Congratulations, straight supremacists

The BBQ Pit
81

Since there are many responses and they are all saying similar things I will try and address them as a batch.
Still sticking to my three main points:

**1. **
Homebrew’s point misses the mark. It’s one thing to have different punishments for the same crime based on intent such as premeditated murder vs manslaughter. It’s another thing entirely to have different punshments based solely on a characteristic of the victim. The only exception that makes sense I can think of is attacks against police officers. Since the threat against society by them being attacked, IMO makes it worth having increased laws protecting them.
Kalhoun will have to explain what he means by punitive damages. This is usually a civil matter, correct? We are talking about criminal law. Are you suggesting a gay man beaten in the street deserves more compensation than I would? If so, why?

Ryslet

Agreed. I am against all hate crime legislation, for the same reasons I have stated.

Agreed. We should treat hate as such. If someone kills for any of these reasons, they should be punished the same.

**2. **

Just because something doesn’t affect me doesn’t mean I can’t or shouldn’t have an opinion on it.

I recently participated in threads about the grocery store strike/lockouts going on in California. As a resident of Massachusetts, I am not affected by this in any way that I can tell. I still have an opinion on the matter.

Like I said, if the politicians pass a law for gay marriage tomorrow, I wouldn’t really care. Doesn’t bother me.

But, if it were up to me, I would not pass such a law. Like I and Otto have already said, if anything too much legality is already involved in the concept of marriage. I find it extremely odd that the amount of taxes that two people pay is affected by whether they are married or not. Extending marriage to more people seems like a step in the wrong direction to me. MHO.

**3. **

It’s funny, I have already read that article that Homebrew cited.

First of all, it is from 1990. Not exactly current.

Also, even looking at the accounting of the numbers that it uses:

So, even after that whole paragraph of not including such and such but yes including such and such, they still admit that AIDS recieves twice as much money as cancer.

Keep in mind that according to the article 12 times as many people die of cancer than from AIDS. This means that the money spend on AIDS, even if we look at this distorted account from 13 years ago, is still highly disproportional.

Some of the other comments on this point were quite odd:

Kalhoun

So what? Who says we need to spend more on contagious deseases? If anything, because AIDS can be prevented by simply wearing a condom it should merit less funding on treatment and more on prevention.

Kalhoun

Yep. But, not most of them. If you want to talk about spending less money on lung cancer because it’s often behavior driven I would probably be all for it. However, that is a different issue.

Kalhoun

Huh? What do you mean by this?

If there can be a better cure, or something, then yes. Until cancer goes the way of smallpox then we should spend money fighting it. I really don’t see what you point is in this line of questions for me.

Rysler

Well, it’s a good thing nobody called it that. :rolleyes:

Rysler

This is what I said.

Rysler

Now you are just arguing against straw men. I didn’t say or imply anything like this.

Rysler

But, not in the US, as you stated above. And, that is what we are talking about. You can’t toss in the global figures just because the ones we are discussing don’t back up your argument.

It is because of the gay agenda in the US that AIDS gets higher levels of spending than other non politically correct deseases. This is wrong.

Otto

robertliguori

The amount of people affected by a desease should have a correlation to the amount spent fighting said desease. Your rediculous comparisons to men and breast cancer and cutting funding to all deseases except one are just silly. No comparison can be made from what I am arguing to this.

Gravity

Thank you for being reasonable and polite.

I agree, of course, that we should be fighting for a cure and for prevention of AIDS. My problem is that there are a limited amount of resources to go around. The decisions about where to allocate these resources should be made with the greatest bennefit to the most people in mind. Not the political power of the groups of people affected.

82

I’d just like to point out that with the number of people in this thread (gay and straight) that have expressed how uncomfortable it is to be hit on, it’s amazing anyone is having any sex at al…

/end hijack

83

Debaser said, “Kalhoun will have to explain what he means by punitive damages. This is usually a civil matter, correct? We are talking about criminal law. Are you suggesting a gay man beaten in the street deserves more compensation than I would? If so, why?”

No, I don’t think the victim deserves more…I think the perp deserves to pay more. There’s a difference. The idea is that it acts as a deterrent.

84

all, damn it, ALL…

Who cares if Al is having sex?

85

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Debaser *
** Homebrew’s point misses the mark. It’s one thing to have different punishments for the same crime based on intent such as premeditated murder vs manslaughter. It’s another thing entirely to have different punshments based solely on a characteristic of the victim. The only exception that makes sense I can think of is attacks against police officers. Since the threat against society by them being attacked, IMO makes it worth having increased laws protecting them.**/quote]

I’d love to see which hate crime statute you’re referring to, which bases punishments solely on a characteristic of the victim. The ones I’ve seen hardly refer to the victim at all: they refer solely to the intent of the offender. If I attack and kill Fred Phelps based on my erroneous belief that he’s gay, I’ve still committed a hate crime, even though I wasn’t attacking a gay man.

Really? I can see your view, but it seems to me that it’s a step in the direction of justice. Whatever rights granted by marriage, they ought to be granted irrespective of the genders of the marrying parties.

Dude, you bolded the relevant text, and you still misunderstood it? Lemme put it there for you again:

Cancer receives twice as much as AIDS, not AIDS receives twice as much as cancer.

Daniel

86

Aw, for obvious reasons, crap.
Daniel

87

If you have a problem with hate crimes in general, that’s one thing, but to narrow it down to granting violence against homosexuals hate crime status, that is something different. Basically those pushing for hate crime status for violence against homosexuals are wanting crimes perpetrated against homosexuals solely BECAUSE of their sexual orientation treated more harshly than similar crimes because of the element of malice. As Gravity mentioned, this is a problem because for the most part people can predict and avoid violence by staying out of fights and such. But when there are feelings in one party which lead to unprovoked violence, those acts of unprovoked violence need to be harshly rebuked. Racism, Bigotry, etc. These feelings spur unprovoked violence, violence which is much harder for society to deal with. As such society has decided to punish them more harshly than violence spurred by other motives. If there are a significant number of unprovoked violent crimes due to anti-homosexual motives, then this category of crimes seems a good candidate for hate crime legislation.**

Several people have pointed out some of the flaws in this statement. AIDS is a significant issue and is not limited to people with homosexual lifestyles. Approximately 35% of adults in Botswana live with HIV/AIDS. Is it your position that 35% of the adults in Botswana are homosexual? What about South Africa? About a 20% prevalance rate in South Africa. Seriously, if there is a “lifestyle” behind the disease, surely these countries have an abundance of people living that lifestyle?

Also I’d like some evidence that supporters of AIDS research are doing so because they want the homosexual lifestyle to be less risky. I support AIDS research and I’m not homosexual. As a monomagous heterosexual it shouldn’t affect me in the least according to your assertions. Please tell me why I, and millions of others who have no vested interest in the “gay lifestyle” whatsoever, support AIDS research.

Enjoy,
Steven

88

Just addressing lezlers post now:

I actually expected to get flamed more than this for stating my views on this issue. I do appreciate your restraint and genuine attempt at understanding where I am coming from.

I have already answered this in my last post, but I will try and explan further.

If I were elected unconditional ruler of the USA tomorrow and I could do anything I wanted to change the laws, this would’nt even make my top 100 things. It just isn’t that important to me. However, if someone asks in an opinion poll, I will say I’m against it.

If I were given a blank check to change anything about marriage, I would decrease, or possibly eliminate the legal and tax elements of it. I wouldn’t widen the institution to a larger group of people. This is about half of it. The rest I get into after your next quote.

I have never believed in God my entire life, as far back as I can remember. I really am an athiest.

Humans, like other mammals are primariliy on this planet to ensure the survival of their own species. For this reason, men are attracted to women and vice versa. Attraction leads to mating leads to more humans. Rinse, lather, repeat. It’s curious to me that homosexuality even exists from an evolutionary standpoint.

Regardless, some men and women are born who is instead attracted to their own sex. It’s bound to happen. Women and men aren’t really all that different. In fact, some people are born with both sets of genitalia, or none at all. Evolution and nature are not free from mistakes.

Thus, IMHO, gay people have no choice about thier lifestyle. However, as science and technology advances someday we might have the option of fixing this defect.

Gay people have in much the same way as deaf people formed a community and a culture. Some elements of the deaf culture don’t want deafness to be cured. They consider it a lifestyle choice, not a disability. Gay culture is the same way. If a choice between having a straight or gay child were available, I would expect to see gay women choosing to have gay children.

I find it odd that anyone would be happy to have a gay son or daughter. I would react the same way to any other defect, such as deafness. I would be hurt by it. I would still love my child, but given the choice I wouldn’t want them to be born with a broken sexual identity.

This doesn’t mean I hate or dislike gay people any more than I hate or dislike deaf people, which is not at all.

However, just because gay people don’t have a choice, doesn’t mean society has to embrace this lifestyle. I believe that many people rotting away in our prisons are there because they are genetically predisposed to violence. If we could cure these people at birth, I would be all for it. That doestn’t mean we should be making special laws to let them go free, however. It is still behaviour that society disaproves of.

I know that it will hurt many and I many people to hear me categorize homosexuality as a disability and say that it is a “broken” sexual identity. This is not my intention. I am just attempting to explain how I feel and think on this issue.

I work with gay people. When I am to be married next year, there will be a gay man in my wedding party, and I am happy to have him there.

Like I said before, I appreciate that the attacks to me have been kept to a minimum. I do think that the vicousness which many gays can attack anyone that disagrees with any part of thier agenda (or anything they say) is a cause for some of the mistrust and hatred towards them. (lissener’s posts for example)

I’m just calling it the way I see it and I really don’t hate anyone.

89

Yep…

This was actually just a typo. I knew and understood that Cancer recieves twice as much as AIDS.

I just reversed the two in that sentance. My bad.

However, as I went on to say, cancer afflicts 12 times as many people. So, on a per person basis, much more money is being poured into AIDS research.

We really shouldn’t be discussing the numbers from that article anyway, seeing as it’s 13 years old now.

90

Debaser

You did not answer my question to you about why you believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

Taxes have nothing to do with that view.

As for your position on hate crimes: a hate crime is based on the intent of the person committing the crime, not on the the characteristics of the victim. If someone is beaten because they are black and for no other reason, it is a hate crime. If a black man is beaten because he got into a disagreement with a person of another color it is not a hate crime. The latter beating is the result of a disagreement. The former is a result of the hatred arising from the color of the victims skin, thus making it a hate crime. See the distinction?

91

As mentioned before, the aggravated charges are based on the motivation of the attacker, not the status of the victim. It is exactly the same as the intent in a premeditated and 2nd degree murder.

Besides that, hate crimes have an intended victim beyond the immediate one. Racists burn crosses to inspire fear in the black community. Gay Bashers want to force gay people back into the closet. Their crimes are more than simple battery.

You backpedeling. You said I think marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. This certainly implies that you are opposed to equal rights for gay people. That is discrimination.

:rolleyes: It still makes relevant points. But is 1996 recent enough? Furthermore, research into HIV provides benefits beyond just AIDS. It helps other researchers in virology and also affects cancer research, since cancer is one of the opportunistic diseases that strikes AIDS victims.

One of the most salient points you can’t seem to comprehend is that cancer research has been on-going for decades. Research for HIV/AIDS is relatively new and has only recently been funded significantly. It takes more money to start the research than to build on an existing body of knowledge.

I skipped this tidbit from you original post. I thought lissener would come in and take it, but he seems to be otherwise occupied.

Please explain what the lifestyle is behind AIDS.

92

I don’t ask society to embrace any lifestyle. I ask to be treated as an equal, with human rights equal to my heterosexual peers.

And it’d be nice if people stopped comparing me to violent criminal offenders, just because my boyfriend and I love each other. But that’s just gravy.

Even though you knew that your words would hurt people, even though that wasn’t your intention, you said it anyway. And then tried to hide behind a bizarre “I didn’t mean it!” By that token, I’m going to call you an ignorant moronic bitch who feels free to spout off about matters he doesn’t understand, and considers his opinion to be sacrosanct despite whatever contrary evidence that’s presented to him, thus proving beyond all reasonable doubt that you are, indeed, a complete and total fuckwit.

No offense intended.

93

I was going to tell you to ignore the first part of my last post to you, Debaser, as I posted it before I saw your last post, but I’m not now, because you still haven’t answered my direct and very simple question.

You’re not being logically consistant in your responses. How can you say being gay is not a choice, but a genetic “defect” and then call it a “lifestyle” within the same breath? Is being hispanic a “lifestyle”? Is being a woman a “lifestyle”? How can something that is genetic be a lifestyle?

Also, while your response was very insightful and eloquent, it failed to answer my fairly straightforward question. Why do you believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman? Citing taxation reasons and your general disallusion with the extent marriage affects government actions does nothing but dance around the question. It has nothing to do with your statment that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Taxes have nothing to do with marriage being between a man and a woman. Nothing. I don’t see how you’re tying the two together.

I got from your post that you have a problem with marriage as it is being extended to a larger group of people than it already is. This is because you have a problem with the legal and tax elements of it (please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong). Wouldn’t it be more logically consistant to then say that you believe the legal and tax elements of marriage should be adjusted, rather than to say marriage should be between a man and a woman? Your problems with marriage don’t seem to have anything to do with you believing it should be between a man and a woman. So why bother stating that as a reason in your initial post?

I’ll make it easy for you. Let me ask you a question. If all of the sudden marriage had no bearing on the amount of taxes you paid, would you still be against gay marriage? Would you still feel as if it’s just between a man and a woman?

94

Have you ever considered the fact that homosexuality can be very beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint, as a form of population control?

95

oooooooh, Nocturne, I never even thought of that.

Good point.

:smiley:

96

Congratulations on your upcoming wedding, and fuck you to the depths of hell for in one breath saying that the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage shouldn’t be expanded to everyone on an equal basis while in the next breath announcing your intention to partake of those very same rights, privileges and responsibilities. Special rights under the law? You’ll get them as soon as the ink dries on the marriage license, you shit. How dare you pontificate on “special rights”? If you had any balls you’d tell your token gay man friend how you feel about his sexual orientation and how you oppose his access to equal marriage rights. If he had any balls he’d tell you to take your wedding invitation, fold it five ways and cram it up your urethra, you two-faced fuck.

I’ve never been as contemptous of anyone on these boards as I am of you right now. You’re a disgusting ridiculous excuse for a human being.

97

Parents try the same method with their kids when it comes to eating stuff like brussel sprouts. “Eat them and you’ll grow to like them” What kinda shit is that ? If you don’t like something, why subject yourself to it in the hope you’ll get used to it ? Then again, if you don’t you’ll be labeled a vegephobe.

Ever watch Fear Factor and see bugs crawling on people ? Many viewers cringe and are uncomfortable because its a natural impulse to put yourself in that situation and react accordingly. I’d think many people labeled homophobes are in the same situation. They see two gay people kiss, for example, and immediately react as if they were in that situation themselves. That doesn’t make them evil, bigoted, or the bringers of certain doom. They’re just people. The Homophobe label is very often overused.

98

Well, you could always insist that nobody display any affection towards anyone of the same sex in your presence, or you’ll have a big ol’ hissy fit. That’ll make sure nobody thinks you’re homophobic.

99

Says who? Who told you what the purpose of life is? What fundamental natural principle says that we are here to breed? Where is that written?

I used to believe the same thing. But this view of the world is an idealised model that does not fully account for all the variables.

Humans are not here with the mission to breed. Nobody said “I have made you and placed you in the world. Your mission is to ensure the survivial of the species, so if you fail to produce offspring you are a failure.”

Life arose. Life changed with time. The current set of living things on earth include mice and penguins and sulphur-eating lava-vent bacteria and funny bipedal apes. If any of these beings fail to reproduce, life will go on without them. If all of them fail to reproduce, there’s no more life. Then what? We don’t lose the game. We haven’t failed in some mission.

The idea that we exist to breed comes from building a model of the way life should work, then making the world fit it. And if parts of the world don’t fit the model, then you reject those parts of reality. If people don’t fit into the roles given them by the idealised description of socitely you’ve created, then they’re ‘broken’ and ‘abnormal’ and can be brushed aside. Or, in the case of the particular of these idealised models called ‘Religions’, declared sinful and heretical and stoned or driven out of sight.

You claim no religion. Maybe you pride yourself on seeing the world as it really is, instead of the way some dusty old book says it should be. Maybe you pride yourself in believing scientifically proven sensible things, rather than myth. Maybe not.

Guess what. Scientists come up withh all kinds of great theories all the time to predict how the world around us will behave. And if a theory always holds, it’s accepted as true. If it doesn’t account for everything, then it gets modifed unitl it does fit, thrown out altogether, or used only in the specialised conditions where its predictions hold true.

Take Isaac Newton’s theory of how gravity worked. Newton was an all-star. He came up with something that worked exactly, all the time. Until, that is, we learned a little more, and found conditions where it doens’t hold true. So we modified it. We still use Newtonian methods when we describe many simple things, but we recognize that it isn’t general enough to cover everything. We use relativitic theories when we need something that accounts for everything. AND we recognize that there’s still room for improvement.

NO self-respecting intellectual, NO scientist or thinker worth the title holds onto models that don’t fit reality.

NO ONE with any idea what they are talking about would say that parts of the natural world which don’t fit Newtonian mechanics are ABNORMAL or BROKEN. Or that we could FIX the real world to fit our narrow ideas about how things ‘should be’.

Things should be the way they actually are. *

The universe has no purpose. WE have no purpose. We have lives, and intellect. We can choose to do with them what we will. We can follow our feelings that tell us to eat and rest and become close to people we feel a kinship for. We can recognize the people around us a people as important as ourselves, and treat them as such - a leap of intellect and perception and maturity for sure. We can choose to think for ourselves, and accept the world the way it is, or instead to follow creeds and ideas, treating them as true without base other than that they make comfortable sense to us. Whether they match the real world or not.

Gay people are as abnormal as rabbits with one ear floppy and the other that stands up. They’re as abnormal as galaxies that orbit too close to other galaxies to be seen easily or be well-discerned form their neighbor. Or black holes. Or ocean bays so located that the tides climb unusually high compared to the rest of the world. Or people with that cowlick on the back of their head that always gives them trouble.

They are part of the way the world is. They are one of the values that the function of huminty can take. And whether it is easier for you to understand a world where things match the model you’ve drawn up of how they’re supposed to be, this is the way the real, actual world we live in truly is. Humans come in many, many forms. The idea that we all are interchangeable, and all fill a prescribed role to mate permanently with one member of the opposite gender so as to produce teeming offspring for the good of the universe, thus fulfilling our ‘purpose’ is hogwash. It’s an elegant, perfect model. But the most elegant model is the one that actually matches the behaviour or the real world.

Yeah, gays are ‘broken’. And any life that needs crushing pressures and eats sulphur by its very nature must is ‘broken’, too.

Oh, and all kinds of animals must be, too. I mean, if homosexuality was a ‘failure’ of nature, it sure would have bred out of the Adelie penguins by now, huh?

It was a leap for me to realize that the simple, elegant, ideal model of the way people should be that accounted for everything people needed to do… didn’t actually account for the people, who came in shapes and sizes that don’t make any sense in that model. You can open your eyes to the real world the same way I did, or you can go on treating the people that don’t fit this crafted ideal as mis-fits to be discarded.

And then the MrVisible’s Nephews of the world can hear you telling your simple, no-nonsense model of the Way Things Should Be, and realise that they are broken, and that they’ll never be normal and can never really be happy until they accept that they’re handicapped. And that those feelings of affection they have for that person who means so much to them are, after all, the result of a ‘mistake of evolution’, and as such, aren’t as true and pure and valuable as the Real love that normals like you feel.
MrVisible, my thoughts are with your nephew. I hope what happened wasn’t terrible (though clearly it was something bad) and that he can find safetly, and strength, and support. You’re a good man for being concerned for him. And I truly hope he pulls through with as little harassment and hurt as possible.

  • Doesn’t apply to things we can change and improve in our decision-making. Like, building better roads and hating fewer people. Does apply to the universe and it’s habit of existing as it does, whether we’re comfortable with that or not. Just to be clear.
100

And why’s that? Because it’s more natural? Just because you haven’t fallen in love with a person with the same shape of genitals as you doesn’t mean it’s unnatural. Or that you need to be mentally ill, or have a birth defect to do it.