brnbk

Well, it is sad when people of color start sounding like crazy Rich old wealthy guys — who if the law be applied appropriately, would actually face jail time for their white collar crimes. Rising inequality, a shocking mortality rate due to CoVID, end of female freedom and choice i.e. abortion right, are shocking developments in the United States that u would only expect very-wealth white men to be blind to, not people from immigrants backgrounds who moved to the US presumably for a better and freer life with liberty and justice and equality for all. I only referred to his race or ethnicity to point to the irony that while majority of Indian Americans are Democrats and liberal in their views, the two republican candidates of Indian origin are both cruel conservatives with no sympathy for LGBTQ folks . Nikki Hailey thinks, trans men are responsible for an increase in young girl's suicide! and Vivek is willing to tolerate gays only in their adult privacy instead of acknowledging them as an entity and category, just like his— an immigrant and brown man who is now aspiring to be the President of a country where before the Hart–Cellar Act of the 60s, people like him and his parents would be deemed non white and not worthy of residence and nationality and denied entry. While i don't believe that race alone helps people gain empathy for other socially marginalized groups it is sad when people from minority backgrounds do not sympathize with other minorities, and explore the possibility that the oppression suffered by others, is just the same as that endured by their parents or themselves, but just a different kind.

LMgay💏AO, MagaSmarmy he is indeed! The irony of it all is that there is now a Trump, again — yet he is brown in color and younger than 40! Who would want to build a wall with Canada? the debate threw up another of Vivek's crazy statement; the guy is truly nuts. magaSmarmy – young and brown Trump. a menace

Truly creepy but US christian fundamentalism now calling itself Evangelical, has always been creepy when people decide to go investigate it. 1. i wonder what the Mother i.e. Mrs. Johnson thinks of the whole thing? 2. Mr. Johnson clearly likes to put boy in vulnerable situations: His black "adopted son" who refuses to acknowledge him publicly, or him now sending sexually explicit information to his own son! all show this need and affinity for boys in vulnerable situations. I once read a report about Catholic priests who offended against boys, and one of their primary desire was to find young boys and minors in vulnerable situations. I wish I had read the report fully so that I could offer some more insights but this whole affair, sure sounds creepy as hell. What kind of christian is he, if he still struggles with pornography, and if he is such a struggling christian, why judge others especially homosexuals — so harshly? Has he heard of the Master's Words: Judge not, lest ye be judged.

You cannot bless and you can bless.... 🙂; how do we interpret that, or perform it in real life? I wonder what the indulgences for barebacking would look like. Anyone who has indulged in barebacking in the last 3 months, can buy an Indulgence with a payment of $1M ?

In a. to c. he repeats traditional teaching — non recognition of same sex 'marraige', but then goes on to say (d.) we must not judge, and (e.) try to bless but not as a marriage coz same-sex is a mistaken concept of marriage (e.) and the Church must not convey a message of affirmation for it, yet in the very next point(f.), goes on to question objective morality and suggests it may be mitigated by factors affective subjective accountability; thus presumably, allowing for the possibility of same-sex blessing as if gays are born this way, can they really be held accountable for their actions. So, A to C is No D is possibly E is maybe F is Yes! --------------------- Thus, A To F is...

5 Cardinals recently asked the Pope, officially through a format known as Dubia, a couple of questions including the possibility of the Catholic Church officiating same-sex marriages or atleast a blessing to same sex couples, presumably on the lines of those followed in the Anglican Church. The million dollar question is did Pope Francis say Yes or No? Following is the text of his response 2. Dubium regarding the assertion that the widespread practice of blessing same-sex unions is in accordance with Revelation and the Magisterium (CCC 2357). According to the Divine Revelation, attested in Sacred Scripture, which the Church teaches, “listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit" (Dei Verbum, 10), "In the beginning," God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them, and blessed them to be fruitful (cf. Genesis 1:27-28) and hence, the Apostle Paul teaches that denying sexual difference is the consequence of denying the Creator (Romans 1:24-32). We ask: can the Church deviate from this "principle," considering it, in contrast to what was taught in Veritatis splendor, 103, as a mere ideal, and accept as a "possible good" objectively sinful situations, such as unions with persons of the same sex, without departing from the revealed doctrine? Pope Francis's Response to the Second Dubium a) The Church has a very clear understanding of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to procreation. Only this union can be called "marriage." Other forms of union realize it only in "a partial and analogous way" (Amoris Laetitia 292), so they cannot be strictly called "marriage." b) It is not just a matter of names, but the reality we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that requires an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere "ideal." c) For this reason, the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that might contradict this conviction and suggest that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage. d) However, in our relationships with people, we must not lose the pastoral charity, which should permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defence of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity; it also includes kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot be judges who only deny, reject, and exclude. e) Therefore, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey a mistaken concept of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, it is expressing a plea to God for help, a supplication to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better. f) On the other hand, although there are situations that are not morally acceptable from an objective point of view, the same pastoral charity requires us not to simply treat as "sinners" other people whose guilt or responsibility may be mitigated by various factors affecting subjective accountability (Cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et paenitentia, 17). g) Decisions that may be part of pastoral prudence in certain circumstances should not necessarily become a norm. That is, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops' Conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially enable procedures or rituals for all kinds of matters, because not everything that "is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances can be elevated to the level of a rule" as this "would lead to an intolerable casuistry" (Amoris laetitia, 304). Canon law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should Episcopal Conferences with their varied documents and protocols claim to do so, as the life of the Church flows through many channels other than normative ones

I am of the view that the US government mismanaged the situation ,deliberately, out of an animus towards the gay and black populations. I do believe the situation would have been handled differently and the outcome in terms of mortality would have been much different had the people affected been predominantly wealthier white people, say of the East Coast Elite. This animus can be ascribed to the evangelical-fundamentalist faith lead by the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, with an irrational hatred of gay people and gay culture and the racial underpinnings of US Christianity. This context is important in interpreting the reactions of gay men to the AIDS crisis, and that certainly includes bug chasing. I absolutely agree, since HIV was imposed on the gay population, to begin. Gay men did not choose to become HIV poz. When their community was made Poz, many of them became poz. HIV chasers are a legacy of that pathology that was imposed on gays. Sure, I will give you that HIV chasers are pathological but what I would like to highlight is that this pathology was imposed — Trickle down politics 😇by a right wing Administration. If we consider the historical context of HIV and realize that it was actually engineered on the gay population.... we are less likely to see the choices that some gay men make i.e. to pursue Sero Conversion as insane or harmful. . While gays who chose or fantasize about becoming poz are perhaps making a pathological choice, the Pathology was Imposed from up above.... You couldn't have stated it better⬆️ Hardly irrational IMO, but a way to exist! The deadly pathogen was not equally distributed to the population. Gay men got it in exceedingly large numbers, and often exclusively. The Brotherhood that u label misguided, was actually trying to identify itself and stand up and exist, pretty much like the gay prisoner in a Nazi Holocaust camp, wearing his Triangle symbol proud and aloud, to a society that did not understand gay men and their needs including their sexual wants. Gay men around the world face this immense pressure to convert to straight society and its norms. Be masculine, get married (to a women), ... and so many gay men often choose an extreme and i will readily admit self destructive path of becoming positive as to wanting to sort of refuse straight social norms. While their actions might seem self destructive, it has to be understood in the historical background and gay history in the United States which has to include the Pre Prep period as well. As is true of any historical minority, they often do hold on to pathological behaviors that served them in the past often as a legacy of their own identity and history. I want to be clear, I am not defending guys who are actively choosing to become positive by not being on Prep and still barebacking. I am glad that many poz men here have clearly enumerated the reality of the health and personal costs of living with HIV. However, I do think that guys who want to get poz are clearly suffering, from the suffocation that Straight Society imposes on gays their culture and sexuality and... structurally imposed on them through the HIV Crisis and Spread of Aids.

Human existence is complex, and disease and catastrophic events such an accident or death are hard to make sense of.. Most of us (including me) think we are immune... until the building in our house starts shaking and we realize we are in an earthquake!! How could this be happening to me, we wonder! [the prevalence of] AIDS is a man made condition: it largely spread because of the Regan government's inaction to deal with the crisis when it first exploded roughly between 1979-82. Regan's ideological and religious hostility to homosexuality is very strange considering he was a Hollywood hero and his wife was a regular consultant of astrologers; hardly the model evangelical Christian couple, IMO. Interestingly, Aids predominantly affected gay men in the West, and black people in Africa, two population groups that the Christian right and the US government that it controlled – deemed as "undesirables" and deviating from the "White norm". Gay men in the United States, whatever their color, where seen as enemies and had to fight for their rights: both against their own family's oppression and the church/faith community and government's repression — going the extra mile, so that we have the freedoms that we have. These freedoms where slowly being realized around the world and just when we thought that the world was becoming a better place, the broader notion of freedoms, the pursuit of human happiness, are sadly under attack in the United States, the land where they first became real. I believe majority of the gay men who wish to get pozzed are trying in a way to fight back against the US Government and its erstwhile war against the gays, and the legacy of it. Perhaps they are trying to be martyrs bravely fighting against the world that was was taken away from us – by the force of a Virus. Maybe its a toxic family or school bully's taunt that u are a fa.g.t and will end up getting AIDS anyways drives them. With the availability of Prep, it is indeed hard to understand why someone would choose such a so called 'self-destructive' path. The only reason I can think of is socially sanctioned Homophobia, which makes their life so miserable.... that they don't care if they are making 'rational choices'...

I am sorry to hear you feel this way. As a gay Asian man I have experienced a lot of what you describe. Sometimes the gay community can not feel very supportive, and just plain hostile🕳️... but I hope you feel the love at times as well!, 💜

I totally forgot to include another important group: Masseurs. Where I grew up in Asia, masseurs where the closest you could find who u could have a gay experience within a paid context, or most contexts for that matter as being gay was illegal just 5 years ago, without it being seen as evil. Would you see porn stars as prostitutes, or as performers – no different than a actor or movie stars?

Work can mean both Tasks that we do, or a job that we hold which involves an obligation to perform. While this obligation is not absolute– you can quit your job or say you won't do a particular task of your assigned duties because u disagree with it/don't feel you are qualified etc. – monetary compensation requires you to perform what you are paid for. To me the difference between what your task and that of a prostitute would be the difference between someone hosting a dinner party (or hostess!- lesbians I am told love to host people as well) and and a restaurant and its workers. Both involves food, work to prepare food and people who eat and are happy and whose primary reason for gathering is food. However, it is fundamentally different in that, the restaurant involves payment and obligations, of some sorts, while a dinner host has some kind of "obligation" but not quite.

I think there are two side to this question which tries to decide on the morality of paying for sex. Firstly at the personal level - would I do it? – which of course comes with a potentially compromising question of have I done sex work in the past — ever, and also the fundamental question of what constitutes paid sex. As many have pointed out: doesn't a married relationship often have the skeleton of paid sex – one partner often paying for the other person's upkeep and maintenance? Secondly Do i think it's right which brings to light its own shades of right! like it could be right for others, but not for me. Some may claim such a stance is hypocritical but i believe such a judgement is ill informed. For e.g. I might think becoming a Pilot is a the "right thing to do" but not be the thing I do or plan on doing and might actually believe I would be happy being a flight attendant! So holding the view that something is right.. but not for me, is not necessarily hypocritical. The original motivation behind this question... had got to do with the more difficult question of homophobia and how gay people esp. gay Youth are still overwhelming burdened with it. Often gay men just don't have a choice but doing sex work in some kind of way to survive, coz they have been thrown out of their houses coz they are gay. Of course this depends on which part of the country and the World u live in, but homophobia is still a sad reality of our times and the poverty and homelessness that gay folks face is real. What constitutes paid sex work is also up for debate. Some people hold pornography to be art and not paid sex work. Actual prostitutes are generally thought of as doing sex work while escorts are classified as sex workers depending on the location. For e.g. In Japan there is a strict distance between escorts and clients and they might not be thought of as sex workers. This topic also brings up the question of can gay sex work ever be classified as sex work; since gay men do face homophobia in society and many in our culture do take great pains to hide their homosexuality and bisexuality and... people who do gay sex work are themselves marginalized and through their work, they bring homosexuality to groups such as rich closeted preachers and politicians or super-successful closeted gay men who otherwise would have no way of experiencing homosexuality. While i am almost persuaded to agree that two guys who live together, often professionals, and in a married relationship are a 'better' picture of homosexuality – or are they really?

Thank you so much for getting me going 🫂and for being interesting in my viewpoint.👥 After hearing some preliminary views on this topic, come up in this thread about Outing, I realized this was another very important aspect of gay life and sexuality and a discussion on this topic is much needed. I have started a new Topic I am not sure if we can quote from those who have shared here, in this thread — in the other thread — as there have been some very interesting views on the topic that have been shared. and I have a feeling this is just the begining of another very "fundamental" discussion - so fundamental to human and gay existence that Fundamentalists are going to hate it...😁 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Church history is filled with LGBTQ men and women trying to make sense of their own self and sexuality and the teachings of the Church. The Knights Templar are a good example of a male 💪fraternal💏 organization that was stomped upon by the powers that be with the primary allegations of sodomy against them, even though they where doing so much good in the world – running businesses which we in the modern world call banks, hotels etc. Pope Clement V disbanded the order in 1312. Interestingly, a century later, Joan of Arc was burnt in 1431, one of the chief charges against her was cross-dressing i.e. she dressed like a man and not a maiden/girl.

Is paying for sex especially gay sex, ever Ok? Are gay porn stars and escorts — prostitutes, or ambassadors of gay culture, who keep alive what it means to be gay, in a world where the very act of gay sex seems unnatural and even nauseating to some. Should we as a community embrace gay – sex and sex related workers; Should the relations and social systems in the gay community reflect this, and if yeah, how so?

This question of Paid sex is as interesting as the originals question i raised about the ethics of Outing. I can't make up my mind if i should join in the discussion here or start a new thread on this very interesting question on the ethics of Paying for sex

Is there a Devil😈 of gay breeding as well? a Lucifer type who got fucked/fucked till he was 35/95 and now preaches a different religion?

Is is really the case that there is no person on the track? Isn't the closeted gay/bi man on the track in this scenario — as he is being forced by society to stay in the closet. After all no one objects to being reported as Italian American, Indian American etc., even though they might not necessarily identify with their ethnicity/heritage and prefer, American, as a self description. Outing is alleged to cause substantial harm alleged to the individual's professional and family life. Which begs the question: Why it is reporting someone as gay/bi considered — "violent", forceful imposition of values, and violating the right of personal choice, as if sexual orientation where something not as "natural" as ethnicity or the color of ones eyes, where individuals have no choice over it and there being no good or evil to blue eyes vs black eyes or green eyes vs brown eyes. As far as professionals life is considered, I believe there are sufficient anti discrimination laws on the book which protects LGBTQ people. Gay/bi affairs aren't the only reason why married men leave their families, and there are way more men leaving their families and wives for another women rather than a guy. If mainstream US culture does not vilify the man who chose to divorce his wife (and thus leave his family) unlike some cultures where marriages is predominantly for raising children and divorce is a huge [banned word], why should the gay/bi man who chooses to have sex outside of marriage, be such a bad guy and the reporting of it close to a crime. After all the word "marriage" does not mean the same thing around the world. In the Islamic and African world, it would include a man with multiple wives, in Europe and parts of Asia it would include a man with a wife and a mistress and in some parts of Asia such as India, it would be strictly be between one man and one woman. If we allow for such privacy as to frequent gay bathhouses or attend sex parties without it being reported in society, shouldn't we for sake of consistency make space for Don't Ask Don't Tell in the military.

Great discussion and great points raised. the crux of my question is, while almost almost everyone here agrees in preventing active harm i.e. closeted gay men who harm LGBTQ people by preaching or legislating against gay right, few justify absolute privacy i.e. right of gays to be gay at night and upright evangelical Christians during the day even if they indulge in anti gay activities; yet an overwhelming majority voted in the poll for right to maintain privacy and against outing — seemingly rejecting the question of passive harm. It is truly a complex and comprehensive question, as Outing itself is deeply connected to what a particular society considers private and public - rightly or wrongly so! I am not sure if its legal to report someone as an alcoholic or addict and if a newspaper could be held liable for defamation. Mr. Michelangelo Signorile who made the concept popular, states in his recent article he prefers to call it "Reporting" and the term Outing was surprisingly not invented by him but by the Time Magazine. [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.signorile.com/p/matt-schlapp-and-the-closet-of-power?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fouting&utm_medium=reader2

Can Not coming Out by this politician/public figure, even if he hasn't done anything overtly anti gay in terms of legislation but supported DOMA when it was still politically important to attack gays — be itself considered as doing harm to the LGBT community and thus justify a possible outing — Señor Signorilde style of the 'Queer in America: Sex, The Media, and the Closets of Power (1993)' fame?

Which brings me to the original question. Is it fair to hold that a person refusing to come out as bi or gay, who is or was fairly sexually active while being married to the wife and a politician, and not having participated in anti-gay legislation, or at lest changing with the times when the tides change and being pro gay when it had become socially acceptable to do so, is causing harm i.e. spitting on the LGBTQ community?

Is it ever moral to out a gay man? Some cases are easy to judge, say instances where a politician or preacher is having gay sex secretly while preaching or legislating against gay people and homosexuality. However a same person, choose to be closeted, say a politician who is gay or bi and is in a marriage (heterosexual) but his routine involves mid-week trips to a gay bathhouse, is it ever OK to let the public know. By staying in the closet, isn't this person saying being gay or bi, is something to be hidden! Given the rising anti LGBTQ laws in various states isn't it time to stand up for gay rights at the social level and make legislative victories such as nation wide gay right, a lived reality. Is it ever acceptable for a gay/bi person to pass as straight ?

Great question. I haven often wondered about straight female sexuality, and if being slutty is something inherently gay. Pornography seems to suggest otherwise, with any gay sex scene easily found in straight pornography. I wonder where straight people are doing it though. As pointed out earlier, where do straight people in regular society, have slutty sex. Are there any parks or clubs frequented by straights where they only go to have sex. i.e. get laid.? Are there any other places where straights fuck like gay guys, but is not🤣 reported by the media. Secondly, women in Asia esp. south Asia tend to shun sex but less so in Anglo-Saxon countries where marriages are seen as an individual contract rather than a social contract so — a women who has sex without a marriage (contract) by is not shunned by Society but is more or less the social norm. Also do lesbians i.e. gay women have as much sex as gay men. I have never heard of a gay lesbian sauna, for e.g..

I would love to contribute 😈to this very important discussion😶‍🌫️, but unfortunately the Warning that I received from this site was that I was spreading conspiracy theories👾 when I alleged that Grindr sold info. to right wing catholic groups which used it to collect and oust gay priests especially the Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill in mid 2021. I got this info. from reputable US newspapers, the Catholic media and the US gay online magazines. [think before following links] https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/07/21/catholic-official-grindr-reaction/ [think before following links] https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/06/15/opinion-jeffrey-burrills-rehabilitation-compounds-the-original-scandal-of-his-sin/ [think before following links] https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2021/7/24/catholic-priest-may-be-gay-isnt-cause-sadness I do not remember the exact words of the warning as I have this character flaw of quickly forgetting unpleasant things, and I tried looking for it on the site but cannot find it. If anyone knows how to find a previous Warning, please feel free to message me.

Not to be racist, but I am just wondering why south Asian, Arabs/Middle Easterners and native Americans have been left out ←removed, of the racial categories. Are these cocks not worthy of being sucked. PS: I am not a racist, but I couldn't wonder why Indians and Arab men who have the longest history of gay history, are left out of these lists.