As everyone is, of course, familiar with Madam Francine Phelps and www.godhatesstraights.com
:rolleyes:
I usually don’t take part in these threads, but I don’t know, today feels like a good day to beat my head against a brick wall. Here we go…
We are not trying to remove the majorities right to make rules. Why? Because damnit, we are part of the majority. There is no us or them. Some would set up a division based on who we prefer to sleep with, but that is a false and misleading pidgeonhole. We sleep with people of our own gender. Great. Other than that what else is different?
Nothing. We eat, breath sleep, and live the same lives as everybody else.
As far as I’m concerned, it is less of a distinction than that of what kind of car you drive. Love is love, and the mechanics of the act are exactly the same, tab A into slot B and all that, so why the big deal? Why all this screaming over a so called agenda?
-
Heterosexuality is normal and natural and the way that everybody naturally is.
-
Heterosexuality is so delicate and precarious that it must be promoted at all cost and any alternative vigorously suppressed.
:dubious: I guess I’m not following. But then, I am just a stupid cocksucker.
Gee, matt, I always thought you were pretty smart. 
I hate this liberal bullshit, as though a fucking American political party has any bearing on one’s opinion on basic civil rights. I doubt most conservatives appreciate being painted as a bunch of bigoted assholes, either. Especially the gay ones.
Why? Just why? This kinda reminds me of the infamous Onion editorial. Do you feel that homosexuality is so appealing that unless it is universally met with hatred and violence everyone will be too busy sucking cock and buying dildos to get around to the business of making children? Do you perhaps view homosexuality as some sort of virulent plague that must be contained, lest its deadly contagion spread to all the unsuspecting heterosexuals and the human species die out?
Shodan and ArchEtech sittin’ in a tree, K. I. S. S. I. N. G.
I’m with you though, Shodan. I will defend Archy’s right to be a complete and total asswipe. He has a right to be as stupid as he wishes and to wallow in ignorance until his brains leak out of his ass so that gay men will know to keep far, far away.
Really, why should Dopers dog-pile this hate-spewer? Why don’t Dopers just let him vomit lies all up and down this messageboard without getting indignant?
Really Shodan. Why should we?
That Karl Duff is a very funny man indeed http://home.mindspring.com/~kduff@ix.netcom.com/restorationofmen/teens.htm
Yup, I am sure going to take him seriously.
I believe I shall simply ignore the specifics of Mr. “Correct grammar is for people who know how to spell” 's wank material, for the most part. However, as someone who is both bisexual and a conservative libertarian, I’d like to use his sputum to make a point about the problem with the left’s usual case for gay rights.
Let me first start by making what I will call the Obvious Incotravertible (OI) case for equal treatment. It goes as follows: You have your consensual, noninjurious orgasms, and I shall have my consensual, noninjurious orgasms, and neither of us need worry at all about the other. If once we decide that it is best to impose the preferences of some part of society upon another part, we must allow everyone their say, until one group will require that we must all wear funny hats, and another will wish toprohibit us from using our left hands the way our absurdly miscapitalized friend here is in the throes of doing, and so forth. The only sensible approach - the only one that doesn’t lead down the road to absurdity - is to not care, so long as nobody gets hurt against their will. This is simple enough, after all - if you have the right to enshrine in law your opinion that I may not engage in male-male sex, then by the same argument I must potentially have the right to legislate that you must engage in such behavior exclusively. Both the Left and the Right can agree that this would be a bad thing.
Unfortunately, the OI argument is not the one you usually see advanced from the Left. Instead, you get what I will call the argument from syndrome - approximately, “they can’t help it, that’s how they are, so let them alone”. This has several weaknesses. First and foremost, it is an argument of pity, which seemingly concedes beforehand that something is amiss in homosexual behavior- and this of course will be taken as fact by those, such as he of the improper capitalization, who wish to demonize it. Secondly, as demonstrated above, it is very vulnerable to those whose response to behavioral variations is to define anything outside the median as “deviance” - which therefore clearly must be corrected. Thirdly, by focusing on behavior deriving from a specific cause, it implies that acceptance of that behavior is contingent on the presence of the causative factor, rather than accepting the behavior itself. To see why this is a problem, consider that the argument from syndrome would not serve to advance the right of heterosexual persons to engage in homosexual behavior. Fourthly, it implies that there is no element of choice involved, and that if there were, it would justify disapproval. This is unfortunate, since any choice of sexual partners is just that. If we disavow choice, we are back to the funny hat situation.
I do not, by the way, intend to disavow the idea that sexual identity is an inherent part of one’s nature. On the contrary, I know it very well. It is simply not a sufficient argument, since it allows counterarguments such as the one by Mr. “They’re just as bad as me, and anyways I’m proud of my ignorance” here. The OI argument, however, does not have this defect; I would like to request that those of you on the Left consider using it, rather than relying on the less-effective argument I have dissected above.
(Yeah, I know this is way the hell off topic for a fucking Pit thread. Nonetheless, there you are.)
::GEEK ALERT::
I’m sorry, but I got a sudden mental image of Wolverine and Cyclops in a passionate embrace. No wonder they dislike each other so much, they’re just locked in a hopeless battle with the love that dare not speak its name. I’m sure there’s got to be some X-Men slash out there.
Oh, and I’m not going to dignify the OP by taking him seriously.
Uh… some?
Oh, dear. Should we tell her?
Uh oh…do I dare know?
Biblically or otherwise?
Does any of it include the word snikt?
Entertainment? I rather doubt anyone is really addressing his ignorance.
I think this pretty much says it all.
Regards,
Shodan
This gem from ArchEtecht
And in my opinion, there are a few more - one of which is not to deliberately behave like a flaming ass on a message board and then admitting that you were baiting people. And yes, I’d be willing to bet that there are quite a few “notify the mods about this post” emails sitting in in-boxes just WAITING for the light of day.
See ya.
Folks, it seems to me that the fighting ignorance stuff is going to be wasted on this guy. I’m going back to my cross-stitch - it’s much less of a waste of time than this jackass.
Oh my, what have we here?
First off, ArchEtect, I removed the article you quoted in its entirety. Since the author sells his own books through his homepage, I doubt he’d appreciate you reproducing his work here. And the mere fact that he sounds like a scary man doesn’t mean he doesn’t hold the copyright to whatever drivel he wrote.
Furthermore, you stated:
Well, that certainly breaks our rules. It’s called “trolling”.
This cracked me up, too:
Ah, the noble knight gracefully accepts the challenge, even though the opposition is numerous.
… Oh. I guess we can scratch “gracefully” from that last impression.
I don’t think this message board was meant for people like you, ArchEtect. I will suspend your posting privileges. Should you wish to be reinstated, you can appeal per e-mail to one of our administrators (their e-mail addresses can be found by clicking on their names in the main forum page). Be sure to refer them to this thread.
As you can no longer defend yourself, this thread is closed.