Ex-Gay Watch

And what if the reason for the divorce was they just got to not liking each other and not anything to do with sexual orientation? Their quietness about a divorce certainly gives the impression that it was due to one’s or both’s sexual orientations showing through, but that need not be the case. Though I guess you would expect an evangelical Christian to have undergone marriage counselling if the issue were just that they couldn’t stand each other. While “DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN SENSITIVE INFORMATION” leads one to wonder. Greg Quinlan is still working for “family” (read ex-gay) causes.

“The Grander Vision of Greg and Cheryl” [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33359] mentions their age difference and that could be contributory to their breakup. But it does strike one that moving to New Jersey sounds like the equivalent of the Catholic Church sending a priest into another diocese, and hoping for “change.” I guess we cannot expect an article called “The Failed Vision of Greg and Cheryl” from WorldNutDaily.

All the more reason to be as open about the divorce as they were about the marriage. It was definitely Cheryl who wanted out of the marriage, and there are strong rumors that we have yet to confirm which suggest that she has dropped her participation in church and ex-gay ministries. If we can validate these then we may know more about the nature of the breakup. Three years is pretty brief.

As to the locked documents, I found the same thing on other divorce cases I checked for comparison. I suspect this may be how Ohio handles divorce records online. While the the fact of the divorce is public information, they may have a blanket law about not disclosing documents which may be associated with children and/or sexual issues. This is just a guess, not all public records laws are the same.

What confused us the most was the fact that Greg is Quinlan’s middle name — his full name is Harry Gregory Quinlan. Taking ones middle name as the first is not uncommon, but it was sheer luck that we figured it out.

Funny, the Bible doesn’t condemn same-sex marriage (at most, it condemns same-sex sexual activity) but Jesus repeatedly states intense disdain for divorce. It hammers the point that the ex-gay movement cares less for following Jesus’ commands as it does about following their own commands.

Funny, the Bible doesn’t condemn same-sex marriage (at most, it condemns same-sex sexual activity) but Jesus repeatedly states intense disdain for divorce. It hammers the point that the ex-gay movement cares less for following Jesus’ commands as it does about following their own commands.

What I have noticed from ex-gays and conservative Christians in general is that they pay more attention to Paul than they do Jesus. That Paul’s writings were more important to the Christian faith. I never fully understood that. I always believed it was Christ and not Paul that was the center of Christianity. Paul was only a man. A man that had no part in the redemption of the world.

I think it is fairly easy to argue that Marriage didn’t make Mr. quinlan straight.

It is even easier to argue that his alleged heterosexuality did not prepare Mr. Quinlan for marriage.

It’s a lose-lose proposition ofr everyone.

One of the supreme dangers of holding your marriage up as a model is the obvious scrutiny that you recieve when it fails. This applies to heterosexual couples as well as couples like the Quinlans.

I am sure that we will hear soon enough how the evil homosexual activists are unfairly calling attention to what should be a “private” painful time for all involved. Unfortunately for the Quinlans, they used their marriage for purely political motives to deny basic civil rights to others. Their marriage was a public political spectacle from the beginning with glowing articles in right wing religious pulbications pointing to proof that gays can change. I would bet that WorldNetDaily won’t be writing about the rest of this story.

Fortunately for them, they ended the marriage after a relatively short time.

I have all sorts of compassion for folks who divorce. Most of the time it’s a hellish experience. On the other hand, I have very little compassion for people who use marriage both as evidence of sexual conversion and as a political platform. I really hope either Cheryl or Greg Quinlan comes forward to tell the real story. If they’re just a couple of newly-straight people who fell out of love, so be it. But if they’re still as gay as most of us imagine, the public has a right to know. At the very least, the ‘pro-family’ groups still posting the glowing story of their marriage and the public testimony of Greg against gay marriage based on his own successful straight coupling should pull those immediately. What galls me most, I think, is that the Quinlans have been divorced for a year and a half, and we are just hearing about it now. What sort of silencing was required to achieve that?

I actually do feel some amount of sympathy for people in the Quinlan’s situation. Can you imagine the stress involved in feeling like you HAVE to keep your marriage together and looking perfect for the public eye? I attended an event with Stephen Bennett several years ago and was aghast at how his wife Irene and children were paraded onto the platform as proof of Stephen’s heterosexuality. People applauded and I felt like gagging. What sort of pressure must wives of public ex-gays feel to succeed in their marriages and not let down God and the entire religious right?

We all know people in similar circumstances (well..not with so much publicity) but this is where I’m reminded of the phrase: “…and the truth shall make you free.”

This is a time for us to offer our friendship to both of the Quinlans. “…turn the other cheek”… and wish them success in finding happiness.

Has anyone kept track of these publicized ex-gay marriages that have failed? I am sure that there is long list.

I hope that Cheryl (who is an “ex-lesbian”, apparently) has decided to be sexually honest and move away from Greg. Or, at the very least, move away from Greg because he’s shown himself to be a liar incapable of accepting responsibility.

It’s sad to see a marriage fall apart, hopefully he’ll find completion with his next wife and her with her next husband.

It is great to see people leaving behind the really damaging gay lifestyle for something a bit more forward looking.

Such a striking example of non sequitur, among other things. Is that a serious statement?

Welcome to XGW, Matt.

Matt Sanchez– formerly gay, now straight.

But actually, matt, GQ (isn’t that a hoot for mr. quinlan) left behind the married lifestyle. when he left behind the gay lifestyle, it didn’t work out for him either.

Please.

I’d call Matt an Ugly Troll, but I’ve seen his movies!

I’m always curious as to why these trolls come here simply to butt heads. Do they really think they’re going to win hearts and minds? Do they really think they’re going to give us any fresh message that we haven’t had pounded in our heads for years and years (some from their own families since birth)?

Don’t feed the troll guys, unless he has something earnest and productive to contribute.

Forgive me, but what are the (very) Christian Rules about divorce again?

Matt … that question would be for you.

(ps Throckmorton: what “strike” number would this be?)

More seriously, it is indecent when people make their lives to be paragons of public virtue in order to abuse and harm the decent, honest lives of others. Nobody can live up to that. You hurt others. You damage yourself.

The Closet takes many forms. It’s always a dark and distorted place. May we all keep this in mind, or at least at the back of our minds, when considering what we say in this post string.

It is important that the Quinlans remember that they made a committment, a promise if you will, to each other and to God that they would remain as one until death do they part. And least they not forget that their God is a vengeful God, one easy to anger with retribution of an eternity in Hell for those who disobey and lie to Him. I’m always amused that the arguement against gay marriage is the defense of protecting the sanctity of marriage. There appears to be little or no effort on the part of the straight married community to protect marriage sancitity from their own damning actions and inclinations. So am I correct in assuming that the Quinlan’s are prepared for the retribution of their Lord?

Could we need to ease up on the use of the term “troll” please? For it’s usage in online forum formats, the definition of troll-like behavior is well defined, and it is accurate in a few infrequent cases at XGW. But I’m not sure we should be branding someone as such over a single comment. Like most derogatory descriptors, once in place the value of the individual quickly drops to something less than pond scum in the eyes of other commenters and that’s pretty strong.

On the other hand, Emily is correct that the best course of action if one truly exhibits troll-like behavior is simply to ignore them. In this case, I didn’t immediately realize who Matt was and so I thought it possible he was being sarcastic or satirical. His reputation makes that assumption less likely, but it doesn’t necessarily mean he is trolling. I do find it unlikely that anyone who considers World Net Daily a worthwhile place to post articles would have much respect for the discussion here.

Regarding what Chris had to say. I think it’s appropriate, but I’m on a bit of a rampage today.

Dear protector of the sanctity of marriage:

It’s not really about marriage and divorce. I see as just plain old prejudice. It sounds nicer, it looks nicer, it may even be deemed as compassionate, but the dark heart of bigotry is still there.

And why? Because they can’t tell the truth, and the lies make all of your motivations suspect.

One of the lies you tell is that your religious freedom is threatened if I am allowed to marry. What you really mean is that your freedom to say whatever you want about gay people is threatened by reality. People’s experience may not support your claims about our lives.(It is not threatened by me). you want to enforce your religious opinions by law. A lie is at the very heart of your argument, which makes your whole argument a lie as well.

You support marriage even for ex-gays like the quinlans– and it didn’t work for them. nor would it, because it is also a lie. but it does tell the truth about howm uch you value mariage.

We can both agree that marriage requires a great deal of commitment and responsibility. and you rightly deplore the irresponsibility that seems to go with marriage, at least for heterosexuals, since they are the ones that have had ocntrol of the institution.

and here is your other great lie. you deplore it, but apart from a few social programs here and there, you don’t actually CARE about it. whether prop. 8 passes or fails, nothing will change about the sorry state of hetero marriage, and you will go back to doing whatever it was you were doing before you got your hard-on for hate.

It will still be the case that any man and woman of legal age that have $50 for a marriage license can get one. You will make no requirements that they are ready and capable of marriage, or even know each other. Yet my friends that have been together for 40 years, in sickness and health and the whole thing, must remain legal strangers to each other. A certain pop star had more rights for the 15 drunken hours of her rampage of a marriage marriage than my friends Andy and Paul do with all of their powers of attorney documents.

You deplore it, but you won’t do anything about it. Just like you deplore war and hunger, but don’t do anything about them. You only have energy and money to beat up on the queers.

Heteros will still pop out babies for no other reason that they can, with no requirements for support, care, readiness, training, or anything– let alone that they get married and take care of the life they brought into the world. Of course, you will say that they should. but do you actually care? I doubt it. where’s the initiative that would require a man to marry the mother of his children? that way, every child will have a father and a mother– no matter how unfit or vicious.

My friends that have together raised six children will remain legal strangers to each other. I have another friend who adopted a child with her partner– an unwanted child who would have been raised in poverty and disease, but has been given a chance at a different life with her. M. is now healthy, bright, charming, well behaved, and a joy to be around, instead of merely another piece of 3rd world refuse heading towards an early death because his heterosexual parents neither wanted him nor were prepared to care for him. How does preventing my friend from marrying another woman, thereby giving M a set of married parents and all of the benefits that the law and society allow, do anything to protect anyone else’s family? As the Supreme Court decision said, there are an estimated 70,000 children in California being raised by gay parents. Do not those families need the protection of marriage as well?

I’m sure if you had your way, these children would not be with their parents at all. You only care about some children.

The $40 million spent on this campaign could have fed and educated a lot of children– something I’m sure Jesus would have approved of.

so, I’ll say it once again. please don’t tell me how much you love me. don’t tell me that it is all aobut marriage. I don’t believe a word of it. come out of your moralizing, hate-filled closet and just admit it.

You’ll feel liberated, I promise. “I hate queers, and I will tell any lie, distort any truth, to support that position.”

Doesn’t that feel better?

OMG, he was a GAY PORN ACTOR??? Crimony. He DOES have that “gym bunny” look about him.

I use the term “troll” when a person comes to a place to deliberately incite anger and resistance against them, to drudge up ugliness for a fight. Then if one of us DOES fight, he’ll write in his li’l blog about the mean ol’ homoSEXual activists persecuting poor ol’ conservatives.

To Ben In Oakland … Beautiful and extremely well said. I hope that you realize my previous post was in absolutely no way intended to represent my religious beliefs, as I have none. It was simply to point out the double standard (and irony) by which many of those hiding behind their religion to oppose legalization of gay marriage are hypocrites in the purest sense of the term. Personally I believe that the sexual orientation of an individual should be of no concern, and certainly no business, of any one else. However, when one chooses to either hold themself up as representative of right over wrong or to condem those who don’t live by their determination of what is right they enter an arena where they are rightfully going to be subjected to the same criticism and judgement they cast upon others.

I knew that, Chris.

What aspect of the gay lifestyle would anyone here consider to be healthy?

Every “lifestyle” has it’s pitfalls, but with higher levels of sexual addiction, unstable relations, no hope for monogamy, higher than average levels of STDs and drug addiction (according to every statistic from the CDC and the Crystal Meth advertisements in my neighborhood) It’s hard to see how anyone could say there’s anything healthy about the gay style.

I’m glad this guy went somewhere else to find happiness. It didn’t work for him this time, maybe the next. Anyone here who believes he would just be better if he “accepted himself” is just a simplistic moron.

Let’s face it, this website is a hate the ex-gay site. I think the term “ex-gay” is stupid.

Frankly, I don’t think people are hardwired to be “gay”. Just like no one is really hardwired to be a c**t if you don’t agree with someone, nevertheless plenty of people on here would rather be insulting.

I’m amazed at all the scared people who are bothered by those who don’t think and act like them. If the man decided his life wasn’t for hanging out in bath stalls or pretending to have a sham relationship with some other dude, good for him.

Why does anyone on here care?

Matt– I certainly haven’t called you names.

Out of the 60 people or so that could call friends, about 40 are gay. Out of those 40, one has a drug problem. none of us have any diseases. many of us are quite happily partnered.

If none of the people you know are like that, then maybe you need to find a better class of friends. Or not hate yourself so much that you enagge in self-destructive behaviors.

As has been said repeatedly in these pages, no one here really cares whether you are ex-gay, gay, straihgt, or a monkey. what we care about is you insisting that we validate your choices, and that the law validates your choices.

I’m glad this guy went somewhere else to find happiness. It didn’t work for him this time, maybe the next.

Oh, please! This isn’t about “happiness,” or at least it shouldn’t be. The only valid arguments for one to leave the “gay lifestyle” are theological ones (in other words, their faith restricts same-sex behavior). Arguments about the gay community being an “unhappy” community are not only slanderous, but they are invalidated by the existence of happy, monogamous, healthy gay couples. There may not be as many of such couples, but the fact they exist completely destroys the “happiness” argument.

I personally believe that, theologically, God doesn’t permit same-sex behavior. I don’t use this information to force my views on others or judge people, and I usually get the same respect in return. I’ve written for this site a handful of times, and though my views have certainly been challenged, no one has “hated me” because of them.

Also, theologically, marriage is not about “happiness.” It is about commitment to your spouse before God. It is about love and self-sacrifice. Far be it from me to tell someone when their divorce is invalid, but unless there was actual adultery involved, then the Quinlans are being somewhat hypocritical. The restrictions on divorce are just as strict as the ones on same-sex behavior, and not being “happy” is not one of the reasons.

I will add something, but i’m not interested in a war with you, Matt.

I don’t accept your basic premise that there is anything in gay life that is destructive, except that Maybe if there weren’t so many people running aorund– just like you– defaming gay people and oding everything they can to make our lives as difficult and unpleasant as possible.

But you see, that isn’t something inherent in our lives, that’s something inherent in yours, and your so called friends.

I have a theory: straight people often behave very badly, but it is gay people that get the blame and bear the consequences.

DADT– all aobut iggerunt, insecure straight boys.

Child molestation– 50% ogf the time the father ifgure who identifies as straight, 25% of the time a relative.

Marriage– well read my rant above.

MAYBE, MATT, IF YOU WORKED AT MAKING YOURSELF HAPPY INSTEAD OF HATING YOURSELF AND ALL GAY PEOPLE WHOM YOU DON’T KNOW, YOU MIGHT BE ACTUALLY BE HAPPY, INSTEAD OF HANGING AORUND GAY WEBSTIES TELLING US WHAT DOGSHIT ON THE PRADAS OF LIFE THAT WE ARE.

Matt and Ben, please tone down your language. We keep the comments section of this site very tidy and respectful. This is the first warning.

I am curious, do your bathhouse and disease arguments work on us lesbians? Because apparently we’re the “least” diseased and the “most” monogamous. So what do we need to run away from?

What aspect of the gay lifestyle would anyone here consider to be healthy?

Which “gay lifestyle” would you be referring to? The one you lived? The one described in your comment? Mine? The retired couple down the street from me? Describing “the” gay lifestyle is a fallacy, the range is as broad and diverse as would be the “straight lifestyle” if there was such a thing. What I have noticed most ex-gays mean by “the gay lifestyle” is their own bad choices in life — substance abuse, promiscuous sex, etc — and these are most certainly not my choices. Your view is one dimensional.

The rest of your comments reflect a general ignorance of what we do here, either because you don’t care or because you are insinuating that the reactions to your previous drive-by comment are somehow representative. No one here seeks to deny anyone the freedom to live their lives as they see fit. We exist only to provide some balance to the misinformation disseminated by so many ex-gay activists and groups, so that people can make informed decisions.

We do become concerned, however, when those same activists seek to use their own choices in life as proof to deny — through process of law — the rights of others to do the same. That is unacceptable.

Note: Please clean up your language if you wish to continue posting — thank you.

Emily: you are correct. Perhaps I should not have used the DS word, tho’ i’m fairly certain I have seen the BS word. But i don’t think anything else I said was intemperate. Blunt, yes, but still the truth.

I’m curious Matt, do you consider yourself ex-gay? Are you now attracted to women? Still attracted to men? Were you attracted to women “before”? I’ve never really heard your story, so I don’t know what you claim. Have you written on this before?

I would also be interested in your motivations for whatever changes you have made in your life — was it because of your faith? A desire to fit it better with the ultra conservative sector?

Also of note, the term “ex-gay” was created by those who believe they can change their sexual orientation (become ex-gay). It was not a term assigned by us or any other outside group. We use it because it has entered the lexicon and it is reasonably descriptive. If you think it is “stupid” you will have to take that up with others.

Lesbians seem to have other issues, the least of which is that the unions between two lesbians are fruitless or artificial.

Other than that, I under the domestic abuse is higher among lesbians too.

None of that really matters, I couldn’t care less who does what with their bodies. My problem is shoving it down everyone’s throat that they have to be accepted and pretending everyone who doesn’t agree is a homophobe.

The gay agenda is one of intolerance and self-absorption a deadly combination.

David Roberts

If you can’t define a “gay lifestyle” than you should have a problem with a man and a woman getting married.

I do not support gay marriage, because it’s fraudulent. Not on religious grounds, but on social, historical and cultural grounds. I don’t care how many “I Do’s” two men make, they cannot become a family.

Ditto for the women.

Why isn’t anyone angry at Ann Heche for giving up her “gay life”?

Again, this “ex-gay” site is just set up for really angry homosexuals to practice self-righteousness on everyone who is not as “liberated” as they are.

The guy got married, the guy got divorced. It happens all the time and yet the people in this room are cheering it on and claiming it was inevitable. That’s disgusting.

“The guy got married, the guy got divorced. It happens all the time and yet the people in this room are cheering it on and claiming it was inevitable. That’s disgusting.”

Let’s see, “the guy got married, the guy got divored. It happens all the time.” Absolutely 100% correct – so much for the sanctity of marriage arguement.

and then “the people in this room are cheering it on and claiming it was inevitable.” Again absolutely 100% correct as we knew it was coming, it did and so I guess it must have been inevitable.

Your points are well taken. Can’t argue with your facts. Guess you win this round.

OK, I think it’s pretty clear this Sanchez character IS a troll.
His gratuitous use of the misogynistic “c” word should have been enough to get him banned from this site.

That word really offends me.

Editors?

If you can’t define a “gay lifestyle” than you should have a problem with a man and a woman getting married.

If someone can figure out what that means, I might address it.

I do not support gay marriage, because it’s fraudulent. Not on religious grounds, but on social, historical and cultural grounds. I don’t care how many “I Do’s” two men make, they cannot become a family.

Simple, don’t marry a man then. Why do you insist that your option should eliminate mine?

Why isn’t anyone angry at Ann Heche for giving up her “gay life”?

That question is loaded with all sorts of assumptions, but let’s start with the basics; why would that make me mad? Unless she is lobbying to curtail my rights — and I don’t think she is — then how does it affect me? That part is being played by her mother, and to my knowledge (and I could be wrong) without Ann’s support.

Again, this “ex-gay” site is just set up for really angry homosexuals to practice self-righteousness on everyone who is not as “liberated” as they are.

I don’t know how else to put it, but you have no idea what you are talking about.

The guy got married, the guy got divorced. It happens all the time and yet the people in this room are cheering it on and claiming it was inevitable. That’s disgusting.

If anyone here is cheering it on, they shouldn’t. As was acknowledged in the article (did you read the article?), divorce is painful and sad. The fact that it could be predicted in this case doesn’t make it any less so. But I’m curious, where is your moral outrage concerning the Quinlan’s use of their marriage as a public prop for their activism? Does this not bother you?

Conversation works both ways, Matt. If you do not have the courage or simple decency to respond to those questions put to you, please don’t comment at all. I have to admit that I am rather disappointed that your public persona is so accurate.

SharonB, he was warned about the language. No one gets banned over a single instance of inappropriate language. I will admit, however, that his values seem pretty low on the stick. If nothing else, considering his own life, he has chutzpah.

Sharon, I gave him a warning, David Roberts gave him a warning, and if I were in control of editing comments, I would’ve censored all the profanity including the vicious “C” word. But I’m not.

Since Matt can’t cite any sources for “lesbian domestic abuse being higher” (I think that’s what he said) then I’m just going to assume it’s made-up. “artificial unions?” I don’t even know what that means. If two women are in love and are attracted to one another and enter into a union, that seems pretty real to ME. Same with two men. Nice try, though.

I’m not angry at Anne Heche because she did not try to harm the community by citing “change” and “ex-gay” miracles. She seems like a bisexual. They date both, you know. I can’t be angry at a bisexual for being bisexual.

“No cultural basis?” well people could argue against that one til the cows come home, and it won’t change anyone’s freedom. Even if that is true, cultures change. Cultures are naturally always progressing. They are progressive. Not “conservative” – they do not conserve themselves. Things are always changing. And sometimes change just IS. It doesn’t always mean the sky is going to fall. Time to wake up and deal.

This quote says a lot of it.

I’m not angry at Anne Heche because she did not try to harm the community by citing “change” and “ex-gay” miracles.

Ex gays “harm the community”. I believe the gay agenda, especially gay marriage harms everyone.

I also think “gays” and the movement are an artificial social, political movement and are not innate much less natural.

It’s sad that children, spurred on by activists, are declaring themselves “gay”. It’s similar to a type of brainwashing or sexual abuse.

No one has explained or named one thing that is healthy about the gay lifestyle. That means “living a gay life”.

I also don’t think getting married is a “right”. That’s just ridiculous.

No one has explained or named one thing that is healthy about the gay lifestyle. That means “living a gay life”.

No one’s explained it because there isn’t such a thing as “the gay lifestyle.” No one can say what’s inherently “good” or “healthy” about being gay because the condition itself is, well, neutral.

For example, despite my religious beliefs, I am gay. Because of my religious beliefs, I am celibate. Perhaps by your definition I’m not living a particular “lifestyle,” but that doesn’t take away from the fact that I’m attracted to the same sex (meaning that by the standard definition, I am gay).

My celibacy has both benefits and drawbacks, as does any other way that one chooses to live out his or her life. I believe my celibacy is also pleasing to God, but those beliefs are my own and I do not make them a requirement to anyone else (though I invite others to consider them).

But still, despite my celibacy, I’m still gay.

“I do not support gay marriage, because it’s fraudulent. Not on religious grounds, but on social, historical and cultural grounds. I don’t care how many “I Do’s” two men make, they cannot become a family. ”

Historically, socially and culturally marraige wasn’t about creating a family, anyone who takes History, Sociology, and Culture seriously will tell you that. Marriage was about recognizing chains of responsibility, property, debt, tribal duties, reputation, rights to rule and genetic predisposition.

Still putting that aside what of the historical perspective of marriage? The historical origin of the Spanish word for marraige is “To house with” or to translate it into it’s more vulgar English, “To shack up with.” No mental gymnastics is required to come to this conclusion, just break down the word. Casarse con, Casa = house, Con = With. This stands out because Spanish is one of the older modern languages with little interference from the “ruling” body, there was no “King’s Spanish” it was a language of the people. So historically in Spanish speaking countries all it really took to be “Married”, at least in the dusty days of the languages origin was to “Shack Up with” someone. Also Spanish which is riddled with gender specific words attaches no gender to marriage. So what does that say of the history of Marriage in Spanish speaking countries? No government involvement, no church involvement, no gender test, just two people “shacking up.”

My favorite part of the history of marriage, is a little advertised fact that one of the crimes of the Cannites was “Marring man to man and woman to woman.” Historically the Cannities predate the Arimaic faiths. So you could say “Historically, Arimaic marriage is a fraud.” Given they imposed their ideas on a conquered people and removed the older people’s way from history.

I will concede you are right, no amounts of “I Dos” will make two men a family, but then no amounts of “I Dos” will make a man and a woman a family. Family is a bond that extends further then simply standing in front of a man with a silly frock or breaking some glasses or making promises to the goddess. A family is created out mutual respect, work and dedication. A family is created when you think about another individual as part of yourself. Of course because so few people recognize this fact it is worth mentioning that being shoved out of a birth canal doesn’t create a family, neither does a night of irresponsible sex. A single act does not create a family no matter how profound, all it can do is help lay the foundation, give the people involved a common bond.

Matt Sanchez said:

Lesbians seem to have other issues, the least of which is that the unions between two lesbians are fruitless or artificial.

I am assuming that “fruitless” means “not bearing children” and not that they don’t eat fruit such as apples and oranges in their diet. Where does it say in Sacred Scriptures that we will be judged by how many children one has? The more children you bear the better seat you get in heaven? Childless couples get a free ticket to Hades? What if a lesbian had children by a previous marriage to a man? Or if she was artificially insemenated? Or if the couple adopts? A lot of my cousins (straight and 100% mexicanos) are married and have chosen NOT to have kids. So by them being “fruitless” does that make them “worthless?”

To say that two people loving each other is “artificial” is an insult to the Author of Love. Artificial reasons for marriage are when two people use each other for social gain, for family status, to keep a family line from dwendling, for a person to gain citizenship to a country … hmmm, things hetereosexuals have done throughout history.

Other than that, I under the domestic abuse is higher among lesbians too.

With that mentality, why don’t we say Germans have a higher domestic abuse because their language sounds angry. Or we Mexicans love to live in poverty because most white Americans only see poor Mexicans versus those of us middle or upper class Mexicans.

None of that really matters, I couldn’t care less who does what with their bodies. My problem is shoving it down everyone’s throat that they have to be accepted and pretending everyone who doesn’t agree is a homophobe.

They say that to me when I play mariachi music or talk to my friends in Spanish in public. I can be Mexican but I shouldn’t act like one, talk like one, like things Mexican. In other words, I can be who I am as long as I am not who I am and I don’t act out who I am or be around others like me. What a great idea! So the same with being gay. You are offering that we can be gay as long as we aren’t gay, and as long as we don’t act gay and we just stay invisible to everyone else. Hazme el frickin’ favor!

The gay agenda is one of intolerance and self-absorption a deadly combination.

As in all groups, there are those who are very accepting, those who are semi-accepting, and those who want to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. While we are common in that our natural attraction is to be with someone of our own sex, we differ from personality, culture, religion, politics, etc. There are some of us who have been so hurt by the rest of society that it has become difficult for us to be so easily accepting of others.

Just asnot all Latinos are alike, so too are not all gays alike. The mexicanos of my family comefrom the north – Chihuahua. There is a BIG difference between a Mexican from Chihuahua and a Mexican from DF (Mexico City). We may talk the same language, but we differ on many, many things. So too with the LGBT community. They may be a few who fit what you say, but if you really got to know LGBT people, you would find that self-absorbed and intolerant gays are not the majority.

I’m going to stick with my original comment about the gay agenda:

The gay agenda is one of intolerance and self-absorption a deadly combination.

I’d like to add that the gay movement, which comes under the umbrella of identity politics, is also radical, leftists and bent on destroying traditional marriage rather than enhancing or improving it.

You’ll note, no one on the homosexual side of lobbying for “gay rights” is making the point about marital monogamy.

“You’ll note, no one on the homosexual side of lobbying for “gay rights” is making the point about marital monogamy.”

One of the principal social health arguments FOR gay marraige is that it will foster monogamy in the gay community and help slow down the spread of STDs. That gay marriage helps to remove the stigma around homosexuality and will help get rid it of the down low culture. Gay marraige will help to create healthy alterintives to the “Bar/Bathhouse/Club” sceen.

So the statement that no-one on the homosexual side is making the point about marital monogamy is false. Lots of people are making that very argument.

Again Matt, you are not answering the questions put to you but instead keep heaping on more partisan platitudes and other such nonsense. This thread has become very shallow since you dropped by and it didn’t have to be that way. Monologues are for your own site; if you wish to participate here, you must converse.

This guy is just looking for a place to vent – he’s not going to get anywhere with us.

This happens all the time on gay blogs.

Seriously, this guy has no purpose except to vent. And maybe spend some time around gay people.

He’s not looking for a place to vent, discuss, or contribute valid points to a legitimate argument. He’s simply here trying to extend his 15 minutes. He had it as a porn star, he had it as an escort/hustler, he had it as a mouthpiece for the neo-cons (until he was exposed) and now he’s not much more than a footnote on a google search (which, by the way, can provide some very very interesting results). He’s here hoping to bring the light shining back on himself and, unfortunately, we’re allowing that to happen.

He was “exposed?” what happened?

Let’s just confine that to a private Google search Emily, there is plenty there and it will keep this thread from becoming even less relevant

This is ridiculous.

One of the principal social health arguments FOR gay marraige is that it will foster monogamy in the gay community and help slow down the spread of STDs.

If the very real threat of the loss of life from AIDS is not enough to cut down promiscuity, why in the world would marriage vows do it?

Ex-Gay watch is a “gay” blog? Who would have thought it?

The only reason I come here is because of the odd traffic that keeps flowing to my site from this site.