Congressman Resigns: Sent Letters to 16 Yr Old

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
With regard to the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts of America, and (most) elected Republicans, living openly as a homosexual would be a career-ending move. Children are easier to intimidate into "keeping this our secret" than adults are -- so pedophilia entices men who have no other sexual outlet and want to stay closeted.
<...>

Which begs the question, (and I know there are many answers, but I'm guessing they all boil down to the same root issue): Why would anyone who realizes that he is homosexual choose to remain a part of such oppressive, unwelcoming organizations? Even in the military, the reasoning for the exclusion is simple: We don't want you (unless we reinstate the draft.) For the church or the boy scouts, it's more insidious: We don't want you because you are a horrible person.

I can understand, very vaguely, why one would remain catholic: brought up in the "faith." It is difficult to be taught something from birth, then realize the conflict of self and teaching once one reaches puberty. Not impossible, but difficult. It is one of the reasons that I eventually renounced my christian upbringing. After much agonizing and self-analysis, I realized it was not me that was broken, but the church.

The scouts is a different story, as is the political arena. It has nothing to do with faith, nor with a "higher power," or any other thing like that. It is a matter of not being able to reconcile one's self with the belief set of the group. The comparisons of jewish nazis and negro klansmen is better suited to gay scouts or gay republican elected officials, than to gay christians.

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
In the broader scope of things, I say until this society begins to recognize homosexuality as equally valid to homosexuality we'll be sending people deeper into their closets where the inclination to (again) "act out" will simply be too difficult to resist. <...>

LOL a bit of freudian slip, eh? I agree wholeheartedly, though. The sad part is, it is such a vicious circle of repression and hatred. Scandals like this keep happening, because society is not progressing. Society is not progressing because we keep having scandals like this. Stronzo, I applaud your courage and conviction in rooting out and denouncing homophobia and oppression. Just so you know, you are not alone. My state and federal lawmakers are tired of hearing from me, I'm sure. But I will not stop hounding them until they start legislating from a constitutional basis, rather than a "stay-popular-with-the-sheeple" basis.

You know, it really annoys me when I hear the excuse used, "let's put the marriage issue out there for the people to vote on." Social issues are usually best handled in congress, not on the general ballot. Why? Because the constitution was designed to protect minorities from the majority. Would women ever have gotten the right to vote otherwise? Would slavery still be legal in some states?

We need our congress to "do the right thing". It won't happen as long as we have Foleys, Hasterts, Kolbes, Bushs, and Santorums handling the problems.

 

[B_Stronzo]

LOL a bit of freudian slip, eh?

God do I love that I did that! And yes without question it was a Freudian slip.:biggrin1: Fucking A

Stronzo, I applaud your courage and conviction in rooting out and denouncing homophobia and oppression. Just so you know, you are not alone.

Likewise I'm sure. On this we've always been precisely on the same page you and I. I see too little of it among our "brothers" and "sisters" DC. So here's to fighting that good fight.

........... I'm less and less welcome a family gatherings lately. Word's gotten 'round that lo stronzo is a bit of an angry activist. Ah fuck em. They're just playing at equal rights anyway.....

 

[Lex]

Which begs the question, (and I know there are many answers, but I'm guessing they all boil down to the same root issue): Why would anyone who realizes that he is homosexual choose to remain a part of such oppressive, unwelcoming organizations? Even in the military, the reasoning for the exclusion is simple: We don't want you (unless we reinstate the draft.) For the church or the boy scouts, it's more insidious: We don't want you because you are a horrible person.
...
The comparisons of jewish nazis and negro klansmen is better suited to gay scouts or gay republican elected officials, than to gay christians.

I usually get the whole "I am working to change the organization from within" speech when I ask those questions. Denial of denial of self-hatred. Belonging to those groups almost seems like some form of masochism.

 

[joyboytoy79]

(...)

The scouts is a different story, as is the political arena. It has nothing to do with faith, nor with a "higher power," or any other thing like that. It is a matter of not being able to reconcile one's self with the belief set of the group. The comparisons of jewish nazis and negro klansmen is better suited to gay scouts or gay republican elected officials, than to gay christians.

I see it as a matter of survival. Most "family values" republicans and boy scouts have been raised in an environment that impresses that homosexuality is evil. This environment further impresses that evil will be eradicated. In that situation, a young person has two choices. He/she may either distince him/her-self from the opressive, yet familiar and comfortable environment (rebel), or embrace the opressive environment and hide his/her true self (assimilate).

I think you're comparison, especially to a jewish nazi, is quite valid. This is a prime example of assimilation. Many jews joined the nazis in an attempt to go unnoticed. For most of them, it worked. The nazis were not likely to suspsect their fellow members of being jews. Why on earth would a jew want to be a nazi? And therefore, the jewish nazi was safe, and survived. I suspect this is what the gay republican is feeling: safe, so long as he hides who he really is.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Why would anyone who realizes that he is homosexual choose to remain a part of such oppressive, unwelcoming organizations?

Perhaps "battered spouse syndrome" is a potential explanation. Why do battered partners refuse to hold abusers accountable for their violent deeds? Could they be hoping for an eventual change in the abusers behavior? Are they accustomed to abuse as "normal" behavior? It there a stigma of admitting being a victim? Denial of the abuse? Perhaps they have a feeling of having no where or no one else to turn to?

Perhaps the same applies here.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Why would anyone who realizes that he is homosexual choose to remain a part of such oppressive, unwelcoming organizations?

I can sort of see the argument about 'changing the mind-set from within' that Lex mentioned. And perhaps a little of the 'battered spouse syndrome' posited by SpeedoGuy.

However, I think the answer is simpler: Money. People join (or vote for) the conservative parties because they have money and like the idea of having more money. That, and the possibility that they may like other conservative policies enough to outweigh the racism/homophobia that the party also stands for.

Besides, if you're well placed, the bigoted policies don't affect you... much.

 

[Freddie53]

I see it as a matter of survival. Most "family values" republicans and boy scouts have been raised in an environment that impresses that homosexuality is evil. This environment further impresses that evil will be eradicated. In that situation, a young person has two choices. He/she may either distince him/her-self from the opressive, yet familiar and comfortable environment (rebel), or embrace the opressive environment and hide his/her true self (assimilate).

I think you're comparison, especially to a jewish nazi, is quite valid. This is a prime example of assimilation. Many jews joined the nazis in an attempt to go unnoticed. For most of them, it worked. The nazis were not likely to suspsect their fellow members of being jews. Why on earth would a jew want to be a nazi? And therefore, the jewish nazi was safe, and survived. I suspect this is what the gay republican is feeling: safe, so long as he hides who he really is.

Many Jewish people also became members of Chrsitian Churches to avoid bein caught being Jewish.

A lot of people don't realize that with two Billion plus Christians in the world, there are several sects and denominations. My church does recognzie that homosexuality isn't compatible with tradition teachings of the church. It also recognizes that all people including homosexuals are people of sacred worth. My church teaches that all humans are imperfect as in not being totally what God originally intended and that we all make bad choices. But my church also beleives in a redemptive God who forgives actions that aren't our best choices. My church teaches that all people, that is ALLl people, are invited into God's kingdom. Perfection isn't required. Perfectoni is impossible for human beings to attain.

Are there known gay people in my church. You bet. Are they welcomed. Yes they are. Are they discriminated against. No. That is against my church's teaching. Discrimination is wrong, period.

My church isn't going to let a knonwn pydophile work with minors. But even pydophiles are welcome as chidlren of God. No, they can't act out their desires with minors who aren't legally able to make that decision. But can they enter the kingdom of God? The answer. Everyone can.

Do all Christians agree with the above. Not no but hell no. The word Christians only means follower of Christ and there are multiple opinions on what people believe about Jesus Christ.

I have more confidence that a true worshipper of God who is gay will really go to heaven than some of these so call right wing fundie Christians. I have little use for the fundie Christians.But most Christians will agree that Jesus alone is the judge. So I don't know if it matters what I think or anyone else does if Jesus is truly the Son of God and has been appointed the judge of all mankind. Most Christinas believe that Jesus is the judge. Some just think they are the jury. The Bible mentions nothing about a group of people on here serving on the jury board in heaven. NO, we humans won't be making judgements about other humans in the after life according to traditoinal Christiam teaching. That belongs to Jesus and Jesus alone.

Now the Gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These are the books that contain the stories of Jesus and what he said or as the case may be didn't say.

I ask anyone to read those four gospels and find where Jesus ever once condemned homosexuality. Read to your heart's content. It isn't there. But Jesus said a lot about people who mistreat chidlren. And his worst condmenations weren't of the sinners, but of the organnized religious leaders of his day. Cost him his life is what it did.

There are some moral issues Christians I can identify with. Depends on what the person defines as moral issues. That is a broad area as well;

Sure I am to piss some people off. But please consider that all Christians are not the same. Some professed Christians won't even worship with other groups that are professed Christians. That is how broadChristianity is. Happens when there are over two billion of them.

 

[joyboytoy79]

Many Jewish people also became members of Chrsitian Churches to avoid bein caught being Jewish.
...

Sure I am to piss some people off. But please consider that all Christians are not the same. Some professed Christians won't even worship with other groups that are professed Christians. That is how broadChristianity is. Happens when there are over two billion of them.

Dear sir, please forgive me for truncating your post.

I know from personal experience that not all Christians are the same. I also know from personal experience that many people who call themselves "Christian" don't know the first thing about the teachings of Christ. I don't claim to be a theologian, and i hope i don't come across as if i do. I really hope my post didn't somehow insinuate that i lumped Christians in with "familiy values" republicans. I do not.

As far as issues of morality go: I'm not Christian. I'm not Jewish. I'm not Muslim. Rather than a detailed list of what is to be considered right and wrong, i beleive in a single moral code: "An it harm none, do what ye will." Based on that, is homosexuality wrong? Well, it doesn't harm anyone, so no, it's not. Is paedophilia wrong? It hurts kids, so yes it is. I firmly believe in my moral standards, and think if the government adopted the same stance, life would be a lot easier in the USA.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I see it as a matter of survival. Most "family values" republicans and boy scouts have been raised in an environment that impresses that homosexuality is evil. This environment further impresses that evil will be eradicated. In that situation, a young person has two choices. He/she may either distince him/her-self from the opressive, yet familiar and comfortable environment (rebel), or embrace the opressive environment and hide his/her true self (assimilate).

That's fine, as long as the child still believes in Santa Claus. So, what about when reality sets in? It still does not address the concept of an adult homosexual embracing those same platitudes that made him feel horrible as an adolescent. He knows he's a good person, he knows he's gay, he knows that these organizations say he's a worthless person. So why continue membership, much less passing on those same platitudes which he knows to be toxic?

I think you're comparison, especially to a jewish nazi, is quite valid. This is a prime example of assimilation. Many jews joined the nazis in an attempt to go unnoticed. For most of them, it worked. The nazis were not likely to suspsect their fellow members of being jews. Why on earth would a jew want to be a nazi? And therefore, the jewish nazi was safe, and survived. I suspect this is what the gay republican is feeling: safe, so long as he hides who he really is.

You are looking at my jewish nazi analogy from a historical viewpoint; I posed it from a modern, current viewpoint. It's understandable to make the decision, "Do you want to hold the cookbook, or be in the oven?" What I'm asking is why would a jew, today, not just join, but embrace the american nazi movement?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Perhaps "battered spouse syndrome" is a potential explanation. Why do battered partners refuse to hold abusers accountable for their violent deeds? Could they be hoping for an eventual change in the abusers behavior? Are they accustomed to abuse as "normal" behavior? It there a stigma of admitting being a victim? Denial of the abuse? Perhaps they have a feeling of having no where or no one else to turn to?

Perhaps the same applies here.

Maybe somewhat closer....

 

[DC_DEEP]

I can sort of see the argument about 'changing the mind-set from within' that Lex mentioned. And perhaps a little of the 'battered spouse syndrome' posited by SpeedoGuy.

However, I think the answer is simpler: Money. People join (or vote for) the conservative parties because they have money and like the idea of having more money. That, and the possibility that they may like other conservative policies enough to outweigh the racism/homophobia that the party also stands for.

Besides, if you're well placed, the bigoted policies don't affect you... much.

Bingo, I think we have a winner! If you add one thing, rob, your answer is perfect. Money, plus "hide in plain sight." If I point my finger at you, and screm "Rob's a witch! Burn the witch! He's cursing our crops!" do you think the sheep will investigate you, or me?

 

[rob_just_rob]

Bingo, I think we have a winner! If you add one thing, rob, your answer is perfect. Money, plus "hide in plain sight." If I point my finger at you, and screm "Rob's a witch! Burn the witch! He's cursing our crops!" do you think the sheep will investigate you, or me?

I'm a winner! :biggrin1: :wiggle: Thanks!

And FWIW, my witchhood has been an open secret for some time.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Oh, it just gets better and better.

HARTFORD, Connecticut (Oct. 12) - Republican Rep. Christopher Shays defended the House speaker's handling of a congressional page scandal, saying no one died like during the 1969 Chappaquiddick incident involving Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy.

I knew that many repubs would try to defend Hastert, and that the only way they could do it would be to bring up some democrat's transgressions. But please, how the hell can this old geezer from Connecticut think that bringing up Chappaquiddick would help instead of hurt? He had to go back thirty-seven years to find what he thought was an "appropriate" attack? Give me a fucking break! I guess the reason he had to go back that far is that all the democrats caught in scandals between 1969 and today have been caught doing things perhaps less than or equal to the Foley/Hastert scandal. Even at that, Kennedy attempted his own cover-up - there weren't dozens of other democrats holding the info for 5 years then defending him when he got caught.

Anyone else besides me think that all the "defending" is doing more harm than good?

Of course, the staunch republicans will explain it all away in their own minds, and continue to be staunch republicans. It's so sad.

 

[Lex]

...

Anyone else besides me think that all the "defending" is doing more harm than good?

I like how he basically dismissed the impact of pedophilia with that careless statement.

They should not be defending Hassert or ANY politician who had knowledge of these acts and did nothing. They would garner much more respect by admitting what they have done to be insufficient and persecuting tose who ignored it.