Drawing a Line In the Sand

Perriquine missed a few bits in there.

Should 5 gays be discussing with me about homosexuality, gayness, bears..whatever, and they get into their minds, through chanted rhetoric, that I am a hatemongering homophobe, and they crimp my skull with a bat, there will no be hate crime applied.

Should 5 straights be discussing with a homosexual about homosexuality, gayness, bears...whatever, and they get into their minds, through chanted rhetoric, that the gay is hatemongering destructionist of society, and they crimp his skull with a bat, there will be a hate crime applied.

This is government regulation, to make you behave to a standard, that is geared towards what they, as a government believe you should be behaving at. This is through propaganda, via many governmental systems, and, fear of governental extra punishments.

This is not uncommon with governments and the similar approach to all aspects of societal issues. They want us to behave, and demand/force/enforce the equality of rights to all. It could be argued it is the governments mandate to do so.

The problem rests, in that are they stepping on others rights, in numerous and various degrees to exercise the observance of their mandate for those who are demanding a change. They are doing what they are supposed to be doing, while not doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Even with all other being said, and I am squarely on the side of get the government out of my schools, promoting homosexuality, stop with the hate crimes and treading on my freedom of speech and expression...if this type of legislation had NOT been enacted, then homosexuals would be beaten and hung from trees to this very day, not the random headline amongst thousands of "non" gay, crime murders/beatings w/e....but with the frequency of 50 years ago or some such time frame.

The gays fight for tolerance, with the dream hope of all recognition of them by the populace as being competely not distinct, which requires a lot of governmental intrusion, and a lot of rewriting of moral societal norms, (or even of the redefining of the word normal) foisting arguments of moral relativism, political correctness to control the dialog ect.

This...THIS is the cause and effect of a spiraling moral decay. When your fight uses tools that strip down society into a cesspool of moral relativism, then despite the fact of the validness of your fight...you own a large portion of the responsibility of the weakened moral society because you wielded the tools you did.

Slippery slope isn't a fallacy. It is the resultant product of what our society now is.

 

Sorry man, you and so many others talk about "homosexuals" and "homosexuality" as if it's so very bad/wrong. It typically goes to the point of being dehumanizing. It is no wonder that I and other homosexual people have learned to and WILL push or fight back. Whether people accept that or not, that is the social reality in America.

Honestly, sometimes people are (now) going to get my unfiltered, somewhat visceral but controlled reaction to the same disparaging and often hateful BS that they want to "discuss". Yes, sometimes I will be 'intolerant', but hopefully not a hateful bigot about the firm defense of myself and others who are "homosexual". But no, I generally won't allow anyone to sail-through a conversation, while imposing the same-old, 1960's vintage, anti-gay rhetoric (discussion). Sorry, that is just going to be met with resistance, and I personally won't promise to be particularly 'pleasant' about it 100% of the time. Often as a human being, I just get tired of the fear, hatred, abject ignorance and lies spewed or lobbed at homosexuals and homosexuality.

Yes, sometimes people WILL get a reaction, where they expected a "discussion. Sorry.

I never intend to LABEL anyone in particular, so if that is what you thought 'I' (per se) was after... I regret that. What I'm after is to label what you express, as I actually perceive it. So, I'm will not take back my opinion that MUCH of what you EXPRESSED was apparently bigoted, hateful, insulting and other negative characteristics I won't list right here. And even if I may despise what you say/express, that doesn't mean I must despise you as a person.

I don't think anyone 'intends' to do that. But after all, this topic and those related to it, do surely evoke many of the strongest emotions which can be generated in human beings. Many homosexual people like myself, in this information age... endure fear, hatred, bigotry and homophobia which surely stems from closed-mindedness and IGNORANCE; and none of that is 'always' tolerable. Don't be shocked, when a homosexual person sometimes expresses anger, very strong anger... for it is bound to occur within some of these "discussions".

Sometimes, you'll get something that you don't like. I could share my opinions about many things, which if I err in expressing properly, reasonably or amicably WOULD OFFEND someone. You express you opinion, but do not demand a necessarily amicable or reasoned response, all the time. That is NOT what you'll get, especially when you talk about homosexuality, as if it is something that isn't associated with human 'beings' who are themselves "homosexual"; you'd be expecting too much. I'm being forward about this, to help you understand, in no uncertain terms; you are dealing with PEOPLE... not inanimate objects.

Do people LIE or assume too much about homosexuality? Yes, they DO and they very often expect you to accept what is their OPINION as 'fact', chiseled into the absolute stone of reality itself. I don't know what YOU think of that, but to me (and likely millions of others people who know better) it is often infuriating. Again, don't expect that every OPINION you utter will be embraced with calm, unfailing logic, for you aren't going to get that necessarily.

Hey, you have you views and so do others. Reasonable can/do disagree.

And a lot of them think, believe and feel as 'I' do. Humans, equals, individuals; know what I mean?

Yep.

If you do not expect to be challenged, do not utter your opinions about "homosexuality"; it is typically contentious stuff. Most reasonable people know that.

You are correct. And sometimes, I won't be at all tolerant of what people say. I'm not usually a 'nasty' guy... but there are times where I think it is BEST to remind certain individuals that they are dealing with a HUMAN being, not an unfeeling computer or other 'thing'.

 

I am neither friend nor foe to homosexuals.

I just want the denier whose avatar looks like Christ to know that he's wrong about slippery slopes. That's why pro-abortion groups oppose legislation prohibiting partial birth abortions. It would begin the slippery slope to no abortions.

Any questions? I didn't think there would be.

 

One thing is certain, there is no good reason to deny homosexual people the relationships they seek. And laws which deny them the right to legally partner (marry) with the person who is most compatible with them... is just plain unfair, unjust and unconstitutional (IMO).

 

Well, limiting tax breaks and governmental entitlements to heterosexual couples isnt enforcing morals. Its simply a recognition that the heterosexual couples are the ones procreating. And its NOT the governments job to promote YOUR morals.

 

You commentary above, is essentially 'irrelevant'.

 

Actually, its why you cant marry your boyfriend in 44 states.

 

That's really stupid to say, dixon.

 

This is exactly what you're doing to gay people. Congratulations on so vividly displaying your rank hypocrisy.

Protecting ourselves isn't treading on you. You're the one treading on us.

Yes, I know I said I wouldn't reply, but that was just too easy to pass up.

 

Amen to that!

 

Clearly you don't understand how hate crime law works. Thanks for confirming your ignorance.

The law protects people of ANY orientation, targeted on the basis of their actual or perceived orientation. So heterosexuals are equally covered by the law. Crimes which target someone based on actual or perceived heterosexuality are apparently rare, though.

Neither situation you describe would necessarily meet the prosecutor's burden of proving that a hate crime took place.

Moreover, hate crime law is a bad solution to a worse problem, and it wouldn't exist if people weren't being targeted based on their orientation.

The facts are what matters, not made up hypotheticals used to propagandize and perpertuate anti-gay hate.

 

None can be had when you start out by calling gay people deviants and then attempt to justify that by comparing it to porn, nor when you make a fallacious slippery slope argument that gay equality will lead to legalized bestiality. Your clear aim is to demonize. You knew that 'deviant' is a loaded word, and you used it to evoke negative sentiment toward homosexuality while simultaneously trying to claim that wasn't your aim.

It shouldn't come as any surprise then if we perceive your arguments as lies and/or bigotry.

I don't get the impression that you're the least bit interested in attempting to understand our position, nor even to persuade us to adopt yours. Instead, what I see is exactly what I said in my first post in the thread: nothing new. Just the usual attempt by a moralist to moralize against homosexuality and preach to the choir.

Why bother?

I assert that you are not interested in a conversation. You are here to promote the meme that anti-gay people are victims. We see right through your rhetoric to your true motives. Now that we've revealed them, there seems little point in continuing.

The point being, we don't think anything will change your opinion. You haven't convinced us that you're really seeking a dialogue or that you have an open mind. We have decades of abuse that informs us to be wary and mistrust. You've done absolutely nothing to gain our trust, and so far plenty to confirm that it's well-placed.

Ad populum.

We are 'dealing' with you - just not in the way that you'd prefer.

No. I will not compromise my right to be equal for the comfort and superiority complex of anyone.

 

Right On!!

 

I would not call homosexuals deviants I would say they that homosexuality is an aberration. Sexual deviancy could be an element of homosexuality just as is could be an element of heterosexuality. For instance, both heterosexual and homosexual deviants can sexually abuse underage children.

Homosexuality is not prevalent in human society but it does exist. Some gays may be pre-disposed to it by having a hormonal/endocrine imbalance and some may be drawn to it because of a mental imbalance.

 

Most people living here in 2011, understand well enough... that in reality, homosexuality is neither an aberration nor a form of deviance. It's as NORMAL as heterosexuality.

There are some who via their religion (or other moral/social views) may be of the opinion that it is other than perfectly 'normal'; that is to be exapected.

 

'Normal' is only a relative term. In my post I offered that homosexuality was not prevalent in human society which is true which makes it an aberration.

 

Well, if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, that's your right, and I'm not going to bother trying to change your mind about that.

Now to answer your question about where we should draw the line, I believe we should let others make whatever personal choice they want to make. In what situation should we interfere? When they take any action that harms another person.

I believe in laws that promote a civilized society with order, so obviously I want these laws to protect peace and prevent conflict. If someone is a thief, a rapist, or a murderer, I want them to do time. If someone damages another person's personal property, I want them to be penalized and have to reimburse the owner. If someone decides to assault a person they don't like, I want the attacker to be punished. We have a court system to prevent chaos and vigilante justice. If we didn't have it, people would be running around getting revenge on every person who wronged them. You key my car? I'm going to ruin yours. You and your friends assaulted my brother? Me and my friends are going to assault you back. You get the point. Obviously people go around doing these kinds of things anyway, but no system is perfect, and most people don't actually rely on revenge. We have the police and we have courts to handle these situations.

When it comes to personal choices that only affect the happiness of the people involved? I think we should let everyone live however they think they would be happiest.

I don't consider pedophilia and homosexuality to be equal, because pedophiles take advantage of children who are often not yet old enough to neither have the desire to make sex (especially if they haven't even fully gone through puberty), nor to be able to fully analyze the situation and make a mature decision about whether or not they want to go through with it. Most young girls who are "talked" into having sex by older men feel violated and taken advantage of in their later years, which causes a whole slew of psychological issues. And as for pedophiles who flat-out choose their victims, I don't even think I need to explain how they're causing harm to others.

Two mature adults (or teens), deciding to get into a homosexual relationship or to have gay sex is a completely different thing. They are making a choice they believe will make them happy. Or that they think is fun.

I think the solution to all of this is the following: If you think homosexuality or sex out of marriage is wrong, then just don't be gay or have sex outside of marriage yourself. It's really all that you can do when it comes to this sort of thing.

The fact of the matter is that there are too many different perspectives and beliefs in this world. There will always be people who don't agree with you. So if it doesn't harm you, then why even get upset about it? What do you care if your neighbor is gay? What does it have to do with you? Just live your own life, be happy, and let others do the same. If you believe homosexuality is a sin, then let your god be the judge of that in the end.

 

This was supposed to say "pedophiles who flat-out choose to rape their victims." I can't edit my post above.

 

There is no evidence that same-sex orientation is the result of a hormonal/endocrine imbalance. If it were, it could likely be easily treated.

I'm likewise unaware of any evidence that same-sex orientation is the result of a "mental imbalance".

The reality is that there is no conclusive proof as to a cause. There is, however, a growing body of evidence that leads researchers to various theories of a possible cause. It should go without saying that a lack of conclusive proof for one theory doesn't prove others or that the orientation is a matter of choice or conscious decision making.

We do know that the brains of men and women differ, and we also have evidence that the brains of gay men differ in some ways from heterosexually oriented men while having similarities with heterosexually oriented women. Differences so significant that they're more likely inborn than not.

As for a cause of these differences, the theory is that they might arise from a combination of genetic factors and womb environment. Even identical twins can have differing experiences within the womb, such as level of exposure to hormones, etc. The mother's immune system may also be implicated.

Can we prove that all these things are connected and cause same-sex orientation? Not yet. For one thing, there isn't much funding being provided for the research that would be necessary to replicate results or make new discoveries in this area. For another, our scientific capabilities may not be there yet, either.

I expect the demonization of gay people will continue, whether or not a cause is found.

 

As it refers to the scientific definition of "homosexuality", it's not "relative". Certainly in that (scientific and even social) context, "aberrant" does not apply.

No, that doesn't actually make sense. The fact that around 2-3% of the world's human beings are homosexual, makes homosexual people fairly 'common' (even normal as human sexual behavior is concerned). 3 out of every 100 people, doesn't amount to an "aberration".

 

No, the government's job is to protect rights. Using your argument it is entirely ok to deny rights to racial minorities if it is the will of the people. Twe will of the people is irrelevant and useless in defining what is right and wrong, as it has had a horrible track record in the past.

I am going to dismiss this as a silly conspiracy theory.

You are yet to describe how exactly homosexuality is "immoral" or "wrong".

Riiiigggghhhhttttt. It wasn't me who claimed that my beliefs were based on my religious beliefs, and ethics, that we you. Before I brought the subject up.

I am a "bigot" to unfounded bigotry, the denial of civil rights on religious moral grounds is inexcusable.

What is moral anarchy? Offering equal protection under the law?

 

Herein lies the problem. When the discussion starts from a place where I'm characterized as the opposite of the items I've placed in boldface, then there's no point in even attempting a civil discussion.

The last word - respectability - pretty much says it all. You don't consider us worthy of respect. In point of fact, the anti-gay have a habit of disrespecting gay people. Even if the discussion starts out with mutual respect (extremely rare, since the attacks of the anti-gay are usually front and center in any discussion about us), it quickly devolves the moment we refute any of your propaganda.

Bottom line: Until you start treating us like real people (ahem - your equals), then you've no business expecting us to take you seriously.

 

Seems an accurate description of homosexuality.

ab·er·ra·tion   /ˌæbəˈreɪʃən/ Show Spelled[ab-uh-rey-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1. the act of departing from the right, normal, or usual course.
2. the act of deviating from the ordinary, usual, or normal type.
3. deviation from truth or moral rectitude.

Homosexuality isnt "usual" "normal" or "ordinary" when 90%+ of the population is heterosexual.

 

Can we please stop pretending that the whole kerfluffle over the word 'normal' is anything other than a proxy for arguing that gay people are wacko and/or immoral?

You're not fooling anyone with this crap. We all know that words can have several meanings, and there is no reason whatsoever to go around pointing out that homosexuality is not a statistical norm. I seriously doubt that anyone with half a brain thinks that the majority of people are homosexual in orientation or behavior.

We know exactly what you're trying to convey when you say we aren't "normal". So knock it off and stop baiting us.

It's just further evidence that none of you are here to have an honest discussion.

Seriously, do us all a favor: Don't post any argument that you've already made before about homosexuality. We don't need to hear it again. If it wasn't persuasive the first 99 times, it's not going to be any more so on the 100th iteration.

If it's your first time posting in this subforum, then at least do us the kindness of coming up with something that shows original, critical thought instead of parroting someone else' talking points.

 

What does procreation have to do with this? Are you saying that heterosexual couples that are sterile shouldn't have tax breaks or governmental entitlements?