Assistant attorney general blogs against gay student body president

[VandalSquirrel]

Looks like someone has been suspended from their job in light of a protective order issued. They have also been trespassed from campus.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20101...y-bashing-blog

ETA: There's a new Anderson Cooper interview with the AG of Michigan, Mike Cox. I laugh like a little kid when anyone on the show says his name.

[elusive47]

sexually seducing and influencing a previously conservative [male] student

Methinks the closet case was dating the "previously conservative male student", the ex-conservative student left him for the student body president, and now closet case has lost his damn mind.

[sdtennisgal]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Wow.

On top of the idiotic shit he's saying, he's just coming off as a huge loser. Is it bad if I suspect that it will inevitably come out that this guy wanted to hook up with said RADICAL HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA MAN and got rejected?

LOL...saw your post and laughed out loud (as this was my thought too). I think we have a mini-Larry Craig here!

The sad part is he is pulling this crap when that poor kid in New Jersey committed suicide because his college room-mate shamed him about his sexuality. (Some might say the shame was about the internet sex posting, but it had to be about his sexuality).

I think the good news on this is that it might cause some college students (mainly male) to confront the issue of homophobia. From my own experiences, it was almost always the guys who felt threatened. (I remember in college when it came out -pardon the pun- that a very good looking member of our college's track team was gay, the reaction of several women who knew her was: 1. No big deal. 2. Yeah! No chance of my boyfriend hooking up with her!)

BTW: I am a somewhat new poster on here, and I am really glad to see the progressive attitudes, especially from our moderate Republican greek sisters. I hope you ladies can help keep your party from being taken over by the nut jobs.

[sdtennisgal]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

To be fair (and this is probably about as far as I can go to be fair), he's a civil servant (government employee), not a government official (as in elected or appointed official), and everybody seems to have made clear that he has done all of this on his own time, not on state time.

Which means he has no life.

No, I would say he has a life, but an extremely bitter and sad life...

I wonder how many hours a day he "researches" gay websites with scantily clad young men?

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by sdtennisgal

LOL...saw your post and laughed out loud (as this was my thought too). I think we have a mini-Larry Craig here!

The sad part is he is pulling this crap when that poor kid in New Jersey committed suicide because his college room-mate shamed him about his sexuality. (Some might say the shame was about the internet sex posting, but it had to be about his sexuality).

I think the good news on this is that it might cause some college students (mainly male) to confront the issue of homophobia. From my own experiences, it was almost always the guys who felt threatened. (I remember in college when it came out -pardon the pun- that a very good looking member of our college's track team was gay, the reaction of several women who knew her was: 1. No big deal. 2. Yeah! No chance of my boyfriend hooking up with her!)

BTW: I am a somewhat new poster on here, and I am really glad to see the progressive attitudes, especially from our moderate Republican greek sisters. I hope you ladies can help keep your party from being taken over by the nut jobs.

I can say I've noticed lately that more females I'm around now than before seem to be, if not threatened by, uncomfortable around lesbians. I didn't run into this in high school or in the first couple of years of college, but it seems to have come up several times recently. Of course, most of the men I know are at least a little homophobic. I don't know if it's just who I'm around now or what, but I really have noticed an increase in homophobia in females.

I do remember a lesbian woman on campus being mildly interested in coming to a COB party. One of my sorority sisters said she didn't want to even give her a chance because she wouldn't be comfortable being "hit on" by a sister. I asked her what made her think that because Suzy was a lesbian Suzy hit on every female in sight. I fail to understand the need for fear.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

I asked her what made her think that because Suzy was a lesbian Suzy hit on every female in sight. I fail to understand the need for fear.

Yep. I think that's the biggest misconception.

Heterosexual men* and women don't hit on EVERYONE because they're not attracted to EVERYONE. I'm not sure why people feel it's any different for homosexual men and women.

*I know this is a stretch, but y'all get what I'm saying lol

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Yep. I think that's the biggest misconception.

Heterosexual men* and women don't hit on EVERYONE because they're not attracted to EVERYONE. I'm not sure why people feel it's any different for homosexual men and women.

*I know this is a stretch, but y'all get what I'm saying lol

Yeah, it is definitely one of them. Apparently, if you're homosexual you are automatically attracted to every individual of your sex.

[agzg]

Well, I think part of it comes from the fact that many people don't see (straight) men and women as being able to have completely platonic relationships. If they don't think straight people can do it, why would they think gay people would be any different? It's just that they're more willing to risk a non-platonic friendship with a member of the opposite sex than they are with the same sex.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by agzg

Well, I think part of it comes from the fact that many people don't see (straight) men and women as being able to have completely platonic relationships. If they don't think straight people can do it, why would they think gay people would be any different? It's just that they're more willing to risk a non-platonic friendship with a member of the opposite sex than they are with the same sex.

This doesn't make sense to me. I have many male friends that have never hit on me, never made a move, etc. I've never done that, either.

Not to mention, that's no reason to be scared of gays and lesbians. If one friend becomes attracted to the other and it isn't reciprocated, you do what you do if the friends are male/female.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

This doesn't make sense to me. I have many male friends that have never hit on me, never made a move, etc. I've never done that, either.

Not to mention, that's no reason to be scared of gays and lesbians. If one friend becomes attracted to the other and it isn't reciprocated, you do what you do if the friends are male/female.

There are lots of instances of cultures/religions/groups who did or still do believe that men and women are to be separate because they are incapable of forming relationships that are not sexual.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by agzg

There are lots of instances of cultures/religions/groups who did or still do believe that men and women are to be separate because they are incapable of forming relationships that are not sexual.

However for the purposes of this thread, that is not the norm. The norm for most of us here is to have interactions with people of both sexes.

[agzg]

So it's not valid to bring up the fact that just because our (liberal) conventional wisdom is that gay people will not hit on every person of the same sex because straight people don't hit on every person of the opposite sex, other "conventional wisdoms" exist and have existed that men and women indeed can not be trusted to foster completely platonic relationships with one another?

It's not necessarily my view, but I can see where people may draw the conclusion, especially if they believe men and women cannot have platonic frienships. Whether they prescribe to a culture/society/or religion that tells them to remain separate doesn't really matter at that point.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by agzg

So it's not valid to bring up the fact that just because our (liberal) conventional wisdom is that gay people will not hit on every person of the same sex because straight people don't hit on every person of the opposite sex, other "conventional wisdoms" exist and have existed that men and women indeed can not be trusted to foster completely platonic relationships with one another.

Sure, bring it up...it just doesn't really apply to what was being discussed, that's all. Besides, I don't buy that there is a spot in the world where all men will hit on every woman they interact with and vice versa if kept completely seperate. I believe it has more to do with not letting them be alone with one another/in situations which could foster sexual interactions which doesn't even need to apply to relationships...just hormones.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

Sure, bring it up...it just doesn't really apply to what was being discussed, that's all. Besides, I don't buy that there is a spot in the world where all men will hit on every woman they interact with and vice versa if kept completely seperate. I believe it has more to do with not letting them be alone with one another/in situations which could foster sexual interactions which doesn't even need to apply to relationships...just hormones.

woosh

This is what YOU believe. Which is fine. I believe it, too.

That being said, I can understand where people may (or may not) be coming from when they think that gay people are constantly hitting on everyone in their same sex because they like to have sex with people of their same sex.

It's very similar to the thought that men and women cannot have a truly platonic friendship.

People that prescribe to the When Harry Met Sally view of relationships.

I fail to see how that's not relevant to the conversation, and how the conventional wisdom in the United States even was once that men and women could not have platonic relationships (and for a long time were kept separate by society because of it).

I mean, sure, I mentioned other cultures/religions, but I also don't think that the culture/society of the US during the victorian period is the same as the culture/society of the US now.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by agzg

woosh

This is what YOU believe. Which is fine. I believe it, too.

That being said, I can understand where people may (or may not) be coming from when they think that gay people are constantly hitting on everyone in their same sex because they like to have sex with people of their same sex.

It's very similar to the thought that men and women cannot have a truly platonic friendship.

People that prescribe to the When Harry Met Sally view of relationships.

I fail to see how that's not relevant to the conversation, and how the conventional wisdom in the United States even was once that men and women could not have platonic relationships (and for a long time were kept separate by society because of it).

I mean, sure, I mentioned other cultures/religions, but I also don't think that the culture/society of the US during the victorian period is the same as the culture/society of the US now.

I'll put it this way...I have some very self satisfied friends and I still don't know a woman that thinks every single man that meets her is attracted to her.