful garbage of ancient and ignorant peoples.

    THEY are brave.

    YOU are a programmed and pathetic automaton.

    You do, however, have the option of wiping your brain of all that garbage and starting afresh.

    Don’t bother selecting and deleting, Little Hank: just reformat your entire brain and then install a modern and rational operating system.

    You could become a happy person!

    Not some sad fuc*er who has to inhabit gay websites venting the cancer that gnaws at his heart.

  73. another loathesome little sh** from across he pond. a la haggard, mcgreavy etc etc, bombed out of the closet now acting all contrite. effing hypocrisy makes me sick.

  74. Stupid self-hating gay. It’s people like him that make the world a worse place. I hope now both the regular homophobic Republicans and the Log Cabin Republicans reject him and make him an outcast.

  75. Yeah, Eddy, I spotted that. And yet Hank can throw “scientific” and “unbiased” reports form NARTH on homosexuality. It laughable. And shows how bloody damaged that man is. But not a surprise really, given Hank seems über eager to make us believe he’s ‘straight’. I’ve never seen him protest that strenuously before about something before…. I think we hit a nerve with that homophobic=homosexual research. Well, if the needle is pointing north, then you’re more than likely facing north, I say :)

    Love the way Hank and Skinner both share that cut’n’paste level of individual thinking…. seems to be the modus operandi of the diminished capacity class of schizophrenic.

  76. To all:
    Nice to see that you’re still making comments about me.

    Today, I send the following comment, which again reveals another attempt of your “intolerance” towards the general public – trying to control speech today , and tomorrow, it’ll be trying to control “anti-homosexual thoughts.” “Big Brother” is growing and our government is being duped into carrying out “1984″ as the world gets more desperate and perverted.

    “Mass. Senate: Watch Your Language!
    After a series of tragic teen suicides, the Massachusetts legislature is considering an anti-bullying bill that would put a greater emphasis on the problem in local schools.

    Last week, the state senate passed the proposal unanimously-but not before pro-family groups exposed a devious scheme in the bill. At the last minute, the Senate Education Committee stripped language that could have criminalized anyone who criticized homosexuality. Specifically, S.2283 said that whoever promoted “false material” to promote “hatred” of any group because of their “sexual orientation” could be fined up to a $1,000 or sentenced to a year in jail.

    Depending on how state officials defined these terms, the legislation could have had a crippling effect on free speech and religious liberty. MassResistance pointed out how extreme the language is and managed to have leaders remove it. Although the end result was a victory for conservatives, it does illustrate the real agenda of homosexual activists–which is to completely silence those who are critical of their behavior, by force of law, if necessary.”

  77. Hey all:

    Looks like “Big Brother” keeps expanding everyday in every way. But most of you don’t care to look deeper into what and how our society is changing its standards and principles – but not to be surprised, because it’s foretold if you know where to look.

    What do think of this?

    “Crackdown on dangerous dogs to make microchips compulsory for all
    March 9, 2010, The Guardian (One of the UK’s leading newspapers)

    “All dogs are to be compulsorily microchipped so that their owners can be more easily traced under a crackdown on dangerous dogs. Under the scheme a microchip the size of a grain of rice is injected under the skin of the dog between its shoulder blades. The chip contains a unique code number, the dog’s name, age, breed and health as well as the owner’s name, address and phone number. When the chip is “read” by a handheld scanner the code number is revealed and the details can be checked on a national database.

    “The measures will be set out by the home secretary, Alan Johnson, who will point to rising public concern that “status dogs” are being used by some irresponsible owners to intimidate communities or as a weapon by gangs. If the scheme were made compulsory owners would face a fine for failing to microchip their dogs.”

    Note: Once all dogs are required to be microchipped, what will come next? Might “Big Brother” be looking at us so we can’t act like “dangerous dogs?”

  78. Hank – Big Brother is such an emotive term isn’t it? Just about everyone has read 1984, and seen how Winston Smith was scrutinised even in the privacy of his own home by a series of two way telescreens.
    I daresay he had one in his bedroom, which sounds pretty intrusive until you remember that Christian fundamentalists have been probing gay people’s private lives for hundreds of years, with precious little provocation.
    And now thanks to the internet we have you doing much the same job, and dictating to us what we can do behind closed doors according to your own celestial Big Brother. So don’t talk to us about Big Brother, we’re only too familiar with that kind of scrutiny.

  79. Poor Hank. Now a paranoid closet case homophobe.

  80. Will & Flapjack, notice how he thinks he can continue to bait without even so much as acknowledging the fool he was made of just a little earlier!

    At #67 Hank referred to rational academics working in gender theory and then stated “These two people don’t impress me as being unbiased and totally objective in their views” without even so much as saying a SINGLE WORD as to why he was not impressed!

    He cannot even perceive how laughable that action is.

  81. Hank has many daemons to battle, Eddy. Its my experience the reason he cannot address certain realities is that his mind is unable to cope with the implication of such truths. He has a world construct which consists of paranoid conspiracies and self made prophesies… and unfortunately this construct is also quite fragile. Hank and Skinner have much in common, albeit Skinner is an extreme case of hate:- they both are retired, fear some non-existent “new world order” nonsense, a need to preach fire and brimstone, an inability to understand or listen to reason, cut’n’paste “wisdom” on NARTH “research” and acute emotional difficulties.

    Essentially, if its not a mental health issue with these two, its down to fear of death approaching and an unhealthy dose of powerlessness.

  82. “Essentially, if its not a mental health issue with these two, its down to fear of death approaching and an unhealthy dose of powerlessness.”

    Hmmm. A profound thought, Will. I think I agree with it!

    And Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and Mad Mohammed, is there not a lot of vicious English Tory hysteria on some of these threads at the moment!? Some of the claims our gullible gay Establishment-lovers have made are either the product of totally gaga loopy hysteria or the most cunning and devilish conniving! Either way they are exploited deluded fools.

  83. “And Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and Mad Mohammed, is there not a lot of vicious English Tory hysteria on some of these threads at the moment!?”

    I hear you…. I’m beginning to see some Tory supporters as more religious than logical! Quite disturbing.

  84. How about this to think about in your spare time?

    Science hopes to change events that have already occurred
    January 21, 2007, San Francisco Chronicle/New Scientist magazine
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL

    Common sense tells us that influencing the past is impossible — what’s done is done, right? Even if it were possible, think of the mind-bending paradoxes it would create. While tinkering with the past, you might change the circumstances by which your parents met, derailing the key event that led to your birth. Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange as it sounds, retrocausality … has been debated for decades, mostly in the realm of philosophy and quantum physics. Trouble is, nobody has done the experiment to show it happens in the real world, so the door remains wide open for a demonstration. It might even happen soon.

    Researchers are on the verge of experiments that will finally hold retrocausality’s feet to the fire by attempting to send a signal to the past. It should all be doable with the help of a state-of-the-art optics workbench and the bizarre yet familiar tricks of quantum particles. If retrocausality is confirmed — and that is a huge if — it would overturn our most cherished notions about the nature of cause and effect and how the universe works.

    There’s so much mind-boggling topics on the internet. Thought
    somebody on this site would enjoy this also.

  85. “Common sense tells us that influencing the past is impossible”

    Dear, oh, dear, oh dear….

    What exactly is this supposed to prove? Science is “interfering with nature”? Please Hank, you really need to do better, its distressing to watch you feebly trying to complete with knowledge and wisdom.

    Common sense tells us that there is no global conspiracy by gay people or a “new world order”. Yet you hold that paranoid belief to be true. You spouted here a 6,000 year old earth. Yet it is proven beyond irrefutable doubt to be a silly story, believed by the weak minded and the foolish.

    Just because you don’t understand science Hank, really counts for nothing in the slightest. You fear science, BECAUSE you don’t understand it. Science threatens the proof-less belief system you hold so dear. You’ve proven you unable to listen, unable to learn, and your mind is limited by schizophrenic paranoia. Your grasp on science consists of a few cut and pastes from sources with zero credibility.

    Hardly one to be telling us, people who are above and better educated then you, about common sense and science, now, are you?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all