or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ignorance about what "harms children"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ignorance about what "harms children"

post #1 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
When school age children watch videos that tell them it's perfectly "normal" to be gay, that's not tolerance. I'm not talking about helping a teenager accept his sexuality mind you, I'm talking about these kinds of things aimed at 5 year olds. It happens all the time. Gays are in the minority by a huge number. It is not normal whatsoever to have them in the majority or even equal in number. Sexuality exists for the purpose of human procreation. It is a fact that some people (and for that matter animals) are gay and therefore "different" in a manner of speaking. Trying to pretend that being gay is natural and normal as being straight is ludicrous. By the very laws of nature, it's not.

That said, I know many gay people and I have no, I repeat no ill will towards them based on their sexuality. However, I think that because of certain aspects of our culture, some do in fact choose to live as gay. While we can debate whether being gay is a choice or not, we cannot debate that being a minority race is not a choice in any capacity. So your comparison there is somehwhat flawed.

Once again, the only right I oppose for gays is the right to marry. It changes the definition of marriage. Since we're willing to change it for being gay, why not change it in other ways? Why can't we marry more than one person, for example? Maybe that's a genetic difference too. I mean, after all, some animal species have multiple mates. Maybe we should have a tolerance campaign and marriage rights for those folks too.

I have an 8 year-old daughter. The day that she can go to school and the INSTANT she is faced with questions about sexuality (whether that be at 5 years old or 15), she either knows nothing about it, or everything about it, is the day the "gay agenda" is a success in terms of education.

It is a fact that children from a very young age are taught by society that being gay is WRONG. Until that is no longer a fact, there needs to be someoene else out there pointing out that such claims are bullshit. You cannot have equality at any age when only one side has a voice. The difference in the "sides", however, is that the anti-gay side states that being gay is WRONG WRONG WRONG! while the tolerance side makes no such claims about heterosexuality.

So at this point, if an 8 year-old is given a book called "My Two Daddies", then it is a good thing. It does not tell them that being gay is wrong or right, just that it is acceptable and a part of life, and a part of society, which it is, no matter whether it's 10% or 2%.

There is absolutely no pretense whatsoever, that being gay is not a minority trait. Just like ther is no pretense that being American Indian is not a minority trait. Yet we are bombarded with the anti-gay message constantly, whereas we have finally progressed enough that most people no longer claim that black people or Mexicans (well except illegal immigrants) are bad (they used to - we just grew up as a society).

"Sexuality exists for the purpose of human procreation."

Only someone completely non-sexual in nature can make such an ignorant statement. You must either be really, really fat, or really really ugly in this day and age to not admit that sex has much more social importance than procreation.

"It is a fact that some people (and for that matter animals) are gay and therefore 'different' in a manner of speaking. Trying to pretend that being gay is natural and normal as being straight is ludicrous."

Um... is it just me, or does everybody welse not notice that those two sentences are completely contradictory?

Is being American Indian not as natural and normal as being white? No one is pretending anything. It is natural, as you admit. It is therefore normal. Or do you not understand the meaning of those two words?

"However, I think that because of certain aspects of our culture, some do in fact choose to live as gay."

Fact: You cannot "choose" be gay if you're not gay. However, bisexuality does exist. A bisexual CAN choose... and (get this) SHOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT. But a homosexual cannot choose. Nor can a heterosexual. I know because I'm a heterosexual man and would choose to be bisexual if I could, but I can't. I am just biologically not attracted to men sexually.

All of these are... NORMAL. And even kids need to either know this, or be ignorant of sexuality altogether. I don't think the latter is possible in this information age.

"Once again, the only right I oppose for gays is the right to marry. It changes the definition of marriage."

Liar... for one, you just said that you oppose the right to teach tolerance in schools. How about adoption? I bet you oppose that as well. Am I wrong?

And no, it does not change the definition of marriage. It changes YOUR definition of marriage. Marriage is, and will always be a sacred and legal union of two persons. That is the most basic definition. It is only in recent times and in religious context that any further "definition" has been made, by people with an obvious "anti-gay" agenda.

Now in times of poor prosperity and high mortality, there is a reason to promote heterosexuality. This is why it was once adopted as part of society. In addition, every religion wants to grow its ranks as fast as possible, to increase revenue and power. This is the reason religions frown on homosexuality.

Whenever you look ad social opinion, you should look into the reason behind social opinion, and consider whether such ideas might no longer be beneficial in the current context.

In a rich society, where birth rates are not just satisfactory for growth, but excessive, there is no reason to promote procreation. There is no social benefit to having as many babies as possible. So a non-reproductive relationship, which can provide other benefits, should be welcomed. We are no longer in the "bad old days". We can now afford the luxury of the tolerance of homosexuality.

I'm seriously saddened by the lack of thought you put into your position here, and I hope you can reconsider the following ideas:

1) In a period of prosperity, homosexuality harms neither society nor any individual.

2) No one is trying to convert straight people to become gay.

3) No one is forcing you as an individual, to change your own beliefs, just your actions which may harm others.

4) Gay marriage would be the only way to allow the same level of sanctity in genuine loving relationships between two consenting adults, who, as you admit, were born different.

5) Integration of homosexuality into society can accurately be compared to integration in terms of gender (sex) or race.

Please take a moment to ask yourself, "Who does being gay actually HARM?"

The answer should be "no one". If it is not, then something has to be fixed so that it is.
post #2 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
I have an 8 year-old duaghter. The day that she can go to school and the INSTANT she is faced with questions about sexuality (whether that be at 5 years old or 15), she either knows nothing about it, or everything about it, is the day the "gay agenda" is a success in terms of education.

First, I'm going to do you a favor and pretend that the above sentence makes some sort of sense.

That said most children at the age of five or eight know very little about heterosexual sex and understand even less about relationship forms.

My son is six and within the last year I was informed he started crying when he found out my wife and I were married. The reason...nothing agenda driven by any group... he wanted to marry his mom. This year year he has mentioned he wanted to marry his first grade teacher. The fact that she is already married and in fact has is clearly showing that a child is on the way is apparently of no consequence to the six year old.

Quote:
It is a fact that children from a very young age are taught by society that being gay is WRONG. Until that is no longer a fact, there needs to be someoene else out there pointing out that such claims are bullshit.

How is this a fact? I live in a family in which two out of five children on my mother's side are gay. I was never taught even one time that they were wrong. I was told that their significant others were "roomates" but I still called them aunt or uncle and absolutely still loved them as family. No one explained to me how my aunt and uncle were screwing so no one felt compelled to explain how my uncle and uncle were screwing either.

Quote:
You cannot have equality at any age when only one side has a voice. The difference in the "sides", however, is that the anti-gay side states that being gay is WRONG WRONG WRONG! while the tolerance side makes no such claims about heterosexuality.

Sorry but equality does not equal the right to scream in someone's ear or inject their agenda into anothers family.

Quote:
So at this point, if an 8 year-old is given a book called "My Two Daddies", then it is a good thing. It does not tell them that being gay is wrong or right, just that it is acceptable and a part of life, and a part of society, which it is, no matter whether it's 10% or 2%.

Nonsense. Children encounter alternative family forms all the time and it doesn't mean schools can or should teach every possible combination nor does it mean that teaching one makes them hate all others.

Quote:
There is absolutely no pretense whatsoever, that being gay is not a minority trait. Just like ther is no pretense that being American Indian is not a minority trait. Yet we are bombarded with the anti-gay message constantly, whereas we have finally progressed enough that most people no longer claim that black people or Mexicans (well except illegal immigrants) are bad (they used to - we just grew up as a society).

Don't you feel a bit idiotic comparing genetic traits that govern appearance to genetic traits that govern behavior?

You are right that it is wrong to legislate against someone merely for being an American Indian. However it is not wrong to legislate against drunk driving. The fact that the American Indian might have a genetic prediposition toward alcoholism or drinking excessively wouldn't make such a law wrong, racist or any other term of hate you care to tack on.

We legislate against behavior, genetically based or not, all the time. We legislate against excessive violence, excessive risk-taking, even bad vision.

You also neglect to mention that if sexual behavior is purely genetic, then that means bad sexual behavior is also purely genetic and we have no qualms about legislating against that behavior.

Quote:
"Sexuality exists for the purpose of human procreation."

Only someone completely non-sexual in nature can make such an ignorant statement. You must either be really, really fat, or really really ugly in this day and age to not admit that sex has much more social importance than procreation.

I'm sorry but the "you are fat and ugly and thus wrong" argument is not very persuasive.

Quote:
"It is a fact that some people (and for that matter animals) are gay and therefore 'different' in a manner of speaking. Trying to pretend that being gay is natural and normal as being straight is ludicrous."

Um... is it just me, or does everybody welse not notice that those two sentences are completely contradictory?

Something can still occur in nature and still be abnormal. Being albino for example is something that occurs within nature but is still abnormal.

Quote:
Is being American Indian not as natural and normal as being white? No one is pretending anything. It is natural, as you admit. It is therefore normal. Or do you not understand the meaning of those two words?

I went ahead and explained this to you. Please read it slowly and carefully. Repeat until comprehension kicks in.

Quote:
Fact: You cannot "choose" be gay if you're not gay. However, bisexuality does exist. A bisexual CAN choose... and (get this) SHOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT. But a homosexual cannot choose. Nor can a heterosexual. I know because I'm a heterosexual man and would choose to be bisexual if I could, but I can't. I am just biologically not attracted to men sexually.

If sexual studies that have attempted to destigmatize homosexuality have shown anything it is that the sort of black and white reasoning you apply above does not exist. According to such studies there are indeed shades of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Just because you cannot choose does not mean somene else can't. Also there is a range of touch well before sex. Could you hug a man? How about kiss for greetings? How about kiss for affection? Etc.

Quote:
All of these are... NORMAL. And even kids need to either know this, or be ignorant of sexuality altogether. I don't think the latter is possible in this information age.

They might exist. You might not consider them negative or wrong but that does not mean they are normal. Normal does mean conforming to the standard, typical or expected.

Quote:
Liar... for one, you just said that you oppose the right to teach tolerance in schools. How about adoption? I bet you oppose that as well. Am I wrong?

Isn't it nice to just claim a word.... like tolerance...

Claiming you promote tolerance allows you to avoid thought or reasoning. I could claim to be promoting tolerance when promoting almost any agenda. Disagree with me and you are simply intolerant.

Quote:
And no, it does not change the definition of marriage. It changes YOUR definition of marriage. Marriage is, and will always be a sacred and legal union of two persons. That is the most basic definition. It is only in recent times and in religious context that any further "definition" has been made, by people with an obvious "anti-gay" agenda.

The definition of marriage has changed countless times. Marriage hasn't always been two people. It hasn't always been people over 18. The definition has changed over time and religion hasn't been the only force driving that change.

Quote:
Now in times of poor prosperity and high mortality, there is a reason to promote heterosexuality. This is why it was once adopted as part of society. In addition, every religion wants to grow its ranks as fast as possible, to increase revenue and power. This is the reason religions frown on homosexuality.

So the fact that the little part of the globe you live on happens to, by some standards have more prosperity and lower morality means you can do as you wish and impose your agenda on others? Does it mean that if those two traits don't exist that you are full of shit? What if they exist now and change later. Does that mean that homosexuality becomes wrong again?

Quote:
Whenever you look ad social opinion, you should look into the reason behind social opinion, and consider whether such ideas might no longer be beneficial in the current context.

Perhaps we aren't looking at social opinion. Perhaps we are looking at evolutionary traits, or natural law.

Quote:
In a rich society, where birth rates are not just satisfactory for growth, but excessive, there is no reason to promote procreation. There is no social benefit to having as many babies as possible. So a non-reproductive relationship, which can provide other benefits, should be welcomed. We are no longer in the "bad old days". We can now afford the luxury of the tolerance of homosexuality.

Your view is profoundly ignorant. We are basically watching as rich, tolerant societies kill themselves off. The immigrants that are replacing the lack of off-spring in such societies are more than willing to impose the views that give them a higher reproductive rate.

You can dismiss this reality. However no one is above nature.

Quote:
1) In a period of prosperity, homosexuality harms neither society nor any individual.

Regardless of prosperity and regardless of harm, people have the right to legislate bahavior.

Quote:
2) No one is trying to convert straight people to become gay.

Conversion is irrelevent. We retain the right to legislate behavior even if no one else is trying to get one to partake in that behavior. I don't have to have someone trying or not trying to convince me to drive drunk, slap a woman or anything else to know they are worth dealing with via legislation.

Quote:
3) No one is forcing you as an individual, to change your own beliefs, just your actions which may harm others.

No one has undertaken actions to harm homosexuals. Voting is a right and exercising that right is not harming others.

Quote:
4) Gay marriage would be the only way to allow the same level of sanctity in genuine loving relationships between two consenting adults, who, as you admit, were born different.

Polygamy would be the only way to allow the same level of sanctity for three, five or twenty consenting adults. Yet we still do not allow this.

Quote:
5) Integration of homosexuality into society can accurately be compared to integration in terms of gender (sex) or race.

Anyone who can understand the difference between a physical attribute and behavior understands you are not comparing the same types of items.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #3 of 248
Thread Starter 
I'll take the time to go through this later. But first, a thought... who clearly wants to "impose their agenda"? The pro-tolerance (of being gay) or the anti-gay? One of those groups is trying to change others' behavior, not just their beliefs.
post #4 of 248
There's a couple of different issues here...

First, if there is a single religion that accepts gay marriage, denying it at the state level is making a law preventing the free practice of said religion.

Second, if people want to argue that marriage is so sacred and religious, government shouldn't have any hand in it at all. NO OFFICIAL STATE MARRIAGE FOR ANYONE! Civil Unions should be for ALL instead.

Either way, it's bullshit to deny people the same rights. Separate but equal should NEVER fly.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #5 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
First, I'm going to do you a favor and pretend that the above sentence makes some sort of sense.

That said most children at the age of five or eight know very little about heterosexual sex and understand even less about relationship forms.

My son is six and within the last year I was informed he started crying when he found out my wife and I were married. The reason...nothing agenda driven by any group... he wanted to marry his mom. This year year he has mentioned he wanted to marry his first grade teacher. The fact that she is already married and in fact has is clearly showing that a child is on the way is apparently of no consequence to the six year old.



How is this a fact? I live in a family in which two out of five children on my mother's side are gay. I was never taught even one time that they were wrong. I was told that their significant others were "roomates" but I still called them aunt or uncle and absolutely still loved them as family. No one explained to me how my aunt and uncle were screwing so no one felt compelled to explain how my uncle and uncle were screwing either.



Sorry but equality does not equal the right to scream in someone's ear or inject their agenda into anothers family.



Nonsense. Children encounter alternative family forms all the time and it doesn't mean schools can or should teach every possible combination nor does it mean that teaching one makes them hate all others.



Don't you feel a bit idiotic comparing genetic traits that govern appearance to genetic traits that govern behavior?

You are right that it is wrong to legislate against someone merely for being an American Indian. However it is not wrong to legislate against drunk driving. The fact that the American Indian might have a genetic prediposition toward alcoholism or drinking excessively wouldn't make such a law wrong, racist or any other term of hate you care to tack on.

We legislate against behavior, genetically based or not, all the time. We legislate against excessive violence, excessive risk-taking, even bad vision.

You also neglect to mention that if sexual behavior is purely genetic, then that means bad sexual behavior is also purely genetic and we have no qualms about legislating against that behavior.



I'm sorry but the "you are fat and ugly and thus wrong" argument is not very persuasive.



Something can still occur in nature and still be abnormal. Being albino for example is something that occurs within nature but is still abnormal.



I went ahead and explained this to you. Please read it slowly and carefully. Repeat until comprehension kicks in.



If sexual studies that have attempted to destigmatize homosexuality have shown anything it is that the sort of black and white reasoning you apply above does not exist. According to such studies there are indeed shades of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Just because you cannot choose does not mean somene else can't. Also there is a range of touch well before sex. Could you hug a man? How about kiss for greetings? How about kiss for affection? Etc.



They might exist. You might not consider them negative or wrong but that does not mean they are normal. Normal does mean conforming to the standard, typical or expected.



Isn't it nice to just claim a word.... like tolerance...

Claiming you promote tolerance allows you to avoid thought or reasoning. I could claim to be promoting tolerance when promoting almost any agenda. Disagree with me and you are simply intolerant.



The definition of marriage has changed countless times. Marriage hasn't always been two people. It hasn't always been people over 18. The definition has changed over time and religion hasn't been the only force driving that change.



So the fact that the little part of the globe you live on happens to, by some standards have more prosperity and lower morality means you can do as you wish and impose your agenda on others? Does it mean that if those two traits don't exist that you are full of shit? What if they exist now and change later. Does that mean that homosexuality becomes wrong again?



Perhaps we aren't looking at social opinion. Perhaps we are looking at evolutionary traits, or natural law.



Your view is profoundly ignorant. We are basically watching as rich, tolerant societies kill themselves off. The immigrants that are replacing the lack of off-spring in such societies are more than willing to impose the views that give them a higher reproductive rate.

You can dismiss this reality. However no one is above nature.



Regardless of prosperity and regardless of harm, people have the right to legislate bahavior.



Conversion is irrelevent. We retain the right to legislate behavior even if no one else is trying to get one to partake in that behavior. I don't have to have someone trying or not trying to convince me to drive drunk, slap a woman or anything else to know they are worth dealing with via legislation.



No one has undertaken actions to harm homosexuals. Voting is a right and exercising that right is not harming others.



Polygamy would be the only way to allow the same level of sanctity for three, five or twenty consenting adults. Yet we still do not allow this.



Anyone who can understand the difference between a physical attribute and behavior understands you are not comparing the same types of items.

Nick

I'll take on one for right now.

We are taught from every direction that gay is bad.

It's latest incarnation " That's so gay " makes me cringe everytime I hear it.

It's usually used to denote weakness or sensitivity as a negative.

It's just one example of a negative spin being put on the concept of gay.

This attitude comes from somewhere Trumpy.

It's been around in one form or another for a long time.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #6 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Second, if people want to argue that marriage is so sacred and religious, government shouldn't have any hand in it at all. NO OFFICIAL STATE MARRIAGE FOR ANYONE! Civil Unions should be for ALL instead.

Or take the other side, no DIVORCE for anyone. If marriage is so sacred and all. Make adultery a felony or at least a misdemeanor.
post #7 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
I'll take the time to go through this later. But first, a thought... who clearly wants to "impose their agenda"? The pro-tolerance (of being gay) or the anti-gay? One of those groups is trying to change others' behavior, not just their beliefs.

Sorry but you obviously come from the school of thought that simply being heterosexual means that you have an agenda and are attempting to impose it. That isn't true anymore than it is true for those who claim that white people commit and promote their whiteness and racism associated with it by simply existing.

You expressed revulsion yourself at the thought of having sex with a man. Is that a hate crime? The fact that it is your default behavior means you have now, through your lack of tolerance promoted, heterosexuality over homosexuality.

Or.... perhaps you just expressed who you are and there was no hateful agenda there. Perhaps this is exactly what most of us do and you should stop assigning some sort of evil intent to it.

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
I'll take on one for right now.

We are taught from every direction that gay is bad.

It's latest incarnation " That's so gay " makes me cringe everytime I hear it.

It's usually used to denote weakness or sensitivity as a negative.

It's just one example of a negative spin being put on the concept of gay.

This attitude comes from somewhere Trumpy.

It's been around in one form or another for a long time.

There are ignorant people in every group who end up putting negative spin on all attributes from all people. That isn't proof of a generalized hatred toward homosexuals or of group driven agenda against them.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #8 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
It's latest incarnation " That's so gay " makes me cringe everytime I hear it.

I've seen the term being spelled on the internets thusly "That's so ghey" lately. I don't know if it's much better but it's taking the bad connotation away from 'gay'.
post #9 of 248
It is not the place of government to push the homosexual agenda on children.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #10 of 248
It is not the place of government to push the religious right's agenda of hatred on children.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #11 of 248
We all know what the "government" does,,,

They continue to "fix" things until they are broken..

Gotta love our leaders and the sheep who vote for them.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #12 of 248
tonton, in general, you are insisting absolutely that there are no absolutes on the issue of sexuality; that's a fairly bold statement. Now, you might wish that to be so, but it's just not something you can personally guarantee.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #13 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
It is not the place of government to push the religious right's agenda of hatred on children.

And there you have it. That kind of statement is the very reason I even mentioned the "gay issue" at all. If I don't want gay marriage, I suddenly am hate filled. It's a lot easier to scream "HATER!" than it is to actually defend you position.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #14 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
It is not the place of government to push the religious right's agenda of hatred on children.

Would you care to defend your assertion that the viewpoint of marriage being between a man and a woman is a only held by religious conservatives?

All polls I have read found clear majorities, regardless of race, gender or party, favor keeping the current definition of marriage as man and woman.

If you are going to assign hatred to avoid thought, at least be considerate and assign it to everyone who holds that view.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #15 of 248
Im going to say something now that will piss off both sides of the argument. hehe!

I have no evidence of it, its just a thought i had.

have you considered that an 'anti-gay stance' is just a natural evolutionary instinct to ensure the proliferation of the species?
post #16 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
And there you have it. That kind of statement is the very reason I even mentioned the "gay issue" at all. If I don't want gay marriage, I suddenly am hate filled. It's a lot easier to scream "HATER!" than it is to actually defend you position.

It is, isn't it. And you say this without the least bit of irony.

Remember that next time you decide to use that slur against liberals.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #17 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Im going to say something now that will piss off both sides of the argument. hehe!

I have no evidence of it, its just a thought i had.

have you considered that an 'anti-gay stance' is just a natural evolutionary instinct to ensure the proliferation of the species?

It's funny. Whenever a pro-tolerance individual uses nature as an example of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, the usual counter argument from the Anti-Gay group is, "We're human beings, we're different than 'animals'".

Which is why I find the above argument hilarious.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #18 of 248
I noticed that Tonton offered a reasoned, level-headed argument.

I also noticed that within a few short paragraphs of Trumpt's response, the hostility was instant and provocative.

Quote:
"Don't you feel a bit idiotic comparing genetic traits that govern appearance to genetic traits that govern behavior?"
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #19 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
I noticed that Tonton offered a reasoned, level-headed argument.

I also noticed that within a few short paragraphs of Trumpt's response, the hostility was instant and provocative.

Perhaps you could notice your inability to focus on the actual facts put forward. Then perhaps you could notice that you dwell almost exclusively on how the party behind the facts is evil, hate-filled, a homophobe, or just "hostile" in this particular instance.

You quoted the actual words. Please address them. Are genetic behaviors the same as genetic differences in physical attributes? Is having blue eyes the same as a predisposition toward violence? We can understand how one cannot control that they have blue eyes. Should we demonstrate the same understanding for violence?

If not... explain why.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #20 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Im going to say something now that will piss off both sides of the argument. hehe!

I have no evidence of it, its just a thought i had.

have you considered that an 'anti-gay stance' is just a natural evolutionary instinct to ensure the proliferation of the species?

I still don't see how mentioning this would piss me off. I've already mentioned that just because something occurs naturally does not mean we consider it normal or that it is beyond the realm of society to address.

Someone is born far-sighted. We don't consider addressing it hateful because "it's natural." We don't consider the vision normal either. Finally we don't consider the fact that we require them to wear glasses while driving to be "tyranny of the majority" which amounts to a hate crime.

We make all sorts of requirements regarding genetic traits and behaviors. You must have an IQ within the normal range to be allowed to operate as a legal adult. You must be of a certain height, have vision within a certain range and have the ability to control your body within certain norms to operate a motor vehicle. Your aggression and tendency toward violence must not fall outside acceptable norms or you will be arrested. The list could go on, but there are thousands of ways in which we enforce norms.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #21 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I still don't see how mentioning this would piss me off. I've already mentioned that just because something occurs naturally does not mean we consider it normal or that it is beyond the realm of society to address.

...

Nick

well, it would probably piss off the Cretinists a bit more

see, the problem is, is that homosexuality is a normal natural trait, and (perhaps) the distaste of homosexuality is a normal natural state aswell.

Just like 'racism' is a natural evolutionary trait. We are naturally wary of 'different' people because they could pose a threat. It seems we like to protect our genes, but at the same time, we like to spread them around. A bit of a paradox.

So, while those of us who are not homo's naturally find it distasteful, the essense of us being mature educated humans is that we recognise that both homosexuality, and the distaste of it, are both natural states.

I've been a bit 'racist' and 'gay bigotted' in my time, which is just a natural expression of my evolution. However, what seperates 'me' from the animals is that I am 'conscious' of the fact that I am an animal, and not all the natural traits of 'animals', ie racism and bigotry are beneficial.

Its what makes humans a 'special' animal.

Bigots are just acting out the consequences of evolutionary animal urges,(perversely the very thing they are rallying against) - you cant blame them, but you might wonder why it is they havn't grown wise to the fact that they are 'human' animals.
post #22 of 248
Whatever.

Ya'll can do your usual song and dance, fretting about "agendas" and beating your chest about the sanctity of marriage and attempting to move the conversation to endless parsings of nurture vs. nature and how many biblical injunctions can dance on the head of a pin.

And maybe if you put enough intricate legalistic/christian gymnastics between yourselves and the source of all the trouble, you can convince yourselves that it's really not about finding gay sex, most specifically male gay sex, to be nasty and disease ridden and precious bodily fluids sapping.

That it's really about being logical and truthful about the nature of human sexuality, or that it's really about adhering to the dictates of a just and loving God, or that it's really about defending the fabric of the culture from unraveling chaos and never--how dare you even think it!-- about those womanish faggots and the ugly things they do, and the creeping horror of letting then walk around in full view of God and everybody, touching each other, I mean, possibly kissing, just shoving it in our faces, what will we tell the children about this skin-crawling affront?

It's a bit of a trick, of course, this strenuous denial of bigotry while grimly laying out the demise of western civilization at the hands of these not-hated agents.

Sort of "It has nothing to do with "hatefulness", it's all about the objective truth that gays are handmaidens to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse! Boy, you fag lovers can't help but resort to name calling, can you?"

And to be fair, I think some of you are just on reflexive "Liberals want it so I'm against it" mode, and you haven't ever really thought very hard about the lives affected by your posturing.

Anyway, as I say, whatever. Homophobia, no matter how dressed, no matter how denied, is a tough nut to crack. Ya'll just stick to your guns.

Because you're wrong, and the world is changing, and you'll end up like the elderly sons of the south, bitter in your rest homes about the how the niggers got the upper hand and ruined the world.

The battle is already over. Queers are at large, and nothing kills prejudice like knowledge. Knowledge of real people living their lives, who turn out to be not at all like the mincing AIDS monsters daddy told me about. Knowledge that Uncle Bob, who once would have sooner killed himself than let his horrible secret become known, is a gay man living with another gay man and, huh, that's funny, he doesn't seem to be cruising bathrooms on the interstate, looking for unattended eight years olds, he seem to be in a committed relationship and not a bad guy, really. Go figure.

Prejudice requires ignorance. For a very long time it was possible to make of homosexuals whatever the fevered imaginations of the hateful wanted, because violence and the threat of violence kept them from speaking for themselves, and living lives open to scrutiny. That's over, and you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

They're here, they're queer, and you're never going to get used to it, but that really is your problem.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #23 of 248
These are moral issues and should be taught in the home. This should be taught by neither right nor left wing educators.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #24 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by southside grabowski
These are moral issues and should be taught in the home. This should be taught by neither right nor left wing educators.

so if your parents are bigots, your children are too - and vice versa. Nice argument.
post #25 of 248
There is a huge difference between taking a moral stand and being a bigot. It is not necessary to hate and discriminate against another because you feel that they are morally wrong. Why must the left always make accusations of hate and bigotry?
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #26 of 248
tonton:

Quote:
I have an 8 year-old daughter. The day that she can go to school and the INSTANT she is faced with questions about sexuality (whether that be at 5 years old or 15), she either knows nothing about it, or everything about it, is the day the "gay agenda" is a success in terms of education.

What if I as a parent don't want my daughter discussing sexuality in school, particularly when she's 5?

Quote:
It is a fact that children from a very young age are taught by society that being gay is WRONG. Until that is no longer a fact, there needs to be someoene else out there
pointing out that such claims are bullshit. You cannot have equality at any age when only one side has a voice. The difference in the "sides", however, is that the anti-gay side states that being gay is WRONG WRONG WRONG! while the tolerance side makes no such claims about heterosexuality.

I disagree. How do you support that assertion? The children that I teach don't seem to think so. Their previous music teacher was openly gay. I really don't hear much about that. When it does come up, it's just a fact. He was gay. That's all.

Quote:
So at this point, if an 8 year-old is given a book called "My Two Daddies", then it is a good thing. It does not tell them that being gay is wrong or right, just that it is acceptable and a part of life, and a part of society, which it is, no matter whether it's 10% or 2%.

It's a good thing for you. Some consider homosexuality immoral, and they don't want their children exposed to the concept of having two daddies...at least until they are really old enough to comprehend it.

Quote:
There is absolutely no pretense whatsoever, that being gay is not a minority trait. Just like ther is no pretense that being American Indian is not a minority trait. Yet we are bombarded with the anti-gay message constantly, whereas we have finally progressed enough that most people no longer claim that black people or Mexicans (well except illegal immigrants) are bad (they used to - we just grew up as a society).

You cannot compare being a minority race to being gay. See below.

Quote:
\t

quote:Originally posted by SDW2001
When school age children watch videos that tell them it's perfectly "normal" to be gay, that's not tolerance. I'm not talking about helping a teenager accept his sexuality mind you, I'm talking about these kinds of things aimed at 5 year olds. It happens all the time. Gays are in the minority by a huge number. It is not normal whatsoever to have them in the majority or even equal in number. Sexuality exists for the purpose of human procreation. It is a fact that some people (and for that matter animals) are gay and therefore "different" in a manner of speaking. Trying to pretend that being gay is natural and normal as being straight is ludicrous. By the very laws of nature, it's not.

That said, I know many gay people and I have no, I repeat no ill will towards them based on their sexuality. However, I think that because of certain aspects of our culture, some do in fact choose to live as gay. While we can debate whether being gay is a choice or not, we cannot debate that being a minority race is not a choice in any capacity. So your comparison there is somehwhat flawed.

Once again, the only right I oppose for gays is the right to marry. It changes the definition of marriage. Since we're willing to change it for being gay, why not change it in other ways? Why can't we marry more than one person, for example? Maybe that's a genetic difference too. I mean, after all, some animal species have multiple mates. Maybe we should have a tolerance campaign and marriage rights for those folks too.



I have an 8 year-old daughter. The day that she can go to school and the INSTANT she is faced with questions about sexuality (whether that be at 5 years old or 15), she either knows nothing about it, or everything about it, is the day the "gay agenda" is a success in terms of education.

It is a fact that children from a very young age are taught by society that being gay is WRONG. Until that is no longer a fact, there needs to be someoene else out there pointing out that such claims are bullshit. You cannot have equality at any age when only one side has a voice. The difference in the "sides", however, is that the anti-gay side states that being gay is WRONG WRONG WRONG! while the tolerance side makes no such claims about heterosexuality.

So at this point, if an 8 year-old is given a book called "My Two Daddies", then it is a good thing. It does not tell them that being gay is wrong or right, just that it is acceptable and a part of life, and a part of society, which it is, no matter whether it's 10% or 2%.

There is absolutely no pretense whatsoever, that being gay is not a minority trait. Just like ther is no pretense that being American Indian is not a minority trait. Yet we are bombarded with the anti-gay message constantly, whereas we have finally progressed enough that most people no longer claim that black people or Mexicans (well except illegal immigrants) are bad (they used to - we just grew up as a society).

"Sexuality exists for the purpose of human procreation."

Only someone completely non-sexual in nature can make such an ignorant statement. You must either be really, really fat, or really really ugly in this day and age to not admit that sex has much more social importance than procreation.

Sexuality DOES exist for the purpose of procreation. That is the SOLE reason for its existence. Yes, it feels good and people have sex for pleasure alone. That doesn't change it's purpose.

Quote:

Um... is it just me, or does everybody welse not notice that those two sentences are completely contradictory?

Is being American Indian not as natural and normal as being white? No one is pretending anything. It is natural, as you admit. It is therefore normal. Or do you not understand the meaning of those two words?

...more quotes on the "choice" debate follow....


It's just you. You can't pretend that 5-10% of the population represents a huge majority or even equal amount. This issue also ties into the issue of choice. There are, in fact, some people that choose to follow homosexual urges and some that don't. For others, it's not a choice...they are created gay and will always be gay. But I have personally known those who have been "gay" for a period, then "straight", then bi, then straight again. In other words, there is sometimes an element of choice involved. This stands in stark contrast to being black or asian or for that matter white. There is no choie whatsoever involved.

Quote:
Liar... for one, you just said that you oppose the right to teach tolerance in schools. How about adoption? I bet you oppose that as well. Am I wrong?

I don't oppose teaching true tolerance, as in "it's wrong to hate gays for their sexuality, wrong to mock them, wrong to do any number of things." I also do not oppose adoption rights, though I personally morally disagree with it.

Quote:
And no, it does not change the definition of marriage. It changes YOUR definition of marriage. Marriage is, and will always be a sacred and legal union of two persons. That is the most basic definition. It is only in recent times and in religious context that any further "definition" has been made, by people with an obvious "anti-gay" agenda.

Yes it does. Western civilation has defined marriage as being between one man and one woman for thousands of years. If we can change that for gays, what else can it be changed for? Why even have marriage at all? It destroys all meaning of the term.

Quote:
Now in times of poor prosperity and high mortality, there is a reason to promote heterosexuality. This is why it was once adopted as part of society. In addition, every religion wants to grow its ranks as fast as possible, to increase revenue and power. This is the reason religions frown on homosexuality.

This is really not where I'm coming from. I'm not talking about promoting anything, you are. If you listen to yourself, you make it sound like if gays just had a better marketing campaign, there'd be more of them. Hetero orientation is by far the majority and always will be, otherwise the human species will go out of existance.

Quote:
1) In a period of prosperity, homosexuality harms neither society nor any individual.

2) No one is trying to convert straight people to become gay.

3) No one is forcing you as an individual, to change your own beliefs, just your actions which may harm others.

4) Gay marriage would be the only way to allow the same level of sanctity in genuine loving relationships between two consenting adults, who, as you admit, were born different.

5) Integration of homosexuality into society can accurately be compared to integration in terms of gender (sex) or race.

Please take a moment to ask yourself, "Who does being gay actually HARM?"

The answer should be "no one". If it is not, then something has to be fixed so that it is.


1. Again, not what I'm arguing. People have every right to be gay.

2. I would disagree with that.

3. Disagree here too. If my child has to learn that it is totally normal and acceptable morally to live in a gay home and I don't want her believing that at the age of 5, 6 or whatever, that does plenty to my family morally.

4. That's correct, and that's why it should not be legal.

5. No it can't. People do not choose gender at birth, nor their race. Some DO choose their orientation, whether you will admit it or not.

"What does being gay harm", you ask? Nothing in and of itself. However, when we start changing laws and thousand year old standards and challenging people's moral beliefs without their consent, yes, it can be harmful.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #27 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
well, it would probably piss off the Cretinists a bit more

see, the problem is, is that homosexuality is a normal natural trait, and (perhaps) the distaste of homosexuality is a normal natural state aswell.

Just like 'racism' is a natural evolutionary trait. We are naturally wary of 'different' people because they could pose a threat. It seems we like to protect our genes, but at the same time, we like to spread them around. A bit of a paradox.

So, while those of us who are not homo's naturally find it distasteful, the essense of us being mature educated humans is that we recognise that both homosexuality, and the distaste of it, are both natural states.

I've been a bit 'racist' and 'gay bigotted' in my time, which is just a natural expression of my evolution. However, what seperates 'me' from the animals is that I am 'conscious' of the fact that I am an animal, and not all the natural traits of 'animals', ie racism and bigotry are beneficial.

Its what makes humans a 'special' animal.

Bigots are just acting out the consequences of evolutionary animal urges,(perversely the very thing they are rallying against) - you cant blame them, but you might wonder why it is they havn't grown wise to the fact that they are 'human' animals.

The ability to rise above nature is not really an assertion that has been proven in my view. I've mentioned this in passing because people somehow believe the western world is "right" just because they have the majority of the world's wealth. However nature does not care about wealth, it cares about reproduction. If we, in our desire for wealth become so enamoured with the various toys and distractions that we fail to reproduce, then by the scorebook of nature, we lose.

As you noted, both sides consider their reasoning and their positioning of humans to be outside the circle of nature to be justified. I just don't buy that reasoning.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #28 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
It's funny. Whenever a pro-tolerance individual uses nature as an example of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, the usual counter argument from the Anti-Gay group is, "We're human beings, we're different than 'animals'".

Which is why I find the above argument hilarious.

"Pro-tolerance".

LOL.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #29 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
It is, isn't it. And you say this without the least bit of irony.

Remember that next time you decide to use that slur against liberals.

That's cheap. Sometimes people are filled with hate. Take Harry Reid for example.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #30 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by southside grabowski
There is a huge difference between taking a moral stand and being a bigot. It is not necessary to hate and discriminate against another because you feel that they are morally wrong. Why must the left always make accusations of hate and bigotry?

Most all human emotions are centered on fear. Even love. Yet there comes a point when you have to ask, "What am I afraid of - Why am I afraid?"

Hatred and Bigotry are unconscious expressions of fear, yet what exactly is there to be afraid of? That you might suddenly turn Gay, because there are Gay people?
post #31 of 248
ps, i've been saving this one for CC, but what the hell...

humans shagging animals

It is work-safe!
post #32 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Most all human emotions are centered on fear. Even love. Yet there comes a point when you have to ask, "What am I afraid of - Why am I afraid?"

I've never read such a thing. Are compassion and empathy also based on fear? If all emotions are based on fear, why trust some over others?

Quote:
Hatred and Bigotry are unconscious expressions of fear, yet what exactly is there to be afraid of? That you might suddenly turn Gay, because there are Gay people?

Not being willing to cater to the demands of a certain group does not make one filled with hatred and bigotry. There doesn't have to be any sort of fear involved.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #33 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I've never read such a thing. Are compassion and empathy also based on fear? If all emotions are based on fear, why trust some over others?

yep, fear of screwing up.

Quote:

Not being willing to cater to the demands of a certain group does not make one filled with hatred and bigotry. There doesn't have to be any sort of fear involved.

Nick

denial is a state of fear too.
post #34 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Most all human emotions are centered on fear. Even love. Yet there comes a point when you have to ask, "What am I afraid of - Why am I afraid?"

Hatred and Bigotry are unconscious expressions of fear, yet what exactly is there to be afraid of? That you might suddenly turn Gay, because there are Gay people?

Fear? No
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #35 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
yep, fear of screwing up.



denial is a state of fear too.

Apparently so is your frustation.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #36 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Apparently so is your frustation.

Nick

well done, 'the man can be taught'
post #37 of 248
I'm still waiting for someone who is against gay marriage to address my points:


There's a couple of different issues here...

First, if there is a single religion that accepts gay marriage, denying it at the state level is making a law preventing the free practice of said religion.

Second, if people want to argue that marriage is so sacred and religious, government shouldn't have any hand in it at all. NO OFFICIAL STATE MARRIAGE FOR ANYONE! Civil Unions should be for ALL instead.

Either way, it's bullshit to deny people the same rights. Separate but equal should NEVER fly.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #38 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Not being willing to cater to the demands of a certain group does not make one filled with hatred and bigotry. There doesn't have to be any sort of fear involved.

Why do you have to "cater" to anything? Just let it be.

I repeat that:

WHY DO YOU HAVE TO "CATER" TO ANYTHING?

I don't have to "cater" to Mormon missionaries, for instance, even though I much of Mormon beliefs due to my opinion of the harm it does to society. I can just ignore them and tolerate them.

Trumpt, why is it causing you any inconvenience to let people just be, and choose to live how they want to live when it doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever?
post #39 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
well done, 'the man can be taught'

You keep showing such rapier wit Marc and I'll have to give you a little man-love just to prove Tonton wrong on the whole sexual choice issue.

Quote:
Originally posted by BR
I'm still waiting for someone who is against gay marriage to address my points:

It puts the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again.

Quote:
First, if there is a single religion that accepts gay marriage, denying it at the state level is making a law preventing the free practice of said religion.

The government has ruled that it can govern against certain religious practices. The most famous of these is polygamy, but also include animal and human sacrifice for example.

Quote:
Second, if people want to argue that marriage is so sacred and religious, government shouldn't have any hand in it at all. NO OFFICIAL STATE MARRIAGE FOR ANYONE! Civil Unions should be for ALL instead.

You are barking up the wrong tree with me. I've already stated that the government should be forced to recognize more than one type of relationship form. We should have at a minimum, civil unions for both homo and hetersexual people, regular marriage and the covenent marriage where divorce is not granted unless fault is found.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #40 of 248
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Why do you have to "cater" to anything? Just let it be.

I repeat that:

WHY DO YOU HAVE TO "CATER" TO ANYTHING?

When being asked to accept a change that is not just letting it be. Your command of English seems to be slipping lately.

Quote:
I don't have to "cater" to Mormon missionaries, for instance, even though I much of Mormon beliefs due to my opinion of the harm it does to society. I can just ignore them and tolerate them.

You wouldn't consider it to be "letting them be" if instead of ignoring them, they were attempting to get the legislature to pass their own views as law and demand that if you spoke against such views it was a hate crime. They would be much harder to ignore then.

Quote:
Trumpt, why is it causing you any inconvenience to let people just be, and choose to live how they want to live when it doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever?

I already let them be. I'm not the one seeking change. Those who do seek change though have to be persuasive to the majority.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ignorance about what "harms children"