Ellen Page is gay

[Hammock Parties]

Well, that's interesting.

http://gawker.com/ellen-page-comes-o...ium=socialflow

Actress Ellen Page publicly came out as gay Friday evening, while giving a speech at Time to THRIVE, a national LGBTQ youth conference held in Las Vegas.

"I'm here today because I am gay," Page told the assembled crowd, which responded with a standing ovation and a long chorus of cheers.

"Whoo!" said Page, before continuing:

"And because maybe I can make a difference. To help others have an easier and more hopeful time. Regardless, for me, I feel a personal obligation and a social responsibility.

I also do it selfishly because I'm tired of hiding and I'm tired of lying by omission. I suffered for years because I was scared to be out. My spirit suffered, my mental health suffered, and my relationships suffered. And I'm standing here today with all of you on the other side of that pain."

Page is most famous for becoming pregnant by her awkward classmate Michael Cera, and for invading the dreams of a stranger alongside Leonardo DiCaprio, neither of which happened in real life, because she is an actress.

After her speech, the Human Rights Campaign, which organized the conference, congratulated Page on the front page of its website for "her brave decision to live openly and authentically."

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

I'm not going to say that gay bashers are secretly gay, but you do have to wonder about what it is about homosexuality that elicits such a hateful reaction.

To clarify, I'm speaking specifically of gay bashers that aren't religious and/or have never had a negative encounter with a homosexual (like being molested by a gay uncle or being close to someone growing up that was molested by a gay, etc.)

That's the simple part.

People are assholes and they are prejudiced against people who are different. Some people are bigger asshole and their prejudices develop into full blown bigotry.

I'm not really sure there's some magic answer here. Some people are just assholes who are always looking for someone to be an asshole to.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

That's the same study I"m talking about. I know that this silly study, which was designed around reaching a specific conclusion, exists. Now let's apply common sense... does anything ELSE increase bloodflow that could make your cock expand a bit? There are a multitude of things that can cause it aside from sexual arousal... you know things like nervousness, stress, anger, and even fear. Ya think MAYBE these things could impact a study that is targeting people who are nervous, stressed, angry and fearful of gay people? Measuring penis circumference is not a good way to tell if someone is aroused, and a slight increase is NOT a boner. It's not scientific. It's dick measuring. Just stop and IMAGINE this thing taking place.

It's a bullshit study designed to justify a bullshit argument. However since it reaches the desired conclusion (which is to, again, emasculate people by calling them gay... which seems counter to the whole 'supportive of gay people' position) it's often cited and is plastered all over the ****ing internet.

I'm looking for the study I'm talking about, but I did find the study which imaged people's brains under similar circumstances (also with various control groups) to be far more reliable than a dick measuring session. If I can't find it... believe what you want. I view you as a pretty empirically minded guy, so honestly I'm surprised you'd buy into such a silly agenda driven study.

Look, I'm fully supportive of gay folks. Get married, adopt babies... I'm all for it. If you want to get to the root of why people hate gays, the best place to start is by being honest about it.

There's plenty of other studies that support the notion of some homophobic behavior being linked to denial or unacknowledged homosexual desires.

Take a look at these:

http://www.livescience.com/19563-hom...mosexuals.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...-+ScienceDaily)

http://www.ncbi..nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

http://her.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/1/97.full

[Donger]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

This thread has been on the front page for days.

Obviously folks here care.

A lot.

A lot of people rubberneck at accident scenes, too.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Donger

A lot of people rubberneck at accident scenes, too.

I bet you're like Vizzini from Princess Bride IRL. You just give off the smug vibe of a mildly intelligent little man.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

That's the simple part.

People are assholes and they are prejudiced against people who are different. Some people are bigger asshole and their prejudices develop into full blown bigotry.

I'm not really sure there's some magic answer here. Some people are just assholes who are always looking for someone to be an asshole to.

That's the thing, though. If that were the case and it were so cut and dry, they'd all hate anyone that wasn't like them- not just gays. And honestly, it seems to have a much stronger focus on gay males (and masculine lesbians) than their female counterparts.

Why care? Why do they care so much?

I'm sure there's no blanket statement that could be true for all of them but it makes me wonder..

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Donger

A lot of people rubberneck at accident scenes, too.

A lot of people slow down at accident scenes.

You and others are parking your cars on the side of the road and actively walking up to the scene of the accident. And not to help, either.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Fish

There's plenty of other studies that support the notion of some homophobic behavior being linked to denial or unacknowledged homosexual desires.

Take a look at these:

http://www.livescience.com/19563-hom...mosexuals.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...-+ScienceDaily)

http://www.ncbi..nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

http://her.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/1/97.full

Firstly I'm not saying it's a non occurrence, I'm saying it's not the norm. I also find the supporting studies to be flimsy. However I'll read these and give you my immediate reaction, given I literally am bored out of my ****ing mind right now.

Link #1 is basically a word association game where conclusions were reached based on the reaction time. There is nothing that could be reached conclusively by these methods. Again, the whole thing seems DESIGNED around reaching a certain conclusion. I suppose one could call that a prediction, but the means to achieve it is hardly convincing to me.

Okay, so I'll move on to link #2. ... That's the same study as link 1. Two papers about the same study are not multiple examples man. You're better than that. I'm not reading all of that.

Okay I'll move on to link #3 This is the penis measuring study! Do you find any reason, after the facts I provided about how your penis responds to various emotions, to still think this is a valid study? They could not control the variables. It's flawed.

Okay, how about link #4 This is about self loathing homosexuals and how it impacts their health in a negative way. It's not about closet homosexuals venting rage on gay people. Interesting read, but not even on topic.

You didn't expect me to actually read those links did you? You're better than this man. While I can't convince you of what I read (I wish I could find that ****in' link) I insist it's methods were far superior to these two studies.

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by SNR

A lot of people slow down at accident scenes.

You and others are parking your cars on the side of the road and actively walking up to the scene of the accident. And not to help, either.

I've posted in this thread six times. You're currently sitting at 30.

Donger is at 134, almost one hundred posts greater than Baby Lee in second place with 39.

Rubbernecking, indeed.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by SNR

A lot of people slow down at accident scenes.

You and others are parking your cars on the side of the road and actively walking up to the scene of the accident. And not to help, either.

On the contrary. I'm absolutely trying to help.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by KC native

I bet you're like Vizzini from Princess Bride IRL. You just give off the smug vibe of a mildly intelligent little man.

I'm not sure what implication you are trying to make, but okay.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Pablo

I've posted in this thread six times. You're currently sitting at 30.

Donger is at 134, almost one hundred posts greater than Baby Lee in second place with 39.

Rubbernecking, indeed.

I wonder how many people circle around dozens of times to rubberneck at the same accident.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

That's the thing, though. If that were the case and it were so cut and dry, they'd all hate anyone that wasn't like them- not just gays. And honestly, it seems to have a much stronger focus on gay males (and masculine lesbians) than their female counterparts.

Why care? Why do they care so much?

I'm sure there's no blanket statement that could be true for all of them but it makes me wonder..

Well, it's easy to target them.

The weird thing is that if homosexuality were strictly a female thing, nobody would care at all. I really believe that. There's something about man on man action that gets guys blood hot. I've seen studies that support it, but as Fish has pointed out I cannot provide any evidence of it (yet, I'm still looking for it).

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Pablo

I've posted in this thread six times. You're currently sitting at 30.

Donger is at 134, almost one hundred posts greater than Baby Lee in second place with 39.

Rubbernecking, indeed.

Now THIS guy really cares. He did math and stuff.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by patteeu

If you believe that it's important to promote procreation and child rearing in intact nuclear families, it's rational to promote the kinds of living arrangements that make that most likely. One way to do it is to give special benefits to traditional marriages, but not to people who choose to live life in other arrangements (single, cohabitation, same sex couples, three or more adult partners, etc.).

What about straight couples who have no desire to procreate or those that know before they get married that they cannot procreate? In your scenario, they shouldn't be allowed to marry either and enjoy the "special benefits" of marriage.

Originally Posted by patteeu

If you believe that a child is best served by having a parent of each sex who live together in a committed relationship, then opposing adoption by single people or gay couples or groups of three or more is rational.

I guess individuals that feel this way should be pushing for legislation to have all children raised by single parents put up for adoption by traditional families.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by KC native

Actually, the last time that someone claimed there were rational arguments for it (just pedofilin' by), he ducked out without ever saying what the rational arguments were.

You do love to troll and lie. I can't imagine why Frazod thought you were a worthless piece of shit.