Started By
Message

re: Are severly anti-gay people more likely to be gay?

Posted on 10/7/14 at 8:28 am to
Posted by FT
REDACTED
Member since Oct 2003
26925 posts
Posted on 10/7/14 at 8:28 am to
He denied it a lot here, and was incredibly vocal in his disgust and hatred for people who are gay. I didn't really care much, but when I heard that he was survived by a partner, I was bothered.

It didn't make me mad at him. I still actually think he was a pretty good guy. But I hate that he felt the need to be so ardently anti-gay when he had a partner.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
423521 posts
Posted on 10/7/14 at 8:30 am to
quote:

He denied it a lot here,

what?

no he didn't

quote:

and was incredibly vocal in his disgust and hatred for people who are gay.

he was disgusted with aspects of the gay culture he experienced that are worthy of criticism

quote:

But I hate that he felt the need to be so ardently anti-gay when he had a partner.

if he never had sex with the partner, then he wasn't violated God's law, in his eyes. what's so conflicting about that?

if he wasn't engaging in the pathologies present in gay culture, then how was he a hypocrite when he criticized the pathologies?
Posted by ChineseBandit58
Pearland, TX
Member since Aug 2005
42838 posts
Posted on 10/7/14 at 8:46 am to
quote:

But I hate that he felt the need to be so ardently anti-gay when he had a partner.

I think you are confusing 'anti gay' - which he was not - with "anti gay-activist" which he definitely was.

I am not anti religion - but I sure as hell am anti "westbury babtist.'

He was opposed to stupidity in whatever form. Since he was homosexual himself, he was definitely opposed to those who put him and others like him in a bad light with their political proclivities.

I wish more 'identity' groups would do the same. I would like for Muslims to be virulently opposed to militant islamists of whatever stripe.

I would like for blacks to be virulently opposed to the political shenagagins that have be so detrimental to their culture.

You referred to LAT as a coward, perhaps even evil, for his outspokenness. I say he was proudly brave and good for how he handled himself. He didn't whimper about his situation and stay in the shadows while others 'spoke for him' - nor did he follow the activist agenda when he knew that agenda was wrong.

He didn't try to hide anything. When I visited him back in 2006 or 07, he showed me photos of himself and his partner. I didn't ask him any questions about his situation or any conflicts he may have been dealing with, not because it was 'uncomfortable' but because it was just of no interest to me. He was my friend because of other shared interests - primarily politics and LSU alum.

Charles was a good man in every sense of the word, and I rise to defend him against all attacks, whether they are out of ignorance or not. I don't think you are malevolent toward him, but I think you are ill informed.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram