Blagojevich’s lesbian sister-in-law pushes mandatory infertility coverage
Former IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s openly lesbian sister-in-law Deborah Mell (who I met once in Springfield when we were lobbying opposite sides of a bill – I forget which) was elected state rep in November.
Mell has the distinction of being the only House member to oppose his impeachment.
Mell is proposing mandatory infertility coverage with a twist…
HB4331 – Illinois
Home > Illinois > HB4331
Chief Sponsor: Deborah Mell
Latest Update: Monday, March, 02nd 2009
INS CD – INFRTLTY COVERAGE
Amends the Illinois Insurance Code. Provides that no group policy of accident and health insurance providing coverage for more than 25 employees that provides pregnancy related benefits shall contain a provision that covers the diagnosis and treatment of infertility only if the individual was covered under the policy for at least one year. Deletes a definition for “infertility”.
… So infertility would include a lack of desire to consummate.
[HT: Fran at Illinois Review]

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. I’m all for healthcare, but forcing a business to fund infertility treatments is absurd. Even when we had super-teamster approved insurance at UPS infertility coverage was limited to one cycle of clomid.
Cover the diagnosis and treatment of underlying conditions, but to force companies to cover absurdly expensive “treatments” when even when no medical problem exists is ridiculous.
I agree with you Lauren, I beleive there are underlying problems with infertility then just not being able to conceive a child.
While I’ve never had these problems personally I have a couple of friends who are at the moment unable to conceive. No doctor has tried to help them figure out the underlying issues yet the doctors are fast to prescribe costly infertility treatments.
USA should be more focused on the overall health of this country instead of jumping to fast conclusions and reccomending costly treatments.
Well, a larger point with this particular legislation is allowing lesbians to be called “infertile” just because they don’t want to have sex with a man and therefore getting coverage for IVF, etc.
OK, I’ve read the law summary ten times. This seems to affect insurers already providing infertility coverage, but not those who do not provide that type of coverage. To paraphrase, it takes away the ability of the insurer who provides infertility coverage to hold back on coverage for the insured until one year after the start of coverage….. Unless one is against fertility treatments, why is this controversial? It will probably not increase the numbers of treatments dramatically. Am I missing something??
Son of a Blagojevich!
Next time I am in Chicago I will see if Deb Mel will autograph my ‘turkey baster’.
That bit of homosexual memorabilia would fetch a handsome price some day.
Mel posesses all the attributes for greatness in liberal politics.
The ‘audacity’ of ‘hope and spare change’ knows no limits.
yor bro ken
Jill,
I understand the last point you made. IMO, Including lesbian in vitro without having it specified in the law is dishonest on the part of Mell and the rest of the legislators, IMO.
Both of the above comments show clear complete ignorance about infertility. All doctors who perform infertility treatments do prior procedure to identify the “cause”. These include, but are not isolated to, tests on your uterous, ovaries, fallopian tubes, bloodwork that indicates a myriad of potential problems etc Unfortunately, most of the time the cause for infertility is unknown. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be treated. The problem is there even if no one can name it. If you had a medical problem cause by physical problems you would expect your health insurance to cover it. Imagine going to the doctor with a problem that he/she can’t explain—and because of that, you are denied treatment that might help. Having a baby is a complicated and intricate process, and admittedly doctors have much to learn about it. But that is no reason to deny someone treatment that might help their problem. It’s painful enough to have to wait a year until you can receive treatment–hopefully neither of the above posters will have to go through a year of illness before they are able to receive medical help. On a side note, it has always been interesting to me that insurance will cover elective termination of pregnancy and not getting pregnant. That makes no sense.
Why is there such a point made that she’s a lesbian? It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the actual subject matter – legislation.
On a side note, it has always been interesting to me that insurance will cover elective termination of pregnancy and not getting pregnant. That makes no sense.
Posted by: jenny at March 4, 2009 6:01 PM
jenny,
It makes perfect sense. It is more cost effective for an insurance company to pay for an abortion than it is to cover a pregnancy, delivery and new person that now needs medical care for life.
My understanding is that abortionists at one time, (and maybe still do) get kickbacks from insurance companies for every abortion they perform. Abortionists were getting paid for the procedure and then collecting money on top of the usual and customary fees.
How sick.
Why is there such a point made that she’s a lesbian? It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the actual subject matter – legislation.
Posted by: Kat at March 4, 2009 6:20 PM
It has everything to do with being lesbian if the goal is to get infertility treatments covered for lesbians.
Janet, I believe that you are misreading it. I think it is saying that all companies must cover infertility treatments for employees who have been covered for one year or more.
Jenny, I have suffered infertility and waited the full year before getting treatment. I have endometriosis. The doctors plan? Give me some clomid for a couple of months and if that didn’t work THEN treat the endo.
It was moot anyways because I became pregnant the month I saw him, but miscarried that baby. I wasn’t feeling up to going through infertility treatments after my miscarriage, but conceived again about 7 months later and was able to carry that baby to term.
My experience with an infertilty specialist was that they push unrelated meds first before treating the underlying condition.
I think it’s a good idea that the insurance company pay for this. I waited to get pregnet because I wanted to be married when I had a child & now that I am married my insurance company is saying that this is NOT covered for me. I don’t think that is far. I looked into paying OOP my self but the costs for this is out rageous. It’s almost like punishing the middle class. I work very hard & always pay my insurance premiums for when I need coverage; but becaue my husband has a low spearm count they will not cover anything for me.
Esther, I understand your pain, but I really don’t think we should force already struggling companies to buy very expensive insurance riders. If it comes down to a situation where they can buy the insurance, but they’ll have to lay off workers to do so or charge everyone huge premiums, I don’t think they should be forced to do so.
My heart goes out to your family, and I do hope you are able to have the family you hope for, but I just don’t think it should be mandated by the government.
Why is there such a point made that she’s a lesbian? It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the actual subject matter – legislation.
Posted by: Kat at March 4, 2009 6:20 PM
It has everything to do with being lesbian if the goal is to get infertility treatments covered for lesbians.
Posted by: Sandy at March 4, 2009 6:52 PM
-I totally agree, Kat, it was completely unnecessary to bring up this woman’s sexuality as it pertains to this law. Almost as if this is yet another reason to be in contempt of this legislation.
And where was it ever written that this is legislation that is solely for the benefit of lesbians? It’s not at all. Ugh, the ugliness that flares up around here sometimes..
Danielle, I think the point was that she is trying to remove the restrictions re: infertility so that otherwise fertile lesbians would be covered under the law.
Danielle, I think the point was that she is trying to remove the restrictions re: infertility so that otherwise fertile lesbians would be covered under the law.
Posted by: Lauren at March 4, 2009 8:06 PM
-Let’s assume you’re correct. I’d still need help ID’ing the outrage here. If you don’t agree with IVF treatment at all, that’s one thing, but since a gay woman introduces it and may indirectly benefit from it, along with millions of hetero women, this is an issue? What are you (meaning collectively) really upset about here?
Danielle, my issue is just that it is too expensive to be sustainable. Removing infertility as a restriction will only increase the costs.
I’m not typically one to dwell on numbers, but in this case we are asking businesses to shoulder very significant costs for treatments unrelated to a person’s health.
By that I mean, they will not die without the treatment, nor will the suffer bodily harm. Infertility is horrible, but I just don’t think we should force companies to pay for it.
Danielle, lesbians who are electively “infertile” are completely healthy but want insurance companies (all of us) to pay for their sexual behavior.
And where was it ever written that this is legislation that is solely for the benefit of lesbians? It’s not at all. Ugh, the ugliness that flares up around here sometimes..
Posted by: Danielle at March 4, 2009 8:04 PM
Where do you see ugliness here? Don’t make the leap. Do you want your insurance premiums to go up to cover the cost of fertility treatments for fetile women?
Be honest.
Are we talking about artificial insemination here, or simply something like Clomid?
Sandy, good points @ 8:41.
Kel, I’m not sure it specifies.
What an incredibly stupid reading of the proposed legislation. This part would still be in force and applicable (the formatting is a little bad):
(a) No group policy of accident and health insurance
9 providing coverage for more than 25 employees that provides
10 pregnancy related benefits may be issued, amended, delivered,
11 or renewed in this State after the effective date of this
12 amendatory Act of 1991 unless the policy contains coverage for
13 the diagnosis and treatment of infertility including, but not
14 limited to, in vitro fertilization, uterine embryo lavage,
15 embryo transfer, artificial insemination, gamete
16 intrafallopian tube transfer, zygote intrafallopian tube
17 transfer, and low tubal ovum transfer.
18 (b) The coverage required under subsection (a) is subject
19 to the following conditions:
20 (1) Coverage for procedures for in vitro
21 fertilization, gamete intrafallopian tube transfer, or
22 zygote intrafallopian tube transfer shall be required only
23 if:
1 (A) the covered individual has been unable to
2 attain or sustain a successful pregnancy through
3 reasonable, less costly medically appropriate
4 infertility treatments for which coverage is available
5 under the policy, plan, or contract;
Meaning, you still have to be diagnosed as infertile and undergo medically appropriate treatment.
And the infertility definition that is being deleted says this:
“For purpose of this Section, “infertility” means the inability to conceive after one year of unprotected sexual intercourse or the inability to sustain a successful pregnancy.”
People who aren’t blinded by their hatred of gays and lesbians probably realize that lesbians don’t get pregnant through unprotected sexual intercourse, and thus this definition unfairly excludes them from coverage that is offered to heterosexual women. It doesn’t mean that the lesbian women who might have sought or might seek coverage under this provision are otherwise fertile. It just recognizes that lesbians don’t get pregnant through unprotected sexual intercourse, and also that this definition contains “one year” language that would now contradict the addition to the earlier part of the statute, meaning that it is problematic on two fronts.
Does bad hair run in that family or just mental illness?
Where do you see ugliness here? Don’t make the leap. Do you want your insurance premiums to go up to cover the cost of fertility treatments for fetile women? Be honest.
Posted by: Sandy at March 4, 2009 8:41 PM
-I haven’t even commented on the subject matter yet…for the record, I’m on the fence and frankly not very supportive of including fertility treatments under anyone’s insurance. But I couldn’t even get there because of the glaring pointedness (if that’s a word) of Mell’s sexuality being a part of the discussion. It is not. The discussion should be on whether ppl agree with including IVF, etc onto insurance packages. I do not like the idea of propping up gay men/women as the reasons why this should not be legislation. The sexual orientation is not the issue.
For the record, a lesbian may be fertile, but cannot get pregnant via hetero sex. We all know that. It’s bringing up that she is a lesbian, as another example of ‘gays asking for special treatment’. Which is ludicrous, for those of us who know humans don’t choose their orientation.
Therefore my comment. It was distracting, smacked of some soft bigotry, IMO and needed to be addressed. And my comment on ugliness: sometimes the most offensive comments are those thinly veiled as something else. I notice it, but choose my battles.
Rather than continue to divert from the real subject of the post, which is fertility tx and insurance, let’s move on…
Need more sex education.. Lesbians apparently do not know that insemination need not be artificial.
There are plenty of generous donors sitting on barstools as we speak.
xppc:
Danger, danger, danger.
I Googled ‘lesbian turkey baster’.
Here is the result.
‘Results 1 – 10 of about 33,300 English pages for lesbian turkey baster.’
One of them was:
http://www.therainbowbabies.
I long for the days when making babies was a ‘natural’ organic spontaneous act of love between husband and wife.
yor bro ken
yor bro ken
I know what xppc said was “dangerous” and not a “nice, politically correct” suggestion Hisman, but it was so funny that I LOL. It reminds me of the statement “Any man who ever rolled on a condom, knows when life begins.” Otherwise he would have left it in the drawer. The practice of making babies by IVF opened up a can of worms that will continue to be misused and exploited by unethical and perverted individuals.
So she’s a lesbian, big whoop. And besides if you truly didn’t support the whole octo-mom situation, then why have you been posting the entire Radar interview on your websites? It seems like you’re trying to have your homophobia and your octo-outtrage with a side of profiteering! Nice.
Danielle, lesbians who are electively “infertile” are completely healthy but want insurance companies (all of us) to pay for their sexual behavior.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 4, 2009 8:41 PM
I think you mean “sexual orientation” Jill.
No, Asitis, I’m pretty sure she meant behavior.
Funny how one word can say so much about a person.
Right, Bethany, and wrong, asitis. I meant “sexual behavior,” not “sexual orientation.”
Jill, I wonder if one day 15 or 20 years from now one of your grandsons were to tell you he is gay, would you change your attitude?
There’s a decent argument to be made that insurance coverage for IVF and other infertility treatments would actually lower overall health care costs.
Right now, IVF is generally not covered and is also very expensive. People who are paying out of pocket want to do as few cycles as possible to end up with a baby. Unable to pay for multiple rounds, they tranfer more embryos per cycle, which has a greater likelihood of resulting high order multiples, who are then likely to need expensive time in the NICU, which insurers have to pay for because they can’t deny coverage based on method of conception.
Insurance coverage for IVF would mean that insurers could set limits. For example, they could pay for multiple rounds, but with a two embryo per transfer limit. Even at $15,000 per round, IVF is cheaper than weeks or months of NICU care.
None of this addresses the moral problems many of you have with IVF itself, or with infertility help for lesbians, but it does mean the financial impact is not so cut and dried.
Then again, as several astute commenters above have noted, the financial objection really feels like a smokescreen…
Jill, I wonder if one day 15 or 20 years from now one of your grandsons were to tell you he is gay, would you change your attitude?
I wouldn’t. There’s no reason to. Supposing this happened to one of my sons, I would still love my son but I would never, ever condone homosexual behavior in him.
I know that question was directed at Jill, but I couldn’t help but put in my 2 cents.
how sad for your son bethany that you wouldn’t love him for all he IS. And yes, this would be a big part of whom he is … And whom he loves and whom he shares his life with.
That wouldn’t be who he IS, Asitis. Remember, not everyone shares your beliefs. ;)
Duh, you patriarchal chauvinists can’t even fathom that it could be the male in a hetero relationship that is having difficulties? even with all those ads about erectile dysfunction? Thus, the couple may not have consumated and the female has been using AI.
Logic fail.
Empathy fail.
Wingnut shoots self in foot – priceless.
Whose doppelganger are you supposed to be?
bethany if your son is gay he will tell you it is who he IS. Your failure to recognize that will cause him pain if he loves you as much as I think he does.
bethany if your son is gay he will tell you it is who he IS. Your failure to recognize that will cause him pain if he loves you as much as I think he does.
Asitis, again, remember everyone doesn’t share your beliefs. ;)
Hmm..I think I like your non-responsive one liners and will start using them much more often.
if my son became a pimp and was living with prostitutes, he would likely tell me that is who he IS. My non-acceptance of this behavior wouldn’t make me an unloving mother.
If my son started going to strip clubs and objectifying women, he would likely tell me that is who he IS. My non-acceptance of this behavior wouldn’t make me an unloving mother.
If my son started abusing alcohol, he would likely tell me that is who he IS. My non-acceptance of this behavior wouldn’t make me an unloving mother.
If my son started abusing drugs, he would likely tell me that is who he IS. My non-acceptance of this behavior wouldn’t make me an unloving mother.
If my son wanted to live in Utah and have several wives, he would likely tell me that is who he IS. My non-acceptance of this behavior wouldn’t make me an unloving mother.
And likely, with ANY of these cases, he could claim emotional upset by my failure to support him in those things.
Remember, Asitis. Not everyone shares your beliefs.
Bethany I certainly hope for your son’s sake that you can change. How very sad to equate his love with prostitution and drug abuse.
Asitis, we are not talking about a real situation here, so please don’t say “his love”.
Besides, I do not equate homosexual attraction with “love”. The two are not the same.
People who are homosexual are much of the time suffering from a mental disorder, and to allow them to continue suffering with it and pretending it is “normal” and not seeking help- now THAT is what is cruel.
Asitis, would an anorexic person not tell you that being anorexic is “who she is”?
I know she would. They all say that.
Would you or would you not support your hypothetical daughters decision to be anorexic?
After all, this is a part of who she IS. What she eats, what she loves, what she cares about. To deny her the ability to starve herself, now isn’t that cruel and uncaring?
Bethany: Asitis, we are not talking about a real situation here, so please don’t say “his love”.
But you very well could be.
No, Asitis, I am quite certain I am not.
Bethany: Besides, I do not equate homosexual attraction with “love”. The two are not the same.
You might not. But they certanly do. And so would your son if he is gay.
Bethany: Asitis, we are not talking about a real situation here, so please don’t say “his love”.
No , but he very well could be gay.
Again, equating your son’s love with anorexia would be very sad as well.
No, Asitis, he could not be gay. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Asitis 9:44, great way to not answer the question. Anorexia is WHO she is. So answer the question.
An anorexic person would be offended with you calling her anorexia a disorder.
Asitis, would an anorexic person not tell you that being anorexic is “who she is”?
I know she would. They all say that.
Would you or would you not support your hypothetical daughters decision to be anorexic?
After all, this is a part of who she IS. What she eats, what she loves, what she cares about. To deny her the ability to starve herself, now isn’t that cruel and uncaring?
Posted by: Bethany at March 5, 2009 9:39 AM
Why do you expect Jill and others to answer your hypotheticals, and yet you cannot be expected to do the same, Asitis?
What are you talking about? If she is anorexic and isn’t cured it will likely kill her. Of course I would do everything I could to help her. But in the end, she has to want to be cured.
Once again, it would be very sad for your son to have you equate his love with anorexia. That it is something that needs to be “cured”. That you consider his love a sickness.
Why do you expect Jill and others to answer your hypotheticals, and yet you cannot be expected to do the same, Asitis?
Posted by: Bethany at March 5, 2009 9:52 AM
Who says I wouldn’t?
As for Jill not answering my question, I think it’s a fair guess that the idea of her grandson being gay disgusts her. How very sad for their relationship then if he is.
I do consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder. Sorry you disagree, but again, you have to remember that not everyone shares your beliefs. I’ve gotta run now. TTYS.
By the way, before I go… this is a good research site if you’re ever interested to study homosexuality objectively:
http://www.narth.com/index.html
I know you consdier a mental disorder Bethany. But that will be a great sadness for your son if he is gay and you cannot change your view.
Yes, it is so sad that I do not want my son to end up in a potentially deadly lifestyle. I’m a terrible mother because I care about my son.
I’m really going now.
By the way, before I go… this is a good research site if you’re ever interested to study homosexuality objectively:
http://www.narth.com/index.html
Posted by: Bethany at March 5, 2009 10:03 AM
You’re kidding me, right? What is Larry Craig a graduate?????
Yes, it is so sad that I do not want my son to end up in a potentially deadly lifestyle. I’m a terrible mother because I care about my son.
I’m really going now.
Posted by: Bethany at March 5, 2009 10:05 AM
Bethany, it does not have to be any more of a “potentially dangerous lifestyle” than heterosexuality. You are good parents and your children see the joy and benefits of sharing their life with another person in a loving permanent relationship. Your son would likely want that as well if he were gay.
Asitis, I have no knowledge of NARTH, but do you have any support for your incredulous reaction?
No, Asitis, he could not be gay. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Posted by: Bethany at March 5, 2009 9:46 AM
You know that for sure? How do you know this Bethany????
Asitis, I have no knowledge of NARTH, but do you have any support for your incredulous reaction?
Posted by: Lauren at March 5, 2009 10:10 AM
I believe they think they can “cure” homosexuality.
Do you have anything to prove that they can’t?
Not everyone with homosexual attraction wishes to live a homeosexual lifestyle. I haven’t looked at the studies one way or another, but I think it is immensely sad that you so flippantly dismiss an organization that has helped many people.
Lauren, certainly there are people who are homosexual and wish that they weren’t. I can imagine this is very difficult for conservative christians.
Sorry I was so “flippant” but the suggestion that homosexuality is a mental disorder or something that can be “cured” is dismissed by mental health associatons. That’s where I was coming from. But sure, maybe there are people who are gay and desperately don’t want to be, that have found some success with this program in suppressing their natural desires. More power to them. I hope they are happy. And stay that way.
You’re kidding me, right? What is Larry Craig a graduate?????
Posted by: asitis at March 5, 2009 10:06 AM
Here we have a typical bigot, playing out her bigotry about gays.
Larry Craig is a gay person who was ridiculed and embarrased before the whole world by liberals, such as this pretender named Asitis.
What a homophobe Asitis.
Asitis….A Homophobe? You’re kidding right? Or maybe you didn’t actually read her posts…. OR maybe you’ve confused Asitis with Bethany….?
Oh why hello! yllas. her bigotry against gays???? a homophobe?????Somehow (I have no idea how) you misunderstood me. I have no issue with the fact that Larry Craig is gay. What I do take issue with is that he is an anti-gay politician.
I think that’s what the liberals you were talking about took issue with as well yllas. I don’t know how you could have missed this.
ASitis.
The “cop” that arrested Larry Craig was a homophobe. Yes or no?
He feared a homosexual might want to meet another person for sex.
His fear became soo deranged that “tapping your foot” was “breaking the law”.
yllas, are you just being silly? Or do you seriously do really think this way?
Maybe the cop was a homophobe. I have no idea. I suppose it’s possible…apparently they stilll exist! His arrest of Craig doesn’t tell me whether he was one or not.
It’s my understanding that Craig’s signals were sufficient evidence for an arrest on charges of soliciting sex in a public restoom.
I have no issue with the fact that Larry Craig is gay. What I do take issue with is that he is an anti-gay politician.
Posted by Asitis.
Soo, he is a self hating gay then? Now, remember, gays accuse other gays of being self hating, if they oppose any gay legislation.
Going to deny the wisdom of gay leaders, and deny that your accusing Craig of being a self hating gay?
You don’t like self hating gays?
They should be arrested for “tapping their foot” by a homophobic cop?
Care too give your silly judgement on race? And self hating people who oppose legislation concerning their race? Are they self hating also?
Your a homophobe for even mentioning Larry Craig.
What is Barney Frank, a graduate?????
Your post was a cheap shot at gays being arrested for doing nothingmore then “tapping their foot”.
Maybe the cop was a homophobe. I have no idea. I suppose it’s possible…apparently they stilll exist! His arrest of Craig doesn’t tell me whether he was one or not.
It’s my understanding that Craig’s signals were sufficient evidence for an arrest on charges of soliciting sex in a public restoom.
Posted by: asitis at March 5, 2009 1:07 PM
Amazing, your impeccable liberal mind can’t detect a homophobe arrest of a homosexual for “tapping his foot”.
Gee, maybe your a racist too, unable to identify a “racist cop” too.
And since you know nothing of Larry Craig, but bring him up as a “,graduate”,reveals your nothingmore then a gleeful. spiteful, homophobe.
You enjoyed Craig being arrested, for the fact of being a person who is gay, and votes against so called gay legislation.
Your post was a cheap shot at gays being arrested for doing nothingmore then “tapping their foot”.
Posted by: yllas at March 5, 2009 1:10 PM
Really yllas? You really believe Craig was sitting in the john just tapping his foot and that’s what got him arrested? Try a series of signals apparently common in this type of solicitiation, starting with repeated staring through the crack into the officer’s stall, then entering the stall next to him and proceeding to make hand and foot gestures repeatedly and deliberately into the officer’s stall. I’m no expert on this, but the cop is and it lead to his arrest.
And no, I don’t hate self-hating gays. I feel very sorry for them though. What a horrible way to live.
But asitis, maybe he was just looking for “love”?
asitis, same sex attraction was only removed from the list of psychological disorders because of intense pressure by homosexual activists within and outside of the APA. There are psychiatrists who still believe it to be a disorder but do not want to be labeled “homophobes”. There are also psychiatrists that are not afraid to address it as such and want to bring real healing.
It is highly unfair to label people who recognize it as a disorder and want those who suffer because of it, to find healing, as “homophobes”.
It’s my understanding that Craig’s signals were sufficient evidence for an arrest on charges of soliciting sex in a public restoom.
Posted by: asitis at March 5, 2009 1:07 PM
Sheer GAY PERSECUTION. That’s what happen.
Signal? What’s next? A smile in a bathroom is a “signal”.
Tell me ASitis, are you against sex in bathrooms?
Really yllas? You really believe Craig was sitting in the john just tapping his foot and that’s what got him arrested? Try a series of signals apparently common in this type of solicitiation, starting with repeated staring through the crack into the officer’s stall, then entering the stall next to him and proceeding to make hand and foot gestures repeatedly and deliberately into the officer’s stall. I’m no expert on this, but the cop is and it lead to his arrest.
And no, I don’t hate self-hating gays. I feel very sorry for them though. What a horrible way to live.
Posted by: asitis at March 5, 2009 1:22 PM
Yes you hate self hating gays. Larry Craig is a self hating gay according to gay wisdom.
You used his name to degrade him once again……..IN PUBLIC.
Think before you post such bigotry towards self hating gays.
I’m pretty sure he was looking for sex Eileen. If he was looking for love it was in all the wrong places! Wouldn’t you agree?
Where do you get this idea that the dismissal of homosexuality as a mental disorder was onl because of intense pressure by homosexual activists within and outside of the APA? From NARTH?
Yes you hate self hating gays. Larry Craig is a self hating gay according to gay wisdom.
You used his name to degrade him once again……..IN PUBLIC.
Think before you post such bigotry towards self hating gays.
Posted by: yllas at March 5, 2009 1:31 PM
Oh… sigh…. yllas. One more time now: I do not hate self-hating gays. But I do have an issue with a gay politicians who are anti-gay.
Tell me ASitis, are you against sex in bathrooms?
Posted by: yllas at March 5, 2009 1:26 PM
Well we have a very lovely master bathroom ourselves…….. But I think you mean soliciting for sex in public bathrooms, because that’s what this is about. Well it’s just icky for starters. Don’t really know why anyone would want that. But maybe self-loathing or fear of being “outed” drives them to it. I don’t know? But I digress.. Am I against soliciting for sex in public bathrooms? Yes. I feel people should be able to use the facilities without having to witness others having sex or being solicited themselves.
Oh… sigh…. yllas. One more time now: I do not hate self-hating gays. But I do have an issue with a gay politicians who are anti-gay.
Posted by: asitis at March 5, 2009 1:37 PM
The “issue” you have is that gays who vote against pro-gay legislation, is based on being a person who uses and degrades a self hating gay, who was denyed his right to seek out a sexual partner. Your a “self hating gay” homophobe.
Are you against gays seeking a consenting person in bathrooms Asitis? What public place is appropriate? Craig was arrested by a homophobic cop who had “issues” with self hating gays, who don’t “vote” according to your self admitted issue with ” a gay politician who are anti gay”.
That’s sheer homophobia masking as politics. And that’s you Asitis. Masking your homophobia behind politics. The “correct” politics, no less.
Think he would have been arrested in a restroom of a “public” gay bar?
Besides, Craig was not in public, he was behind a closed door, which effectively removes him from “public view”.
Tell me, ASitis, are you a sexual prude who walks into a bar restroom, and looks behind “closed doors” for sexual activity, as that homophobe cop did?
Such as a person, tapping their foot?
asitis, people who defend homosexual lifestyles make the mistake of equating real love with sex. Much of the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is also a result of the contraceptive mentality. The unitive (bonding) aspect of sexual intercourse is divorced from the procreative aspect so sex becomes a self-centered activity pursued only for the physical pleasure that it brings. So if it’s end is simply physical pleasure then what is wrong with two males or two females having sexual relations? Then it can digress even further but I don’t really want to go there.
People with same sex attraction are looking for intimacy like everyone else. They are mistaking a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex for intimacy. They find out after awhile that they are not getting the intimacy that they crave through the illicit relationship that they are in so they move on to another partner only to be disappointed yet again.
Oh, it was people within the organization that saw first hand what was going on with the removal of same sex attraction as a disorder.
But I think you mean soliciting for sex in public bathrooms, because that’s what this is about.
Posted by Asitis.
Come on Asitis, your being homophobic if you deny a person the right to seek out a consenting sexual partner in public. Dare say, a gay kiss in a public bathroom, who was solicited for a kiss, and it’s off to jail, huh? Going to defend the arrest of “that couple”, and reduce yourself to a party stooge, Asitis?
No solicting for sex in bathroooms? Such a law is based on bigotry, and your defending the arrest of a gay person based on a bigoted law once again.
Yllas, how do you know this cop was a homophobe? You keep calling him one.
He was simply doing his job.
Am I against consensual sex in a public bathroom? No. I already told you I think a person should be free to use the public facilities without witnessing sex. And BTW yllas the “witnesssing” does not have to be intentional and it does not have to be visual.
And once again folks, for our friend yllas who isn’t hearing too well today, I am not a homophobe. I am not a “self-hating gay” homophobe. I am not a homophobe in any regards. The idea is laughable actually.
Sorry, slight error……….. That was Yes, not No.
Am I against consensual sex in a public bathroom? YES. I already told you I think a person should be free to use the public facilities without witnessing sex. And BTW yllas the “witnesssing” does not have to be intentional and it does not have to be visual.
ASitis.
I’m going to prove your a self hating gay, just as Larry Craig is.
Your trapped in a island with the same gender as you.
Do you deny sexual relations with that same sex person?
Or would you have sexual relations with that same gender person who is trapped on that tropical island?
Pick a answer Asitis.
Am I against consensual sex in a public bathroom? YES. I already told you I think a person should be free to use the public facilities without witnessing sex. And BTW yllas the “witnesssing” does not have to be intentional and it does not have to be visual.
Posted by: asitis at March 5, 2009 2:10 PM
So if it is not visual, you want people arrested for having consenting sex, Asitis? What if they don’t make a sound Asitis? Which leaves you with wanting people to be arrested for the “sounds of sex”.
What a prude, and a homophobic prude, at that.
Come on Asitis, your being homophobic if you deny a person the right to seek out a consenting sexual partner in public. Dare say, a gay kiss in a public bathroom, who was solicited for a kiss, and it’s off to jail, huh? Going to defend the arrest of “that couple”, and reduce yourself to a party stooge, Asitis?
No solicting for sex in bathroooms? Such a law is based on bigotry, and your defending the arrest of a gay person based on a bigoted law once again.
Posted by: yllas at March 5, 2009 2:06 PM
yllas, you make wild leaps. I have no problem with people, gay or straight, kissing in public. Kissing is an acceptable public dislay of affection, is it not? You can’t get arrested for that, nor should you. Now having sex, gay or straight, in public is a different matter.
What a prude, and a homophobic prude, at that.
yllas at March 5, 2009 2:22 PM
You are hilarious yllas! Seriously.
Wow. I didn’t expect to meet somone here who thinks it’s okay to solicit for sex or have sex in a public bathroom. You surprise me yllas.
Oh wait a minute! Is that your thing yllas? You LIKE witnessing sex when you use public bathrooms? Or do you actually engage in it self?
Wow. If that’s the case, sorry if I offended you but i think most people feel the way I do and it’s the law.
yllas, you make wild leaps. I have no problem with people, gay or straight, kissing in public. Kissing is an acceptable public dislay of affection, is it not? You can’t get arrested for that, nor should you. Now having sex, gay or straight, in public is a different matter.
Posted by: asitis at March 5, 2009 2:23 PM
But you have issues with a self hating gay named Larry Craig, which reveals your typical liberal mask hides your homophobia.
Craig’s arrest was a act of homosexual persecution. He didn’t even “kiss in public”. But you still rationalize away the persecution of a homosexual for your “dogmatic issues.”
Pick a answer Asitis.
Posted by: yllas at March 5, 2009 2:15 PM
yllas, I’m not romanticly or sexually attracted to women, so the anser is no.
What about you? Oh… I think we already established that.
Ah, ’tis wondrous to watch the fruit of moral relativism come to full blosson.
Man are we all screwed.
ASitis.
I’m going to prove your a self hating gay, just as Larry Craig is.
Your trapped in a island with the same gender as you.
Do you deny sexual relations with that same sex person?
Or would you have sexual relations with that same gender person who is trapped on that tropical island?
Pick a answer Asitis.
Still waiting for a answer Asitis.
yllas:But you have issues with a self hating gay named Larry Craig, which reveals your typical liberal mask hides your homophobia.
No it doesn’t. I’ve already explained (gosh, how many times now) my issues are not with Larry Craig being gay. They are with him voted anti-gay.
yllas: Craig’s arrest was a act of homosexual persecution. He didn’t even “kiss in public”. But you still rationalize away the persecution of a homosexual for your “dogmatic issues.”
He was arrested for breaking the law.
C’mon yllas, if you are going to keep it up, at least bring something new to the table. Otherwise, give up.
Yallas,
How do you plan to prove anything with your question:
Your trapped in a island with the same gender as you.
Do you deny sexual relations with that same sex person?
Or would you have sexual relations with that same gender person who is trapped on that tropical island?
Pick a answer Asitis.
What exactly would Asitis’ answer, either yes or no, prove? Absolutely nothing that’s what.
Still waiting for a answer Asitis.
Posted by: yllas at March 5, 2009 2:35 PM
Duh… already been answered yllas. Look again.
Asitis,
She’s clearly oblivious to most things. I’m not surprised she didn’t see your answer.
asitis, people who defend homosexual lifestyles make the mistake of equating real love with sex. People with same sex attraction are looking for intimacy like everyone else. They are mistaking a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex for intimacy. They find out after awhile that they are not getting the intimacy that they crave through the illicit relationship that they are in so they move on to another partner only to be disappointed yet again.
Posted by: Eileen at March 5, 2009 2:03 PM
Where do you get this stuff Eileen? Is this your theory or something you copied?
Because it aint so in reality. Homosexual couples can and do love each other and have lasting relationships, just as heterosexual couples do.
yllas, I’m not romanticly or sexually attracted to women, so the anser is no.
What about you? Oh… I think we already established that.
Posted by: asitis at March 5, 2009 2:32 PM
More confirmation of your homophobia has just been displayed. First you have issues with “self hating gays, such as Craig, and now we can confirm a full blown case of homophobia by denying sex to a homosexual on a island.
You prefer yourself, and deny a simple act of pleaure to another person, from them being of the same sex. That’s narcissism, or a deep rooted denial of pleasure to another person.
How deep does your homophobia go, Asitis?
Question. The gay person ask you for sex, and even will give you a coconut which she collected for herself, if you have sex with her.
Still deny her from your homophobia?
Would you not have sex with a person of the opposite sex while trapped on a island?
I think not.
More confirmation of your homophobia has just been displayed. First you have issues with “self hating gays, such as Craig, and now we can confirm a full blown case of homophobia by denying sex to a homosexual on a island.
That is a load of crap Yallas. Not wanting to have sex with a member of the same sex does not in any way make Asitis homophobic! You have got to be joking. I’m convinced you’re making all this up just to start a fight! It just means she doesn’t have a sexual attraction to the opposite sex, and who would have sex with someone they weren’t attracted to unless they were getting paid for it. Asitis wouldn’t be denying the woman on the island pleasure because she’s homophobic, she would be refusing to have sex because she’s not homosexual.
Not homosexual =/= homophobic
It just means she doesn’t have a sexual attraction to the opposite sex, and who would have sex with someone they weren’t attracted to unless they were getting paid for it.
Should read:
It just means she doesn’t have a sexual attraction to the same sex, and who would have sex with someone they weren’t attracted to unless they were getting paid for it?
C’mon yllas, if you are going to keep it up, at least bring something new to the table. Otherwise, give up.
Posted by: asitis at March 5, 2009 2:35 PM
I think you better give up your persecution of self hating gays, by having your mind pick out a self hating gay, to ridicule in pubilc again..
Your the person who made the post about Craig and his stupid arrest for tapping his foot.
I’m pointing out your natural trait of being a hypocrite, once again.
It just means she doesn’t have a sexual attraction to the opposite sex, and who would have sex with someone they weren’t attracted to unless they were getting paid for it. Asitis wouldn’t be denying the woman on the island pleasure because she’s homophobic, she would be refusing to have sex because she’s not homosexual.
Not homosexual =/= homophobic
Posted by: Talula at March 5, 2009 2:54 PM
Soo now your denying a homosexual some pleasure because you find them “not attractive”..
Your worse then Asitis.
So just because I’m not a lesbian means that if a lesbian is in need of some lovin’ I should jump on that and give it to her?
Give it up Yllas, I am in a loving heterosexual relationship and deserted island or not, homosexual needing some pleasure or not, I’m not going to cheat on my mate. I have many homosexual friends both men and women. In fact, my very best friend is bi-sexual. If we’re hanging out and she happens to feel like she hasn’t been getting enough in the love department doesn’t mean I offer up my body for her pleasure. Get a grip.
Since you’re in the mood to ask questions…
If a 16 year old boy came to you and said “hey, I’m horny” would you deny that kid sex just because you don’t find teenagers attractive?
Or if a old wrinkly man said “it’s been years and years since I had sex” would you spread your legs and say “have at ‘er”
So if your answer to these questions is “no, I don’t have sex with those I do not have a sexual attraction to” does that make you hateful or teenagers and old people?
I’m pointing out your natural trait of being a hypocrite, once again.
Posted by: yllas at March 5, 2009 2:57 PM
No you’re not yllas. Not in the least. Though you might like to think you are.
Thanks Talula. yllas’ argument is ridiculous: I don’t want to have sex with someone who is gay and that makes me a homophobe???
Lordy….
Hisman.
I thought you might ask ASitis, if she would ABSOLUTLY/forever, deny a homosexual her love.
Never, Never, under no circumstances, will I have sex with a homosexual.
Which is a “moral absolute of ASitis”, based on nothingmore then a fear. Homophobia is ugly.
Asitis.
Question. The gay person ask you for sex, and even will give you a coconut which she collected for herself, if you have sex with her.
Still deny her from your homophobia?
There are no reasons for denying a homosexual some sex with you.
Preference and attraction are words which are used by a homophobe, to deny their homophobia.
It’s easy Asitis, just admit you would have sex with another person of the same sex, and my argument is mute.
Until then, your masking your fear of sex with the same sex under “code words”.
So far, we are left with a person on a island that denies sex with the same sex from reasons based on narcissism.
Yllas,
Question:
A 85 year old man asks you for sex. Says he’ll give you his life savings if you’ll have sex with him.
Do you deny him sex because you’re not attracted to 85 year old men?
There are no reasons for denying a an old man some sex with you.
Preference and attraction are words which are used by a young person, to deny their attraction to old people.
It’s easy Yllas, just admit you would have sex with another person even if they’re old, and my argument is MOOT (not mute).
Until then, YOU’RE masking your fear of sex with the elderly by using “code words”.
I’m not going to cheat on my mate
Posted by tulula.
Yes you would.
It’s only a matter of time.
Just because you believe in infidelity doesn’t mean everyone does.
Lol oh mann there is some serious comedy going on on this thread. Seriously, hi-larious stuff.
Asitis,
My advice to you is this: On the homosexuality issue on this blog, just don’t even bother. It’s one of the issues here that has put me off from coming here, seeing as how I love the gays and all. I don’t even get why it’s relevant to the whole pro-life cause as gays aren’t going out and getting all the abortions. Straight people are. But whatever…like I said, it’s just better to roll your eyes and not engage in THAT conversation on here, unless you want to beat your head against a wall. But I’ve never been much into self-punishment myself. :)
I think yllas’ point is being missed. If there is nothing wrong with sex between two people of the same sex, then not wanting to have sex with someone of the same sex is simply a matter of preference, like choosing basketball over football. So if I don’t like football, but I”m stuck on an island with someone who really, really wants to play football, if I were to refuse to play football with him, then I would be denying him enjoyment based on my own selfishness; just based on the fact that I don’t like football, even though football is not in-and-of-itself immoral. However, for someone like yllas, sex with another man or with an 85 year old is wrong in-and-of-itself and hence could never be undertaken. It wouldn’t be a matter of selfishness then, but a matter of right and wrong. But if gay sex is neither right nor wrong, what is the basis for denying it to someone if you are stranded on an island?
What does being stranded on an island have to do with it?
Do we need to sex to survive? Maybe the species do, but as personal survival is concerned, sex isn’t necessary.
Are people who get raped selfish because they didn’t want to have sex with their rapist?
And I would hardly refer whether or not to have sex with your own gender or the opposite gender as simple as picking football over basketball. I imagine it’s a little bit more complicated than that.
“And I would hardly refer whether or not to have sex with your own gender or the opposite gender as simple as picking football over basketball.”
I agree. But is there something transcendent that makes sex more meaningful than sports? Or is it just a matter of personal preference?
Just because you believe in infidelity doesn’t mean everyone does.
Posted by: Talula at March 5, 2009 3:36 PM
You are in denial, or being that typical hypocrite from being a mind puppet of Asitis.
I think yllas’ point is being missed. If there is nothing wrong with sex between two people of the same sex, then not wanting to have sex with someone of the same sex is simply a matter of preference, like choosing basketball over football. So if I don’t like football, but I”m stuck on an island with someone who really, really wants to play football, if I were to refuse to play football with him, then I would be denying him enjoyment based on my own selfishness; just based on the fact that I don’t like football, even though football is not in-and-of-itself immoral. However, for someone like yllas, sex with another man or with an 85 year old is wrong in-and-of-itself and hence could never be undertaken. It wouldn’t be a matter of selfishness then, but a matter of right and wrong. But if gay sex is neither right nor wrong, what is the basis for denying it to someone if you are stranded on an island?
Thank you so much for explaining that, Bobby. I have to admit I was trying very hard to understand what the point was- I knew there was a point there but it was very difficult for me to understand it. Your post did help clear it up a bit and I think I get it now. :)
It’s one of the issues here that has put me off from coming here, seeing as how I love the gays and all.
Elizabeth, I love them just as much as you do. I just have a different perspective on their behavior than you do. Just like you love people who have had abortions, but you abhor abortion. It’s absolutely possible to hate the sin without also hating the sinner.
But I understand that you disagree that homosexuality is a sin, so you won’t think those two are analogous. I’ll just have to agree to disagree with you on that one. :)
Anyway, I didn’t want to start an argument with you, just wanted to clear up the fact that I, as well as most of us here, do care about gay people very much, and do not hate them in the least.
Mind puppet! How long has it been since we have heard those words!
No yllas, your whole stranded on a dessert island scenario doesn’t prove anything. If I don’t want to have sex with someone of the same sex because I am not sexually attracted to the same sex, it does NOT mean I am a homophobe.
And if I don’t have sex with someone even though they really, really want to that does not mean I am selfish. It means it is my body and I choose what to do with it. A person should not be told they are being selfish for not letting another use their body for sex. I can’t believeI have to even explain this to you yllas and Bobby. Is that really how you feel? That if woman doesn’t have sex with you she is being selfish?
Bobby: …if I were to refuse to play football (have sex) with him, then I would be denying him enjoyment based on my own selfishness.
Really Bethany? You agree with this. That you are selfish for not letting someone use you for sex that you don’t want? Really?????
I don’t even know Asitis, I would hardly consider myself her mind puppet.
Talula, you are getting very sleepy… very sleepy… good….
Bobby:
…if I were to refuse to play football (have sex) with him, then I would be denying him enjoyment based on my own selfishness.
REALLY BETHANY? You agree with this? That you are selfish for not letting someone use you for sex that you don’t want? Really?????
Posted by: asitis at March 5, 2009 4:28 PM
Asitis, sorry…I had to go to the store to buy flu medicine. I’ve been pretty sick today. I didn’t say I agreed with all of it, I said that I finally understood where he was going with it. I was confused as to what he was trying to get at the first time he used this scenario.
Thanks Bethany. Hope you are feeling better.
I hoped you didn’t agree with what he was getting at. I didn’t actually think you did. :)
I don’t know about Bobby though. I know he was elaborating on yllas’ point (that not having sex with someone because you didn’t want to was selfish) and it doesn’t necessary mean he agrees with it. But reading it again, I still don’t know for sure.
Get well!
Thanks, Asitis. I’m hoping I can get over it before Sunday …I’ve been planning my sister’s baby shower for about 3 months now and that is the day it’s going to be. Somehow I managed not to get sick until yesterday and wow did it hit me hard.
I bought some Airborne, Nyquil, Vitamin C cough drops, and tissues. Hopefully something out of all of that will help. lol
I fail to see how me not wanting man sex is me being a homophobe…. LOGICALLY that would mean the entire population of the world is gay or a homophobe….
So gay people don’t want sex with straight people, are they hetero-o-phobes?
What does the Lord think of all this? Do you think Jesus would have sex with another man in this deserted island scenario because he would be denying someone pleasure, unmarried sins of the flesh, same sex unmarried sins of the flesh?
Hey Dustin. I don’t think yllas actually thinks that makes someone a homophobe. It was just another flailing attempt by him to label me a homophobe.
That’s what that was? Coulda fooled me.
Jill, I wonder if one day 15 or 20 years from now one of your grandsons were to tell you he is gay, would you change your attitude?
I wouldn’t. There’s no reason to. Supposing this happened to one of my sons, I would still love my son but I would never, ever condone homosexual behavior in him.
Posted by: Bethany at March 5, 2009 7:52 AM
Wow. Do your kids know your love for them is conditional on their sexuality meeting your standards? You can slice frozen bread anyway you want to, but it still tastes cold.
My issue is that having babies, like killing babies, is totally elective. My insurance won’t pay for me to have my eyelids lifted or other such elective procedures.
Furthermore- infertility treatments harm women and kill babies by artificially producing children that have little chance or survival or causing litters of babies that suffer from sharing a womb built for one or two on average with 4 or 5 babies at times.
People who aren’t blinded by their hatred of gays and lesbians probably realize that lesbians don’t get pregnant through unprotected sexual intercourse, and thus this definition unfairly excludes them from coverage that is offered to heterosexual women.
They exclude themselves. It takes a man to make sperm in order for a woman to get pregnant. They exclude men, thus sperm, and therefore pregnancy.
asitis @ 2:44, this is what I have learned from interviews of people who have been treated for same sex attraction and psychiatrists who study and treat people with same sex attraction. I don’t take it lightly. To enable people with the disorder is to do them an injustice. You don’t force someone to seek treatment but you also don’t pretend that it is a perfectly acceptable when it is so damaging to a person physically, emotionally and spiritually.
Bethany — I hope you are feeling better soon!
If I don’t want to have sex with someone of the same sex because I am not sexually attracted to the same sex, it does NOT mean I am a homophobe.
Posted by ASitis.
Once again, you are denying your homophobia under the guise of “sexual attraction”.
You are discriminating/biased/phobic against homosexuals, by refusing to have sex with them, by denying their sexual attraction and beauty of the homosexual.
Next thing you’ll write, is that you never thought/dreamed of having sex with a women.
And if you did, your mind decided it was not a act of “beauty and attraction” for you to have sex with a homosexual.
OTH, you must have thought of having sex with a women and enjoyed that fantasy/imagination/thought.
So, which one is it ASitis, you confirming, once again, your homophobia, by denying ever having a “thought” about having sexual realtions with a women, or finally admit, your mind has thought of having sexual relations with the same sex?
What a prude. A homophobic prude.
More fun.
A senario of Asitis denying sex based on race.
Man of different race; Hello Asitis, I find you attractive and would enjoy kissing you.
Asitis; No, I find you unattractive, because your race is not sexually attractive to me.
Man; What is it about my race that is unattractive to you ASitis? I know your a different race, and yet find you attractive. Why is it that you find me not worthy of a simple kiss, based on my race?
Asitis; My sense of beauty and attraction has decided your not beautiful because of your race.
You may not kiss me.
It is easy to see that Asitis is a racist in that senario from knowing her racism was learned and affirmed by friends and family.
Now insert the word “homosexual” for “race”, and we have clear evidence of Asitis being a person who is a bigot towards homosexuals.
Remember ASitis, homosexuals are born that way, and your denying sex with a homosexual from reason of sexual attraction, is exactly what racist think and do.
Such as the Jewish race, which was sexually unattractive to your brother’s in euthanasia; Germans.
My advice to you is this: On the homosexuality issue on this blog, just don’t even bother. It’s one of the issues here that has put me off from coming here, seeing as how I love the gays and all. I don’t even get why it’s relevant to the whole pro-life cause as gays aren’t going out and getting all the abortions. Straight people are. But whatever…like I said, it’s just better to roll your eyes and not engage in THAT conversation on here, unless you want to beat your head against a wall. But I’ve never been much into self-punishment myself. :)
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at March 5, 2009 3:38 PM
That’s because your unable to distinguish vice from virtue, which leads to loving a person for a sex act. Such as a your “homosexual friends” you love. You love them for being homosexual; a act of sex.
Which is how and why you love homosexuals, because they think and feel about sex just like you.
You have no reason to not be a homosexual, Elizabeth.
asitis @ 2:44, this is what I have learned from interviews of people who have been treated for same sex attraction and psychiatrists who study and treat people with same sex attraction. I don’t take it lightly. To enable people with the disorder is to do them an injustice. You don’t force someone to seek treatment but you also don’t pretend that it is a perfectly acceptable when it is so damaging to a person physically, emotionally and spiritually.
Posted by: Eileen at March 5, 2009 10:43 PM
Eileen you most be talking about these so-called “self-hating” gays yllas refers to: Peolple who, given their religious or other beliefs feel that it is wrong to be attracted to the same sex and as a result are tormented by their feelings. I can see that their homosexuality is damaging to these particular people spirituallly or emotionally, because they haven’t/can’t come to terms with it. So yes, they need some help to do that. But this does not mean that homosexuality itself is a sickness and needs to be treated.
Oh yllas. more nonsense. Did you not understand how silly you sounded earlier?
Okay one more time: Not being sexually attractive to someone of the same sex does not make anyone a homophone. Similarly, not being sexually attracted to someone who happens to be of a different race does not make one a racist.
I had written: Supposing this happened to one of my sons, I would still love my son but I would never, ever condone homosexual behavior in him.
Yo la tengo responded:
Wow. Do your kids know your love for them is conditional on their sexuality meeting your standards? You can slice frozen bread anyway you want to, but it still tastes cold.
Either you are trying to put words in my mouth or you simply have poor reading comprehension. Try reading what I said again.
Bethany — I hope you are feeling better soon!
Eileen, thank you so much. This morning I feel much better than I did yesterday. :)
asitis @ 2:44, this is what I have learned from interviews of people who have been treated for same sex attraction and psychiatrists who study and treat people with same sex attraction. I don’t take it lightly. To enable people with the disorder is to do them an injustice. You don’t force someone to seek treatment but you also don’t pretend that it is a perfectly acceptable when it is so damaging to a person physically, emotionally and spiritually.
I completely agree with this statement.
Yllas,
Why don’t you go back to doing more crack..cause that’s the only way you can possibly get to some of the conclusions you come to. Drugs. That’s it.
I don’t LOVE people for BEING homosexual, I love people for being who they are. Straight or gay, doesn’t matter to me. It’s all about sex for you, I get it, but that doesn’t mean it is for everyone.
Oh and yes thank you for helping me realize THAT yllas, I think I’ll be a homosexual now. You have helped me out SO much. :eyeroll:
Not being sexually attractive to someone of the same sex does not make anyone a homophone. Similarly, not being sexually attracted to someone who happens to be of a different race does not make one a racist.
Posted by: asitis at March 6, 2009 5:48 AM
Why would you not be attracted to another race Asitis?
Every reason you give, to not have relations with “another race”, only confirms the fact that you think just as a racist does.
Just as the Germans of the early 20th century thought the Jew race was ugly/unattractive/animalistic, so must you be in rejecting the beauty and attractiveness of the Jew race.
Or, will you have relations with a race not of your own?
A simple answer will do, which I predict you will answer yes.
But, when the matter of having relations with a homosexual, you decline a relationship based on the same reasons as a German racist.
Beauty and attraction.
In the end, you deny your natural homosexual tendencies, which are natural tendencies, and will not admit them to yourself or others.
There are millions of beautiful and attractive homosexuals, and you defend your denial of having relations with a homosexual on attractiveness.
That is bigotry and fear. Fear of the millions of attractive homosexuals, who you decided are not worthy of you giving a kiss to.
Really Asitis, there isn’t one homosexual you will have relations with? Even a kiss? Yes or no?
That’s sheer fear of homosexuals, a fear of having relations with a homosexual, compounded with
a bigotry of thinking that replicates the mind of a racist.
You and Larry Craig have something in common.
I don’t LOVE people for BEING homosexual, I love people for being who they are. Straight or gay, doesn’t matter to me. It’s all about sex for you, I get it, but that doesn’t mean it is for everyone.
Posted by Liz.
You think about sex and sexual matters exactly as a homosexual does.
That is why you are attacted to homosexuals. That is why you love them, because it enforces your narcissism.
Give the reasons where you and homosexuals are diferent concerning sexual matters.
You both deny the full goodness of the reproductive system for vice.
The purpose of sex is for pleasure and not reproduction. You have that in common with homosexuals, and admire that bold vice reality.
It is a truth to you Liz that you admire them for being homosexuals, is it not? Yes or no?
Crack and weapons, and the mind conforming to reality.
A young homosexual had shot/murdered several people while obtaining funds for his pleasure object.
When asked the purpose of the weapon, he answered, it is for protection.
Not understanding the nature of the question, it was asked again.
What is the purpose of a pistol?
A. Protection.
B. collecting.
c. sport shooting.
d. murder
e. Tool for food
When asked again the purpose of a pistol, the murderer answered, protection.
Asked if that is a truthful answer, he answered with no hesitation, yes.
And so we have the mind of Asitis, and Liz, denying reality for their truth, which doesn’t conform to the reality of the sexual organs.
The common bond between the murderering homosexual and Asitis, is a love of themselves, and a object of desire.
Now, Asitis thinks that abortion is not evil, as the homosexual thinks he is not evil. Or murdering a person for mercy, isn’t evil.
“Evil is nothing other then the attraction of the will to nothing, a negation of being, of creation,and above all, a furious hatred of grace against which the rebellious will put up a implacable resistence”.
Vladimir Lossky.
Just as ASitis uses her sexual organs to reproduce nothing, so she denies the nature of purpose.
It’s as if she is that murdering pistol user, who thinks he is not a murderer, and is protecting himself.
That she uses her sexual organs to produce nothing is her reason for being here, rationalizing her defence of her will, which is attracted to the evil of nothingness.
Oh yllas. For all your words youreally say nothing.
You do realize btw, I never did say I would not have sex with a man of a different race, nor that I would not find one sexually attractive. Those are your words. Not one.
Face it guy, you’d love to call me a homophobe or a racist, just as you tried to call me an anti-semite a few months ago. But the truth is, I am none of these things.
So go back into your cave in whatever backwoods you dwell in, and come on out when you have
something real to say.
Oh, and have a good day.
Face it guy, you’d love to call me a homophobe or a racist, just as you tried to call me an anti-semite a few months ago. But the truth is, I am none of these things.
So go back into your cave in whatever backwoods you dwell in, and come on out when you have
something real to say.
Oh, and have a good day.
Posted by: asitis at March 6, 2009 12:43 PM
It is the fact that your “real” is based in being a denying homophobe, by not wanting, or desiring, even a kiss from the same sex.
It is that denial of yourself and the natural tendencies of your “homosexual nature”, you are denying.
It is that cave you live in, which allows you to stare into the dark, and think your not a homophobe, because it is not what you think you are.
As for being a jew race hater who admitted to allowing the murder of that race, it’s your words which exposed your race hate of Jews.
Pleading “historical ignorance”, as a defence of your allowing the mass murder by euthansia of the Jew race, is typical of a person once caught in the truth of their words which enforce their bigotry.
Another subject, where your will is attracted to the evil of nothingness.
Again yllas, I know you’d love for me to be a homophobe, a racist and an anti-semite, but nothing could be further from reality.
Shoo!
Asitis.
You deny your homophobia because it sooths your mind to not think of yourself as being a homophobe.
Will you kiss another women? Yes or no?
You won’t answer any question which confirms your natural homosexual tendencies from the fear of being a homosexual yourself.
Which leads back to Larry Craig, and your post where you demeaned and ridiculed him to prove your not a homosexual in any form or fashion.
You image Craig first, as a self hating homosexual, and hide it under politics. You become that typical dumb and dumber when faced with the fact that Craig was persecuted for being a homosexual first and foremost. It makes you fell better about yourself Asitis demeaning self hating homosexuals.
Larry Craig’s homosexual tendencies began as nothingmore then a “thought”, and a question in his mind concerning sexual matters.
He acted on those thoughts and found them true to him.
Because his attraction to the beauty of homosexuals was open minded, he began living his life in a truth that he knows is denying reality.
You on the other hand, will not even admit to your being “open minded enough” to even have a relationship with the same sex. Not even a kiss.
That is fear, fear to even write the word “yes” to a simple question.
yllas larry craig was arrested for breaking the law, not
because he is homosexual.
It really bugs you that I’m a good person. That’s kind of sad.
yllas: Because his attraction to the beauty of homosexuals was open minded, he began living his life in a truth that he knows is denying reality.
Living his life in a truth? What truth? That he is a homosexual? Well, he wasn’t exactly doing that, putting up a public facade that was decidedly anti-gay. And what was this reality you say he was denying yllas? That homosexuality is wrong? Maybe that’s your reality. Maybe that’s Craig’s reality. But it’s not mine. I don’t believe homosexuality is wrong.
re: Bethany at March 6, 2009 7:49 AM
You can say you love your son all you want, but you sound as cold as fish in a freezer. You really don’t need to come out and say it, but if you can’t honor a relationship between your son and his chosen partner no matter how much you dislike them you’re destined to be the side of the family that never gets visited, at your house or in the old folks home. Who needs wicked step-moms from fairy tales when real moms are just as bad if not worse.
It really bugs you that I’m a good person. That’s kind of sad.
Posted by: asitis at March 6, 2009 2:08 PM
you honestly believe this? What do you define as “good”?