I’m sorry to post on this, but I feel Charles Johnson has crossed a line.
Parents associated with the 9/12 movement recently had a book removed named: Revolutionary Voices: A Multicultural Queer Youth Anthology. This book promotes “alternate lifestyles” for the youth. I’m a Libertarian leaning Conservative, but there are limits. I would not like a book promoting irresponsible heterosexual sex among the young either, so the fact it’s about youth homosexuality is irrelevant. Do teenagers have sex, yup I was one that did. The issue is whether we promote this behaviors or educate them on the dangers of unprotected sex, STD’s and the risks of Pregnancies. This book is not that, it is glorifying irresponsible sex to young people. The parents took a stand and they are within their rights.
Take a look at some of the chapters:
Concerned parents who also are members of the 9/12 movement, asked the Burlington County Library System to remove it. These parents were in their right. However, because of their affiliation with Glenn becks and his 9/12 movement, Charles Johnson attacked them.
In the sick twisted mind of Charles Johnson, parents don’t have a right to be against a book that promotes irresponsible behavior and is classified as a Child Porn book. To him, standing up to groups promoting radical agenda, is censorship. Clearly this man has had no children and understand what it’s like being a parent. The title alone implies Progressive radicalism and not a mainstream book for Teens.
Charles Johnson has crossed a line due to his hate of Glenn Beck. Rather than analyze the situation, he let his hate get the better of him. The obscure mediocre 70′s/80′s Jazz Musician will even defend a radical book that is classified as Child porn
I apologize to everyone on the blog for this post, but I feel he is wrong to attack concerned parents and needs to be called on it.
Tags: 9/12 Project, Charles Johnson, Glenn Beck
Charles Johnson in his hatred of Conservatives and anything conservative, is willing to make common cause with the worst anti social and anti American elements in society. For Johnson the end game is bashing Beck, Geller, Bachmann, Limbaugh, Palin etc. He really is a demented individual.
What about having a restricted section? Maybe certain books that require parental consent?
NoThreat2U wrote:
I do not think that is very practical. These are not films in a movie theater,
NoThreat2U wrote:
yeah that’s not a bad idea as well. Charles should not attack parents for wanting to determine what their kids read as minors.
@ NoThreat2U:
Where do you draw the line? How hard-core is too hard-core? People who don’t think there should be a line (like Charles JOhnson) have to explain why not. I can’t think of anything convincing. It is like with the abortion issue, another favorite of these fanatics. A 12 year old girl can get an abortion without even notifying her parents, but she can’t get a tattoo. A tattoo, you see, requires maturity. It is, after all, forever. I’m waiting for them to show me how they reverse an abortion.
Daedalus wrote:
Charles is becoming as insanely angry as Nero.
no, CFnJ is just stupid. and wrong about everything. i yawn in the general direction of his booger blog.
CJ is a boring mouth-breather:
If some one from the right says white, he says black. Boooooooooooooooooooooring…..
@ Iron Fist:
You raise some very good points. However pony tail in his hatred of anything that smacks of conservatism is unwilling to even think abut the implications of an issue.
Charles taking issue with something being banned?
Pot, Meet Kettle!
Guggi wrote:
He is boring but he needs to have his shit shoved back in his face.
Kirly wrote:
Hey Kirly I have a thread tonight on Arizona tourism and I give you a shout out.
NAMBLA couldn’t be reached for comment.
@ Speranza:
I personally don’t think the outright banning of a book is good. There should be restriction though. Hell, when I was in school, there were certain books that parents had to sign for. I leave the decision to the parents. Also, with the parental consent form, maybe this can open dialogue between the parents and the child. I am not saying my idea is perfect, but it could be a starting point.
@ Iron Fist:
To give a full reason for the way I feel, I would have to read the book actually. I have a major problem with militant homosexuality. We get it…you’re here, you’re queer. No one gives a damn. lol It is funny because I have gay friends and some of them are polar opposites. One friend won’t speak to me anymore because I told him I don’t believe in gay marriage. My sister in law, who is gay, knows my stance on the issue. She feels it is my personal opinion…so no big deal. The militancy is what worries me.
snork wrote:
The sick group that had a slogan “Sex before 8 before it’s too late”.
Charles has taken on all the qualities of an internet troll
The troll lives for attention. He thought he would get it by going hard left. He got a bit with his 10 reasons thread.
but to maintain the attention, the troll needs to constantly increase the trollish behavior.
and chucky needs to get more and more insane to capture people’s attention.
But Chuck, don’t confuse laughter for serious attention. you’ve a boring predictable clown.
Not funny. Not interesting. Not cutting edge.
just a troll on the decline
Kirly wrote:
Watch out, he’s flicking boogers back.
@ NoThreat2U:
I’m not into banning books, however I do not think that parental concern is something that CJ or anyone else needs to laugh off and decry as fascism.
snork wrote:
He eats boogers as a snack.
@ Speranza:
No problem with that
Now if this book was telling these kids that they are entitled to special rights because they are gay, I have a problem with that.
@ Doppelganger:
Chatrles Johnson loves positive attention, however he burns anytime he is mocked or criticized. Fora fat guy he is very think skinned.
@ Speranza:
Most people who AREN’T parents are like that. I am a parent. I know that for a big chunk of my kids lives, I make their decisions for them…all in their best interest. CJ isn’t a parent. What the hell does he know about parenting? And anyone who thinks this book should be readily available is probably a very permissive parent. I don’t like permissive parents.
Speranza wrote:
you do?? whatever for??
btw, hotel bookings are UP not down here.
At least it was with a woman. KKKillgore has it only with himself.
I think I am the only woman here chiming in on this. Just consider all my posts from a Mother’s point of view
Kirly wrote:
The boycott is failing is what the the thread is about,
snork wrote:
we need to invent a booger shield.
better, when does his stupid blog finally just die and go away?
Look, if a child is having a sexual identity crisis, he/she isn’t going to find the answers to their questions in a damn book. This is real life….not a damn novel.
Kirly wrote:
I suspect that by next yer Little Green balls will quietly disappear,
@ NoThreat2U:
If they want their kids to read this, I suggest they buy it for them at Amazon.com. Contrary to Chaz’s hyperventalations, nobody is banning any books. They are not making it available to children for free in a public library. Why is it that Liberals think that people have to support them or they are having their rights violated?
Btw I ordered Pam Geller and Robert Spencer’s book The Post-American Presidency” from Amazon today. i want her book to be a best seller so selrahC will have a massive case of agita.
Chucky’s good friend Reggie likes the kids
wink wink
@ Iron Fist:
A surgical procedure (abortion) is fine to the left, but an Aspirin needs approval.
Doppelganger wrote:
Cato likes Haku
@ Iron Fist:
But, what if the parents don’t know a book like this exists? Parents of gays struggle just as much as the children do. That is why I thought, that with parental consent, it would open up dialogue between the parents and the child. When the kid asks for permission for this book, the parents would ask why they feel the need to read it.
That sounds swell to me
Maybe I am wrong though, I admit that. This is just MY opinion. What I don’t like is how this issue will make conservatives look homophobic.
@ mfhorn:
Ha! You can’t even pass a Midol to a friend in school! Zero tolerance and all that shit. But you can take my child to have something torn from her innermost parts?
@ Kirly:
When he goes broke. His traffic is down 70% in the last 2 years.
@ NoThreat2U:
What I don’t like is how this issue will be used by the left to make conservatives look homophobic.
FTFM
@ NoThreat2U:
Gays are 3% of the population that will never vote for my candidates anyway. Why would I Care that I look “homophobic”? I simply don’t care to pander to them. There really is no point in it.
Community standards are what determines pornography according to SCOTUS. But the rainbow mafia has been trying to form theirselves as a distinct ethnicity in the minds and courts of America for sometime, so this is what this fight is all about….human rights again…as they are a distinct ethnic group and should fall under the aegis of federal protection.
So Charles is once again right in his mind as those people pulling books from their communities library are not just anachronistic squares but are indeed facist wacists.
Daedalus wrote:
I can see him on the street with a cardboard sign while Geller and Spencer rocket to fame and fortune
even Zombie is a star.
all chuck has is people who say “butthurt” and a a few dozen 5$ cookbook royalties
mwahahahahahahaha
NoThreat2U wrote:
Oh, I think it’s possible that the right book could be a lifesaver at the right time.
But, having said that—what the hell is all this necessary for? Everybody—”gay” or not—goes through hell in early adolescence. There is nothing that says anyone has to have sex at the age of twelve, the larger culture and the grotesque sexualization of children at ever-younger ages notwithstanding. Frankly, everyone would be better off if all of the sexual do-gooders and pokers and prodders would shut the hell up and let people tumble into sex in their late teens, as used to be the case.
And on the same day:
Apple Purges Erotic Stories From Book Store Bestseller List
Coincidence? That’s what Beck wants you to think CJ…
LGF thread bemoaning this outrageous outrage in 5..4..3..2..
//
@ Doppelganger:
Come on, man, Iceweasel has to count for something? Kind of like having a tape worm, at least you have a pet…
Iron Fist wrote:
More to the point.
There are another 30% or so of the population who start foaming at the mouth about the issue (example: Chuck Johnson). They’ll never vote for your candidates either, so why should you care about what they say?
In the end, it’s like the race card. It only matters to the hard kook left, so why care?
@ Iron Fist:
YOU may not care, but they do.
Just by the way—using the term “gay” as self-description is sort of akin to blacks referring to themselves as “darkies.”
“Gay” was a slang term of the late-19th century which was used to refer to the members of the demimonde; prostitutes, chorines, chorus-boys and actors generally, bohemians/artists, drug addicts. All of these people were considered part of “the gay life”—i.e., the alternate life that was not the respectable life of people who worked at regular jobs and raised families.
The term became attached strictly to the homosexual subculture some time in the mid-1930s, after many of the red-light districts (such as Storyville in New Orleans) had been closed—but it’s essentially a dismissive and pejorative term, as “darkies” was towards blacks.
Iron Fist wrote:
What was that? I can’t hear you. The weasel has a pet tape worm? Hanging out of where?
Doppelganger wrote:
Hope you don’t mind me adding that!
@ buzzsawmonkey:
I agree people go through hell in school. But it is easier for me, as a girl, to talk to other girls about what that guy and i did the other night than what that girl and I did. I try to think of all the youngsters who have killed themselves because they felt there was no one they could talk to about thinking they might be gay. As a parent, I put myself in the shoes of their parents. I may not like it, but I would want to know.
As for waiting until they are older for sex?? If only.
@ NoThreat2U:
But they will never vote for my candidates no matter what I do. Pandering to them is useless, while standing up to them may influence other segments of the population that will vote for my candidates. It is a simple calculation to make.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
And then they also call each other “queer”. That’s become not only acceptable, but in some contexts official, i.e. “queer studies”. That was the pejorative of choice not that long ago.
NoThreat2U wrote:
Have you got any real hard statistics on that, or are you just listening to media conjecture?
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Good analysis.
@ Iron Fist:
And what did I say that you consider “panering”? All I mean is that this is a parent/child issue. It should NOT be readily available for just anyone to read. Parental consent is my suggestion. That’s is the only point I was trying to make.
snork wrote:
And now you can get a diploma that shows that as your major.
Who wouldn’t want to have that hanging proudly on their wall?
//
@ snork:
Off the top of my head, I can’t give you numbers. But I will look around and see what I can find. Besides, one is one too many. I would wager that most questioning youth are not gay. BRB
NoThreat2U wrote:
I knew someone—well, knew of someone—in my high school who apparently killed himself over the possibility that he was “gay.” That was about 40 years ago.
The problem is that the ever-younger sexualization of children and the line pushed by the gay-rights lobby that gay/not-gay is a bright-line distinction actually makes such suicides more likely, not less. Sexuality is not necessarily “set” at an early age.
I remember “dances”—or what were supposed to be dances—in eighth grade and early high school, where for the most part the boys hung around one side of the gym and the girls hung around on the other, and nobody wanted to cross that terrifying divide. Some adventurous few did—more and more as the years progressed. But a lot of boys, and girls, were shy about getting close to someone of the opposite sex, and some of them had very intense same-sex friendships. Some of these friendships may well have had a sexual or quasi-sexual component, partly because there was an element of closeness based on friendship and familiarity; it was less terrifying to get sort-of-sexual/semi-close with someone you were similar to than with one of those mysterious beings of the opposite sex.
This is what the whole “oh, you’re just going through a phase” line comes from; the recognition that there may well be a sexual or quasi-sexual element to intense friendships at this age. But the evil—yes, evil—of the “gay” lobby is to decree that this shows someone’s “true nature,” and coerce young people who, precisely because they are young, do not have any perspective of time, into believing that they may be irrevocably “gay” because they might have gotten a little intimate with someone during the Age of Confusion.
Just about 1 year ago Amazon was stripping the sales rankings of gay, lesbian and erotica categories. There was a huge outcry at book blogs and some very nasty Amazon googlebombing campaigns were started. I didn’t hear anything from Johnson or LGF at the time. Maybe because Amazon book sales put food on his table at that time? That is different right? Anyway, it is resolved now, but Johnson is still a hypocrite.
@ NoThreat2U:
I disagree. This is in a school library if I’m not mistaken and quite frankly, I’m sick to death of the smut being pushed on our kids.
NO! Kindergartners do NOT need to know about gays, sex or fisting – PERIOD! For God’s sake can’t we please just let out children be children?
@ buzzsawmonkey:
The problem is that the ever-younger sexualization of children and the line pushed by the gay-rights lobby that gay/not-gay is a bright-line distinction actually makes such suicides more likely, not less. Sexuality is not necessarily “set” at an early age.
I agree completely.
Some of these friendships may well have had a sexual or quasi-sexual component, partly because there was an element of closeness based on friendship and familiarity;
And that is why people don’t cringe at woman to woman relationships but throw up when it is two men engaging in sex.
Look at college girls. They “go wild” But you would be hard-pressed to call them lesbians. Maybe “experimentation”?
This situation is better left to parents…not the gay lobby!
vapig wrote:
It’s all part of teaching them about George Washington—fist in war, fist in peace, and fist in the parts of his countrymen.
It is fascinating that someone as obsessed with imposing censorship and banning on the forum of adults he polices as Charles Johnson is, would be so opposed to the removal of a single sex book aimed at children.
@ vapig:
Hey! I agree with you! That is why I mentioned “parental consent”. This isn’t an issue about this book being required reading. It is about it being readily available. I don’t think it should be.
I was trying to be a little more coherant with this post and my response to Buzz but there is someone sitting next to me who wont shut the hell up and let me think. Pardon me if I come across stupid.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Most homosexuals I have spoken told me that they knew from a very early age on (seven or eight years old) that something “were different with them”. I don’t buy your arguments that “homosexuals are made”. No, they are born into it.
Oh, and my google fu sucks. If anyone can find statistics on gay teen suicide…please, educate me. I am not buying the narrative here. I just know how I feel as a parent.
@ Guggi:
I think it is both to be honest with you. Some do it just to buck the establishment. My SIL claims she knew since she was a child, but she still bangs guys every now and then.
Bagua wrote:
Hypocrisy, thy name is Nancy Johnson.
@ NoThreat2U:
There is a category of books called the Stonewall Book awards, like the Caldecott Medal,sort of. They are the award winners for LGBT subject matter. It is available, if not physically then in e format. No one wants to deny anyone reading material, except pr0n. LOL
Obama just said that “The last 20 months have been a non-stop effort to restart the economy”.
He’s kinda like OJ in that way. OJ and Obama both searched for the answers to their problems on golf courses, and both failed miserably.
@ NoThreat2U:
I would add that the very-popular PBS series “Brideshead Revisited” which aired some years ago, based on the Evelyn Waugh novel of the same name, was very, very popular in the gay community because of the close friendship between the narrator Charles Ryder and his college friend Sebastian Flyte. Was it a homoerotic friendship? Yes, definitely; was it actually sexual? Nothing was said about that.
Ryder and Sebastian eventually go their separate ways, and Ryder ends up marrying, and then, while married, having a lengthy affair with Sebastian’s sister Julia. Was he “betraying his true gay nature?” Somehow the gay lobby never got around to condemning that, but Ryder’s going from a late-adolescent/early-twenties homoerotic friendship with a college chum to a more mainstream heterosexual life is a not-uncommon thing.
Yet, the entire energy of the gay-rights lobby to coerce youngsters into “declaring” themselves to be on one side or the other of the bright-line division between “gay” and “straight” that they themselves have invented militates against people actually following their natural inclinations—because having once self-declared one’s self to be on one side of the line, and restricting your associations accordingly (not to mention altering the way you interact with other people), it becomes extremely hard to break away from one’s social/support group even if one finds that group confining.
LGBT youth
A 1989 U.S. government study found that LGBT youth are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people.[7] This finding was supported by a 2001 study that found LGBT adolescents 2.3-2.5 times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual peers.[8]
@ snowcrash:
Like I said earlier, I would have to read this book to see if I consider it pr()n. Just my opinion.
Bob in Breckenridge wrote:
Spot on! Someone who deletes the written words of all those he finds distasteful is morally bankrupt in condemning a libraries removal of a single book.
A true mote and beam example.
@ Bob in Breckenridge:
Don’t mention Obama and golf in the same sentence
this will get coldwarrior ballistic 
@ buzzsawmonkey:
I hate to go here, but it is kinda like muslims. EVERYONE was a muslim…and therefore should revert back. With the gays, EVERYONE is gay and just denying their true nature.
@ Guggi:
he’s not around. I think he passed out!
Guggi wrote:
True in some cases; by no means all. I’ve known both people who “decided” they were homosexual late in life, and who decided, after sampling the “gay life” for a number of years, to leave it, marry, and have children.
People have free will. Some people experience only opposite-sex attraction; some, only same-sex attraction. Many experience both, and may well wish to “shop around” a little—but the pressure of having to “declare” themselves one way or the other may well coerce them into making a wholly unnecessary choice, and even a wholly incorrect one.
BTW, Paul McCartney’s concert at the White House is on PBS right now, you know the one, where the POS told Obama that was happy we “have a President who reads books” in the White House. It just goes to show what a no-class POS Obama is for not calling him out on that. Fuck Paul McCartney. But more importantly, fuck Obama.
@ Bagua:
library’s
(must have coffee)
NoThreat2U wrote:
Not that different; note that our domestic Islamists, having studied and copied the gay-rights movement, have adopted the pseudoscientific “-ophobia” term to describe opposition, in order to make political disagreement appear illegitimate on the grounds of mental illness, and have also adopted the “human rights” arguments that the gay-rights lobby uses to demand special concessions.
@ NoThreat2U:
I’m with you. I said on the DoD thread about this, the fact that the Library Director pulled the material so quickly, without a fight with the library board tells me that it may have been undefensable material.
Guggi wrote:
That’s easy to claim. That’s a bit short of real science.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
You put that very well. IIRC there was some gay-manefesto out years ago – perhaps the 70s that mapped out precisely what we are seeing today – the sexualization of our children in the hopes of increasing their demographics. It IS evil!
That was always my main argument when this subject came up and the progs would attack me as a homophobe. That if, indeed, they are born that way, why the need to recruit?
any pervert tries to teach my 5 year old about Fisting, is gonna meet my fist
snork wrote:
There’s a lot of post hoc ergo propter hoc going on there, in my opinion.
Bagua wrote:
I see you made it over.
no doubt after a long hot shower to wash the stink of that skank iceweasel off you.
glad for you that you escaped
Guggi wrote:
Which is all well and good, but that’s simply comorbidity. Correlation v.s. causation, that whole thing.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
All true ^5.
@ snowcrash:
I would really want to see this book. Then I would judge whether or not I would allow my child to read it.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
That’s another cute trick they’ve played over the years – claiming all our founding heros were gay. I get really sick of them – and I don’t really care about what they do. Just shut up about it!
@ Rodan:
lol
Nah…he’s trying to make another Puti
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
Bingo.
NoThreat2U wrote:
You don’t. I just have strong feelings about this subject!
snork wrote:
And for the non-Latin inclined, that isn’t a type of sex toy.
vapig wrote:
One of the reasons that same-sex marriage needs to be opposed is that the manifestoes of the era immediately following Stonewall all, or almost all, declared that the movement’s objective was to destroy the institution of marriage.
Granted that many of the activists then alive are now dead, and many of today’s gay-rights activists may not have been around then. But there is some continuity—as, for example, with Kevin Jennings, Obama’s safe-schools czar who has praised one of the founders of NAMBLA.
Until today’s gay-rights activists openly discuss those anti-marriage screeds which are part of the foundation of their movement, and convincingly repudiate them, there is no reason to give them anything.
@ Doppelganger:
Thank you. The few freaks over on the sister blog surely poisoned the atmosphere. My price for remaining was to call them out with my writings, censorship prevailed.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
I don’t think that these people were real homosexuals. Take in account that some decades ago homosexuality was a delict in most Western societies and homosexuals who wanted to have children had to marry with one of the opposite sex. Free will ?
vapig wrote:
Then there’s the “Jesus was ghey” thing. That’s almost as tired as the “Jesus was a hippy/peacenik/Marxist/dope smoker/whatever” thing.
Guggi wrote:
No True Scotsman!!!
We’re batting 1000 on the logical fallacies on this thread!
Guggi wrote:
The study on identical twins disputes this. Twins are genetic clones and the study showed that in many cases one twin would be gay and the other straight. So it is a choice – a choice they act on. This is behavior not hard wiring.
This is also why the gay community no longer looks for the “gay gene.” They know if it really existed people would abort the children. No, gaydom is a choice and always has been and this is why the gays are going after children. YOUNG children!
NoThreat2U wrote:
Maybe a “puto”
NoThreat2U wrote:
I know this (the choice bit) myself. My best friend “went gay” because back then girls were still chaste and the gays were whores. He wanted casual sex and he said he loved the bohemian lifestyle. He always planned to marry and have children. He even knew which girl he was going to marry. He caught aids and died.
I have no problem with the material as much as I do with the age the gay education groups think is appropriate. They usually think middle school, as does my pediatrician, I think high school. Also the gay groups think kids want a how to book, I think they want fiction stories of kids with similar questions. This is just my opinion but I have kids and my son has a good friend, who at the time of his Junior Prom, surprised us all. LOL.
Bagua wrote:
You stayed there as long as you could stand it. The number of rational posters over there nowis so small they can dance on the head of a pin.
@ Guggi:
As Buzz said – it is the direct results of this militant gay pushing agenda that has pidgeon-holed nthese kids and instead of just quietly exploring sex themselves they are pushed to “come out” and then they are forced into a role they may not really be ready or comfortable with.
@ vapig:
I find it hard to believe that someone would chose to go gay. I do not think that I could have sex with another man even if there were no women left on this Earth.
Guggi wrote:
Golf is a quick way to wreck a good walk.
As far as the “born into it” thing is concerned, whatever nature may bring to the equation is matched by nurture that goes back so far into the mists prior to conscious memory that the two are inseparable.
Point is, there are some people with homosexual inclination that also have heterosexual inclination; these are the “bisexuals” who are the “B” in the “LGBT” alphabet soup, who are embraced when it is convenient—that is, when it is necessary to swell the demographic for purposes of political pressure—but who are despised by “out” gays as hypocrites who are “denying their nature” by daring to cross the genital divide. There was an incident earlier this year where a gay softball league in Seattle refused to allow bisexuals to participate on the grounds that they “weren’t gay enough,” LGBT be damned.
Likewise, “transgender” is fundamentally opposed to the concept of “gay”, since it involves someone surgically altering themselves so their same-sex attraction will outwardly conform to the mores of the larger society. Yet the gay-rights lobby embraces, or at least uses, these unfortunates—probably because next to the transgenders the Folsom Street Fair looks like church bingo night.
snork wrote:
I remember back in the 90s kids were offing themselves left and right over the pressure they were under to get good grades. Somewhere as a society we’ve gone horribly wrong with our children!
vapig wrote:
What was the goth thing all about? Suicide fashion. Social fads have a lot to do with these statistics.
@ Guggi:
Well if that is the male equivalent of a puti, then yes! lol I am sure he will appreciate us discussing his love life. lol lol lol
@ buzzsawmonkey:
There’s quite a bit of evidence that legalizing gay marriage in Europe (especially the Netherlands, I think?) DID totally destroy the institution of marriage. I’ve even heard it said that some couples hide the fact they are married because they don’t want to be made fun of.
Bagua wrote:
I hope you’re not referring to LGF as a “sister blog” to us.
Bob in Breckenridge wrote:
Nah, this is a Sanctuary City.
///////
@ Bob in Breckenridge:
ROFL, no family of mine!
snork wrote:
Yep! Thanks! I forgot about that one. I really hate progs!
They did the same thing with the he-men old time actors. In some cases, like with Cary Grant, they forgot that his widow was still alive and she lit into them!
@ Bob in Breckenridge:
Do you find that offensive? It is meant as a poke against their calling this one the “stalker blog.”
cluck is as sick as the muzz who sacrifice their children for their own selfish twisted agenda.
He is really a blind angry radical now.
@ vapig:
My family had a very good friend. For my whole life I thought he was an uncle to me…that is how close, for generations our families were. He did of aids back in the late 80s. It came out that he was gay. NO ONE knew or suspected…or they did and didn’t say anything. He was 45 or so and never married. He served…and served well, in Vietnam. My uncles were shocked and in denial that he was gay. Now my SIL is just a slut who will sleep with anyone. Her daughter is now “gay” also. Even though she has two kids….
Sometimes it may be a choice, sometimes I guess it just happens. My brother’s best friend, who is also like a brother to me, has a gay brother. They were raised Catholic, envolved in the church. He had to accept himself as a homosexual though because he wanted to be a priest. (no jokes please) He didn’t join the priesthood and is now a celibate gay man. (Lost my train of thought because the pain in the ass is talking again, lol) But I just wanted to explain why I feel it can be a choice or not.
Speranza wrote:
You could if you also the type of person who liked to be different just to be different.
vapig wrote:
There is some reason to suspect that Grant took at least a few walks on the wild side in his youth; there was, apparently, talk not only because of his living with Randolph Scott but because of his friendship with Mae West, who was famously surrounded by homosexual men.
So what? As I mentioned upthread, it is not uncommon for some men to work both sides of the street, and eventually pick the more conventional one. Or to take the more conventional route but have a few flings on the side. Point being, the “bright-line” pushed by the gay-rights lobby is nowhere near as hard and fast as they’d have people believe.
Grant did introduce the modern use of the word “gay” into the society at large; in “Bringing Up Baby,” he is wearing a feather-trimmed negligee because his clothes are being dried. When asked why he is wearing it, he says in exasperation, “I’ve just gone gay all of a sudden!” First such usage in mainstream culture, as far as I know.
NoThreat2U wrote:
Not to mention mrs. coldwarrior
– she will keeeeeeeeeeel us….
vapig wrote:
Remember back in the 80′s when the parents of a few kids who committed suicide blamed their deaths songs by Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest and actually sued them?
As Ron White said “it’s not a parenting problem, nooooooo….”
@ Bagua:
Yes. I do not consider us a sister blog. To me that implies having a cooperative agreement or a diplomatic network. We proudly have neither.
Bagua wrote:
I like my sisters. I detest the shithole.
@ Guggi:
LOL I think she will get some giggles out of it. lol I should be careful though, they don’t live far from me
@ vapig:
It’s part of the progressives and their plan for population control.
snork wrote:
Right! The suicide pacts. Man! I was never that depressed as a tween!
@ Bob in Breckenridge:
Add that to my #125 too. LOL
snowcrash wrote:
I agree. I think we rose from the ashes of that mess.
@ Bob in Breckenridge:
It’s a joke.
@ Bob in Breckenridge:
From that statement, they are implying that the musicians made their kids kill themselves, thereby, homosexuality made these kids kill themselves. You have missed the point. Big time. That is not what some of us were implying at all. The point is, if kids are questioning their sexuality, it is better for them to seek answers from their parents. Also, it is better to NOT expose them to a book about militant homosexuality.
@ NoThreat2U:
If he never acted on it I have a hard time calling him gay. Being gay denote action to me. To me he still could have joined the priethood, served God and remained chaste.
NoThreat2U wrote:
lalalala…we didn’t write a word, did we ?
lalalalala….
snowcrash wrote:
You haven’t met my sister. (Kidding)
Surely there is a familial relationship, those can be anywhere from friendly and cooperative to hostile and adversarial.
Surely there is some connection as many of the posters here originally posted there, and there is back and forth communication and an examination of each others ideas and issues.
@ Rodan:
I missed the joke too. That is the bad thing about writing vs speaking in person. No physical cues for context. Oooh, I said context! DRINK! LOL
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Perhaps, but he was evidently a faithful husband, according to his wife.
Here’s the real question: is sexuality private?
If so, you stumble through it yourself—depression, confusion, rejection, insecurity and all.
But if you are given a template—”if you are feeling this, then this is what you are…” then it is likely, especially during the period of adolescence, that you will believe what you are told, grasping at the lifebelt you are tossed without having any notion that it may, in fact, be made of lead.
Bob in Breckenridge wrote:
LOL! Yes! I remember that!
@ vapig:
I don’t think he was comfortable with that idea. I really can’t say for sure though. I do suspect he has “someone” in his life though. He calls him his “brother”. But from what I know, and it is plenty, he is celibate. Maybe he didn’t want to hear any more jokes about Catholic priests?
@ Guggi:
lol
My hands never touched the keyboard
vapig wrote:
Quite possibly. I have no idea—and frankly, don’t care. I merely note that there are rumors, which may or may not have been true. Grant’s movies are good regardless of who he was sleeping with.
@ snork:
Ah, but a simple rearrangement of the letters of “post hoc ergo propter hoc” yields “hot gopher proctoscoper“, and if you don’t know what one of those is just ask LVQ or floralgiraffe.
Rodan wrote:
It’s also part of their plan (and it’s worked damned well for the past 70 odd years IMHO) to just make us a moraless society. They’ve attacked God, parents, morality, our culture and traditions. Now they are in an outright war against this country and it’s citizens.
@ Bagua:
To me that blog is like the crazy uncle you don’t leave the kids alone in the room with. You hope he doesn’t show up to family gatherings.
/////// Actually I don’t think of them at all. Everybody that I cared about over there is here now.
@ nil stooge:
“hot gopher proctoscoper
LMAO***** My cat is wondering why I am laughing! lol lol
We need to add that to our dictionary along with Kukkuk and Fuldkommen GaK!
vapig wrote:
Crazy uncle is probably more accurate.
@ Bagua:
Maybe it is different for me. Almost all my friends are here or at another blog. There are only 2 names left at LGF that I remotely care about. I only pick on lgfers in the DoD for entertainment. They aren’t real to me. Sorry, they are like cartoons. Some people here honestly debate LGF’s ideas. Not me. They are not a sister blog. Weasel Zips or the Correspondence Committee or any blog from the original dispersal of old timers are sister blogs to me.
Hot gopher proctoscoper is another term for correlating tool.
@ nil stooge:
Nils, not nil, you kill me. That rhymes. Sort of. LOL
@ NoThreat2U:
That is a keeper. LOL
Time to embrace my inner bookworm and go read a book. Good night folks. It was lovely having this discussion with yinz!
@ snowcrash:
LOL Goodnight. lol lol
Googling “Hot gopher proctoscoper”
Killgore?
@ snork:
I hear he lives in Portland.
@ snowcrash:
Yes, well said. Similar opinions, but I am more conversant with the current crowd and don’t really know the people who left long ago. My dig takes them off of their high horse and appeals to me for that reason.
@ Bagua:
I hope they see you here and it encourages them to take a chance and comment. Familiar nics will make the transition easier. Maybe there is one last purge comming at LGF. LOL
just listening to Dennis Miller from today. Pamela Geller is his guest
Bagua wrote:
There is one person left at lgf that I would like to see here. Like snowcrash, the people I respected and my friends are here and CC.
I joined lgf in early 08 and left in the “great purge” of Sept. 09. When I left Realwest told me to copy my last comments because CJ would purge everything. My final comment to CJ was “LGF has gone to shit…bye bye!”.
Your comment to iceweasel about flouncers was this.
Perhaps you now understand why so many of us were pissed when we left. Our community changed and our friends were banned to make room for the new lgf.
LGF = Depravity (I am sorry to say).
NoThreat2U wrote:
No. I didn’t miss the point at all.
Sex in and of itself is a choice.
Parents now days need to discuss this issue with them and the results of ill advised decisions that occur.
And as far as the book goes….if a teen is questioning
their life style…there are books stores…the internet
It is simple books like this should not be in schools.
@ Doppelganger:
DING, DING, DING !! I’ve only got to your post so far, have read some good responses up until this point but man, you NAILED HIM GOOD !!!
/grinnin’ ear to ear….
@ NoThreat2U:
Ditto. I had a very lib. friend back in the 80′s.He had 2 kids, I had none.This is one area though that his ‘Lib-ness’ did not apply.
I used to laugh at how upset he would get about radical homosexuals who were given ‘face time’ on TV, in the press etc.When I say upset, I mean he would get really red faced, stuttering, cursing get up and leave the room upset. He always replied to my chuckles with “Wait until you have kids, you’ll understand…”. Fortunately he wasn’t big enough to kick my a** so this is all he could say/do to me.Since that time I’ve had 2 boys.I now understand.
And if you know anything about adolescent development, psychology etc., you understand why this is just soooo wrong. One doesn’t have to have children to feel strongly about this but…’it helps’.
I’m not thrilled about the ‘parents permission’ idea either. Difficult and I’d probably have to agree if I was pressed for my vote but I equate it with ‘what would you do if you saw your neighbor driving around his/her kid without buckling in the childs car
seat ?”.Part of me says ‘It ain’t nonna yer business” and the other “You have an obligation…”. “Its for the children“.
/and this was probably another waste of time because its probably a ‘dead thread’ already
Yep.
Last.
@ Iron Fist:
Excellent point – even though you’ll never see this
Doppelganger wrote:
Oh goody. He is on by time delay here in Arizona at 9:00 pm.
Iron Fist wrote:
You’ve got that right.
I figure that pandering to the gay vote makes just as much sense as pandering to the jihadi vote.
IOW, it makes sense for Obama to do that, in terms of pure self-interest, but it’s suicidal for our side.