Add new comment


First of all the terms gay and fag in the way John and his generation use them, do not refer to sexual orientation like they used to. Here this might help explain the concept that is so obviously lost on some

​Secondly John isn't gay basking he is using the terms immaturely as an 18 year old does.

Speaking of immature - everybody's responses above? Is it supposed to be acceptable to respond with crude suggestive statements like above? I have plenty homosexual friends and they have much more class than that - gay or straight, male or female - nobody should be talked about that way, I trust this is not a good representation of the LGBT community

Spoiler alert - John Mangum is not homosexual, not that it is anybody's business. He has never harbored any animosity towards the LGBT community but honestly with some of the things I have been seeing this last week I wouldn't blame him if he did.

Nigel Campbell - way to do some "in depth reporting", using out of context tweets from a 17 year old kid to define his views and opinions, stellar work. Maybe next week you can do an extensive analysis of the third grader in Oklahoma who called somebody a butt pirate. Move over Wolf Blitzer

Also what do you mean when you say "an apparent Christian"? Are you implying that John is not a Christian? Is this because he did a dance in a locker room and used the term fag in a couple of tweets?  Yep you nailed it instant devil worshiper, great journalistic instinct. What a pompous and assuming tone you have in your posts. Though subtle, it is very obvious after looking at your work that you have a negative attitude towards Christian men. Way to find ugliness where it doesn't exist and blast it on display so as to perpetuate animosity. People like you are the problem, not people like John Mangum.