- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Politics
Pennsylvania State Rep. Mike Fleck Announces He is Gay
Pennsylvania State Rep. Mike Fleck, who is a Republican, publicly came out in an article in the Huntingdon Daily News on Saturday. Rep. Fleck is a graduate of the conservative Christian college Liberty University and once worked as a district executive for the Boy Scouts of America.
Rep. Fleck made the decision to privately come out last year, but now he’s gone public with his years of struggle which culminated with the end of his marriage. He and his wife were married in 2002 but have no children, reports PoliticsPA.com.
Rep. Fleck told the Huntingdon Daily News: “Coming out is hard enough, but doing it in the public eye is definitely something I never anticipated. I’m still the exact same person and I’m still a Republican and, most importantly, I’m still a person of faith trying to live life as a servant of God and the public. The only difference now is that I will also be doing so as honestly as I know how.”
"I sought out treatment from a Christian counselor, but when that didn’t work out, I engaged a secular therapist who told me point blank that I was gay and that I was too caught up in being the perfect Christian rather than actually being authentic and honest."
"Through years of counseling, I’ve met a lot of gay Christians who have tried hard to change their God-given sexual orientation, but at the end of the day, I know of none who’ve been successful. They’ve only succeeded at repressing their identity, only to have it reappear time and time again and always wreaking havoc not only on themselves, but especially on their family."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Has anyone looked up his past
Has anyone looked up his past voting record with respect to gay rights? That'll give us a good indication of his true moral character.
For those keeping score: http://gayhomophobe.com/
Gay people always blame their
Gay people always blame their behavior on a gene that doesn't exist. If this were a proven fact, there would be documentation verifying this statement. If anyone can find such evidence, then other people will be able to claim they are born with a gene for being rapeist, prostitutes,thieves, abortionist, murderers, child abusers, drug addicts, alcoholics and many other actions that go on in this world. The proven fact to all of these behavior problems is that they can be reversed, which means we make the choice to be or not to be. .
Gma9
No one knowledgeable about
No one knowledgeable about the topic claims that there is a gene for it, just that that it is not something they can control. With so many people who are gay desperately wishing that they weren't, it's the height of insult to claim that people are gay just because they want to.
As for the rest of your false equivalence there, someone actually making the claim that there is a gene for a type of behavior actually needs to provide proof that there is really is one - such as all of the studies that show that alcoholic/addictive behavior tends to run in families, which in turn *is* strong evidence that alcoholism and addiction *does* have a genetic component/predisposition.
The evidence on child molestation far more strongly indicates that it is a combination of a learned behavior and a reaction to environmental stresses: the overwhelming majority of child molesters were themselves molested as children - it's just part of the way the human mind works, that it continually repeats traumatic events in various forms to make the traumatic event less threatening to them.
While most of the behaviors you list can be traced back to a form of impulse control issue, which just might have a genetic component or contributor, they do differ as to the direction their poor decision making takes - and that IS at least sometimes under the individuals control.
Nice oversimplification...
Nice oversimplification... thanks for the meaningless analysis. Why don't you start with some data:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/
Proven fact that sexual orientation can be "reversed?" Right....
So what? I don't think he's
So what? I don't think he's going to change his economic positions.
Another case of someone
Another case of someone denying their identity, causing years of unnecessary suffering. How many fake marriages and tortured minds will it take for this hypocrisy to end?
My sympathies are with Mrs
My sympathies are with Mrs Fleck. The only time homosexuality detrimentally effects traditional marriage & families is when homosexuals refuse to to honest & true to themselves. I personally know 6 marriages that ended tragically because one person in each of these marriages was living a lie. In every case, the gay person knew at puberty they were homosexual but married a straight person to have children. Due to the bitterness of their divorces, each one of them lost the affection of their children and ultimately even lost contact with their children. Most of their children didn't hate their gay-parent because of their sexual preference, but because they damaged the other parent so badly & destroyed their childhood. Fifty years ago it might have been excusable for a gay person to hide in a straight marriage just so they would be able to work, buy a home, etc... There is no excuse now for a homosexual to lie to a straight person, promise to be sexually faithful to them for life & marry them. It's cruel & selfish.
Men who abandon their wives
Men who abandon their wives for younger women have never been generally admired, and it would be all too easy to whip up even greater ill-feeling towards men who abandon their wives for other MEN. You've already recruited one disciple in CRW. But I have a feeling of unease about making this the NEXT demographic whom it's politically CORRECT to hate for a change.
I'd also hate my son (for example) to get a stern talk from some counsellor who told him, at puberty, that, since he'd mentioned same-sex attraction, it would be wicked of him to seek to become a family man like his dad, and that he ought therefore to abandon all thoughts of that. I find this latest doctrine a tad harsh.
@John -> I actually find it
@John -> I actually find it appalling when a gay person marries someone of the opposite sex. The most common outcome is unhappiness and divorce. There is NOTHING honorable about anyone who goes into a marriage with false intentions or false feelings.
With respect to homosexual men, it is because of people like you who demonize homosexuality that many gay men and women feel pressured into trying to live a straight life. If people were simply left to follow their gender preferences without being judged, there would be fewer situations like this disaster.
I am sorry you have such a personal problem with homosexuality. Have you sought therapy? It really seems like you have a number of unresolved issues.
"I actually find it appalling
"I actually find it appalling when a gay person marries someone of the opposite sex."
I've never encountered an enthusiast for that particular apartheid before. However, I have been married to somebody whose skin was a different colour from mine, so I know what it's like to be in a marriage that crosses other people's preconceived notions of essential cultural divides, and which therefore becomes the target of the disapproval of a judgmental minority (like that which you just expressed).
"... people like you who demonize homosexuality ..."
Which post here are you referring to, in which you say that I have demonised homosexuality? What did I ACTUALLY say in that post?
"I am sorry you have such a personal problem with homosexuality."
I don't know what you mean.
"Have you sought therapy?"
How is that any of your business?
"It really seems like you have a number of unresolved issues."
Goodness me, yes. Haven't we all?
"There is NOTHING honorable about anyone who goes into a marriage with false intentions or false feelings."
People are likely to agree with that, expressed that way. But a surprisingly large number of people would be a lot less unsympathetic with somebody who put the same idea like this instead: "I thought I would be able to learn to love you as I should. It took me twenty five years to discover what a mistake I'd made. I'm sorry." This is a very old problem, and much more commonplace, and broader, than late-onset homosexuality.
It's debatable which damage-limitation strategy is less likely to cause one to be perceived as a "love rat". Is is saying, "I've changed, and we've therefore grown apart?" Or is it saying, "I haven't changed really, it's just that I've been 'living a lie' up until now. The way I have become, is the way I've always been, deep down inside."
@john You are conflating
@john
You are conflating issues. In all relationships, people can grow apart. This is not the same as being gay, and getting married to someone of the opposite sex anyway, hoping that the gay individual can suppress their primary sexual desires. My wife and I have been together almost 30 years from the time we started dating. We have witness several failed marriages as I am sure so have you. The reasons for divorce are complex but they do fall into categories, which are not equivalent.
There is no such thing as "late onset homosexuality." You make it sound a disease. If someone could be conditioned to be gay later in life, how would that occur in an otherwise happy marriage? C'mon.... Homosexuality is no longer classified as a mental illness that develops. In fact, there is more and more evidence of early indicators of homosexuality. These are not absolute, but they are highly predictive. This is very different from identifying "causes" of homosexuality such as a strong mother figure and a weak father, and all the classic stereotypes which have collapsed over time.
For both men and women who prefer homosexual relationships, there are measurable physical differences in people's biology, including response to hormones, etc. As we have both agreed, sexuality is generally more mutable, but there are orientations and measurable differences. Do a quick google on scholarly articles, and you will find hundreds of articles pointing out these differences.
It is social pressure that drives homosexuals to try to be heterosexual. It is much the way some men in prison will engage in homosexual behavior until released when they revert back to heterosexual preferences.
You have some serious issues with homosexuality. As you already revealed you were victimized and pressured into a homosexual relationship or relationships when you preferred women. However, you cannot then generalize that all gay men can become "straight," or can learn to be happy pretending to be straight. This is an absurd and baseless over-generalization.
If you would simply put away the moralizing and stop trying to impose your morality on others, you might actually be able to forgive your perpetrator and move on.
I have suggested therapy because it must hurt to walk around with so much judgmental hate. Venting on the internet is a one way conversation.
@ CRW It would be less
@ CRW
It would be less confusing if any posts that you addressed to specific people (by clicking on reply, or beginning your posts with, for example, "@john"), contained content that replied to content posted earlier by the people to whom you imply that you are replying.
All sorts of people have all sorts of "serious issues" with homosexuality, and with countless other matters. I don't think people come here so that strangers can speculate about what "serious issues" they might have. I think they come here to discuss the issues that the articles here raise (often evoking opposing views, funnily enough), plus issues which others raise, and which they decide to raise themselves.
I am posting again my posting to which you pretended to be replying, so that people can see just how unconnected your reply was with my posting to which you purported to be replying. Interestingly, since you have accused me of "moralising" (which I haven't been) my posting here repeated begins with what I take to be an earlier "moralising" statement of your own, in quotes.
Earlier posting repeated:
66
"I actually find it appalling when a gay person marries someone of the opposite sex."
I've never encountered an enthusiast for that particular apartheid before. However, I have been married to somebody whose skin was a different colour from mine, so I know what it's like to be in a marriage that crosses other people's preconceived notions of essential cultural divides, and which therefore becomes the target of the disapproval of a judgmental minority (like that which you just expressed).
"... people like you who demonize homosexuality ..."
Which post here are you referring to, in which you say that I have demonised homosexuality? What did I ACTUALLY say in that post?
"I am sorry you have such a personal problem with homosexuality."
I don't know what you mean.
"Have you sought therapy?"
How is that any of your business?
"It really seems like you have a number of unresolved issues."
Goodness me, yes. Haven't we all?
"There is NOTHING honorable about anyone who goes into a marriage with false intentions or false feelings."
People are likely to agree with that, expressed that way. But a surprisingly large number of people would be a lot less unsympathetic with somebody who put the same idea like this instead: "I thought I would be able to learn to love you as I should. It took me twenty five years to discover what a mistake I'd made. I'm sorry." This is a very old problem, and much more commonplace, and broader, than late-onset homosexuality.
It's debatable which damage-limitation strategy is less likely to cause one to be perceived as a "love rat". Is is saying, "I've changed, and we've therefore grown apart"? Or is it saying, "I haven't changed really, it's just that I've been 'living a lie' up until now. The way I have become, is the way I've always been, deep down inside."?
99
I couldn't agree more.
I couldn't agree more. However, even today family pressures lead to identity denial. Our children have friends struggling today with sexual identity because of fear of losing their immediate family relationships.
My wife and I have seen men and women come out after 40 and pretty much destroy their marriages and families. The worst was a very promiscuous gay man who ended up giving his wife AIDS - the ultimate injustice.
That explains the tie, then.
That explains the tie, then.
At least he _tried_. You
At least he _tried_. You have to give him credit for _that_.
I sort of liked the guy for
I sort of liked the guy for his honesty, but then shuddered at his naivety, and the simplistic extremism.
Sensible people who have opinions at all about human sexuality, seem to be caught in the cross-fire, in the no-man's land of a trench warfare pitched battle. They are stuck between belligerent extremists who say that sexual practices are entirely a matter of unfettered human free will (even though they would not make that claim for anything else in life), and opposing extremists who reply, "nonsense: scientists have discovered something called 'sexual orientation', which is an immutable, innate, biological characteristic, that is entirely morally neutral, and which everybody has, whether they admit it or not, comparable to eye colour, and left- or right-handedness."
This one man's own life-experiences ought to have taught him, more than most people, that both these extremist positions are absurd generalisations, even though there will be individuals whose own personal journey is easier to make sense of by adopting one extreme rather than the other.
Yet he seems, instead, to have abandoned something close to the first extremist position, and flipped straight over to the opposing extremist position. It's as though he has learnt nothing that isn't utterly shallow, from troublesome experiences that ought to have made him ready to teach wisdom to others. What a waste of a life!
John -> I hate to remind you
John -> I hate to remind you that anecdotes are not evidence. I believe I have used this in response to some of your other posts. There are homosexuals who have heterosexual experiences and even marriages as this man has demonstrated. Also, there are straight people who have had homosexual experiences and relationships as well. In this, you are correct that sexuality is more mutable for most people than anyone likes to believe. HOWEVER, you cannot speak for every person or even the majority of people who have had a homosexual experience based on your personal experience. Based on your personal experience, you are yourself overgeneralizing. Seems a little ironic....
Sexual attraction is a hard wired response. A person cannot be forced to be attracted to another. You cannot control impulses - just the responses you have in some instances. However, for most people sexuality is not like changing clothing - you cannot switch any time you feel like it.
How about the fact this man tried to live the straight life, sought therapy when he could not pretend to be straight, and realized he would never be comfortable, loving, or connected to another person by pretending to be straight. He didn't suddenly switch it off and then on again later. You make it sound like he dyed his hair. Your judgmental statement "It's as though he has learnt nothing that isn't utterly shallow" seems like a completely baseless projection of your own experiences onto a man you have never met.
"I hate to remind you that
"I hate to remind you that anecdotes are not evidence."
Anecdotes ARE evidence. A single counter-example refutes a generalisation, for example. It is mere assertion that isn't evidence.
"There are homosexuals who have heterosexual experiences and even marriages as this man has demonstrated. Also, there are straight people who have had homosexual experiences and relationships as well. In this, you are correct that sexuality is more mutable for most people than anyone likes to believe."
(I thought you thought that some people - such as myself - liked to believe that sexual orientation was MORE mutable than YOU liked to say it was.)
You remind me of the obnoxious, vegetarian, pacifist feminist I once picked up when she was hitch-hiking, who explained the entire journey that a whole list of virtues were "feminine" characteristics, whilst a whole list of vices were "masculine". (Sugar and spice and all things nice -v- slugs and snails and puppy-dogs' tails.) Every counter-example I used to refute her generalisation was either a man behaving "like" a woman, or a woman behaving "like" a man. Your world has ducks that don't quack, and animals that quack that aren't ducks, so-to-speak, for whatever reason you need to keep it that way. In my world, "sexual orientation" is more BOGUS a supposed biological attribute than DOCTRINAIRE people at one end of the two extremes I identified like to PRETEND it is.
"HOWEVER, you cannot speak for every person or even the majority of people who have had a homosexual experience based on your personal experience."
I wasn't purporting to speak for ANYBODY but myself, or about any personal experience, other than the feeling of being stranded in no-mans' land between untrenched extremists, whenever the subject of "gayness" is discussed.
"Based on your personal experience, you are yourself overgeneralizing."
You cannot "over" generalise. "MANY cows eat grass" isn't a GENERAL-isation. I didn't make ANY generalisations in my posting.
"Sexual attraction is a hard wired response."
But you have made a generalisation. "Sexual attraction is a hard wired response." That's a generalisation. It's also a scientific hypothesis, without a shred of evidence to support it that you've cited. It is also (in the context) a self-contradiction. (Compare that with your earlier assertions!)
The shallowness I referred to - and there was little or no "projection" involved, was the APPARENT switching of an individual (whom I may have misjudged harshly, because I'd never heard of him before) from one extreme position, to an opposing extreme position. I don't think that the MAJORITY of the population, have the huge emotional investment that an angry few seem to have, either in believing that EVERYBODY is either "gay" or "straight" more-or-less by nature (a hypothesis that is clearly negated by overwhelming anecdotal evidence), or insisting that NOBODY even has a TENDENCY in one or other direction that is laid down quite early in life and which makes it harder for them than for most people, to choose a habitual behaviour pattern or "lifestyle" as freely as others can (a hypothesis that is ALSO clearly negated by overwhelming anecdotal evidence.)
Most of this sounded like
Most of this sounded like nonsense to me.
What's wrong with a vegetarian, pacifist feminist? Why is it so wrong that she listed traits you consider to manly? Why is it wrong that she may want to define herself as masculine? Everyone sees themselves differently, and should be able to describe and see themselves as they please, so what makes you so special that you should be writing the book with the rules on what sex gets what traits? Why does it have to be black and white?
OK, maybe this girl was annoying because she was preachy. Fine. But you didn't really say that. You make it sound like she was obnoxious because she didn't eat meat... why do you care? Her choices have no impact on your life. And she's a pacifist, once again, why do you care? Why are you the judge? Why is being nonviolent a terrible thing, especially since I'm betting you're a pro-lifer. And so what if she was a feminist? The term means she believes men and women should have equal rights. So if you think women should vote because men can, you're a feminist. You really think its a terrible thing is she has some traits that are less than feminine? Are you so terrified of the gender bending lines? Why does this frighten you so much that a women may act occasionally like a man and vice versa? Why did you argue with her, and about what? Did you just what to fight with her about how much you disapproved of her personality? Would you be hurt if the situation was reversed and someone was criticizing your lifestyle like that? I'm so confused on why this gender separation is so important.
"Most of this sounded like
"Most of this sounded like nonsense to me."
It's obvious you didn't understand what I wrote.
Why don't you actually do
Why don't you actually do some research rather than continuing to defend an indefensible position?
You have a problem with homosexuality. It seems to continually affect your postings. Also, if you believe anecdotes are evidence you don't understand how data analysis works.
What "position" do you claim
What "position" do you claim that I am "defending"?
I've told you what my problem is "with homosexuality". It's that a great deal of what is posted about "homosexuality" these days, comes from people with extreme and simplistic ideological positions that THEY aren't so much "defending", as remaining entrenched in, whilst attacking an opposite and equally extreme and simplistic position. I talked about feeling as though I was "caught in the cross-fire" and in "no-man's land". Remember?
Surprise surprise another gay
Surprise surprise another gay republican wow!! who woulda thunk it??? anybody with ANY maturity knows typically people who protest the loudest who outwardly ridicule others loudly and or with violence are usually the very people living the lifestyle of those they hate!! the republican party really screwed themselves with their southern strategy / getting right wing christian hate groups into their supposive ''BIG TENT" LMAO republicans in the 70's were so desperate for new voters they accepted the crazy religious NUTS now the party is beholdin to these so called phony christians
..and I can tell you there
..and I can tell you there are more in the military and in the GOP. I'm surrounded by them. I can tell you there were many, shall we say, in Bush's Administration.
But there are many GOP who've retired. There are some who are in the public's eye that everyone knows.
But I think it's not right to out anyone. But the hypocrisy of the far right is what drives these guys into the closet. So when people talk about the hypocrisy of the GOP, this would be yet, another example.