For it to be logical it has to not start out with an assumption. Gays actually do reproduce. They just don’t have sex with people they can reproduce with for fun. If gays were an illness then wearing condoms would be unhealthy.
Where you were going wrong is with the whole “I am going to post inflammatory material then complain when people flame me.”. Not to mention your complete lack of any knowledge on the subject.
I don’t even know how to begin to answer all that vitriol. I haven’t ever said, nor do I think, that gays should disappear (oh right, closet joke. my screw up there) I don’t expect gays to hide their faces and bow and scrape and say “oh, we’re not worthy” or some such crap. I can tell that my point of view is demonstrably going to leave you pissed off and looking to do some damage to me. I truly am sorry. I repeat, I truly am sorry.
I absolutely agree with you, people have a right to be what they are. No argument. None. {sigh} I can’t seem to address this in such a way as to promote a dialogue, or debate, or even a soto voce argument, but, well hell. Let me try just once more to get it right - please, bear with me. If what you’re really saying is that society has no role to play in setting mores, and that the 60’s had it right with free love, do it in the streets, everything is okay, and nothing is ever, ever, ever to be frowned upon by society, then say so. I can disagree with that, and go on my way. However, if you grant that society has a vested interest in promoting values, morals, or whateverthehell term you like, you must then argue with specifics, not the whole. Right?
**Sterra{/b}, c’mon, already. The point was that gay sex doesn’t result in reproduction. You did get that, right? And what assumption precisely did I start with? That gay sex doesn’t produce offspring? If we have to start with Bio 101, and “prove” every frigging thing, I’d have to say you’re avoiding the question. The first order of business for any species is survival. No survival, all other questions become moot. Can we agree on that? Gawd, I hope so. This is really tedious. Can we cut to the chase and have someone give me a clear argument without all the nasty and diversionary chitchat. Perhaps my view is inflammatory, but I’m not posting for that reason. I’d like a serious response. Why do I have to justify myself? Why do gays get to take the high road, and anything contrary is hate speech, or bigoted, or some such? Because that’s what you’re saying here, isn’t it? It would seem so simple to just cry “majority rules”, take my bat and ball and go home. That doesn’t do it for me. I’m either stupid or stubborn, or both, but I have a sincere desire to hear a valid point of view other than my own, and all you want to do is call me names? What good does that do either of us?
Just for clarification, how old are your sons?
Homosexuality is not a behavior anymore than a preference for chocolate over vanilla is a behavior.
???
Okay, no. Homosexuality is a sexual preference which in many cases is manifested by a person in the sexual partners they choose. In some cases it is not.
Cross-dressing is, by definition, manifested in how one lives.
They’re also engaging in illegal behavior any way you slice it, so thanks for not lumping my grandfather in with such fine men as Jeeves, MrVisible, and Esprix.
Could ANYONE explain to me what the hell homosexual behavior is? I’ve yet to hear a comprehensive definition.
Wait, I know this one . . .
No, that’s popes in a volkswagen. Sorry, guess I haven’t heard that joke. I do know, however, that this:
Is not the punchline.
If you want to know all the differences between the two, go to a pride website or something, I dunno.
It has in the past, and it will in the future. Madonna didn’t make her name by being a consumer advocate.
For some people it is. I don’t think anyone in this thread has said as much, and I also don’t think you want to go setting up strawmen around people who can sniff 'em out at a hundred paces.
If this weren’t so inherently (and in lots of other ways) offensive, I might use it for my sig.
More reproduction does not mean a better chance of surviving. The first order of a species is survival, but if a species reproduced too much it would die off pretty damn quick. Otherwise why would we ever evolve beyond single cell organisms? They can reproduce faster than anything therefore they should be the end all lifeform right? You don’t have to justify yourself, but you do have to justify your assertions. I am not dodging the questions. I just assume(and it has turned out to be valid) that you are starting out with a unsupportable assumption.
JB, I had to go back and reread your last message. Gads, did you read me wrong! I never ever meant to suggest that stem cell or fetal tissue research to correct human frailty should be applied to homesexuals!! I was pointing out that there are many errors in humans, hence my needing glasses to correct poor eyesight as an example. You then attempted to equate blond hair with homosexuality as a ‘diversity’ in the species. I guess I can agree with that, to a degree. Today, needing glasses is only a nuisance. At one time, it could have meant life or death, depending on the severity of the condition, right? Now, if homosexuality were normal and ‘diverse’, as being blond, it would naturally replicate itself. But homoesexuality doesn’t, does it? Heterosexuality reproduces it. The central difference between being blond and near-sighted and gay, is, gay is a sexual activity that doesn’t reproduce itself as straight sexual acivity does.
Says the guy who posted something about gays staying in the closet and then says he was just kidding. You want a serious response, be serious yourself.
**
And what high road would that be? Wanting equal rights is a high road? Let me ask you this, what skin is it off your nose if gays get married? They just want to be treated the same as heterosexuals, and why shouldn’t they? You afraid they’ll teach your children to be gay? You think hanging around with gay people and the gayness might rub off on you? Being near a gay person makes a person as much gay as having female friends makes me female.
As for the Scoutmaster argument, as has been said many times already, the scouts are always accompanied by two adults, not just one.
Now, for this stuff about society setting morals and values? Who’s society? I don’t want a government telling me morals. Is it less moral to have a homosexual mate for life in a monogamous relationship, or to be heterosexual and sleep around with 100 different women?
What values is a child being taught when he grows up with two homosexual parents who love him (not in that way) and teach him right from wrong - to not steal, lie, or take advantage of people - that is detrimental to society? Or take the “normal” family of mom, dad, and siblings where the father beats the mother and children and drinks himself into oblivion on a daily basis.
Now, granted, I’m showing the best of one world and the darkest side of another, but my point is:
How is one group necessarily more moral or have better values than another based on sexual preference?
Okay. But first you have to explain what you’re trying to argue. Getting meaning out of your posts is close to impossible.
Slow down, take a few deep breaths, think about what you want to say, type it out carefully, and review it before posting it to make sure your point is completely clear.
Then I’ll be happy to smack you around with the Mighty Four By Four of Reason.
Until you do so, however, I’m just going to have to be content to respond to your inflammatory ill-informed drivel with the Giant Flamethrower of Contempt.
Twit.
Oh yes, one more thing:
I was in the Scouts for years. No Scoutmaster ever talked to any of the other Scouts about sex; homosexual or heterosexual. There is no Human Sexuality Merit Badge to be earned. So why do you think the Scoutmaster would gether all the little kiddies around to discuss homosexual behavior? This statement reeks of paranoia, pure and simple. Not every gay man has it on his agenda to turn as many people gay as possible (as if that’s even possible) or to use young impressionable children as propoganda recepticles.
And wouldn’t you be a little ticked to discover a straight Scoutmaster decided on his own to teach your 10 year old all about heterosexual behavior? The Scouts do not teach sex, and any Scoutmaster who did, gay or straight, would get in trouble for doing so.
::goes off to alert an admin to trolling::
Cite or ten, please?
Those are, of course, not comparable at all. One can be born blind by one’s mother having an infection in the right (wrong?) place. Some eye problems (says my father the nurse) can be genetic.
Which seems to me to be saying “gays can fix themselves” which would further indicate that they’re broken. If I’m reading your statement properly, have fun defending THAT one.
So while you may “grant” a man and woman the “societal recognition and status” to have sexual intercourse, you might not necessarily “grant” two men the “societal recognition and status” to have sexual intercourse.
Good thing 35 states say you have no fucking say in the matter whatso-fucking-ever.
Might want to tell my friend Rav that. He’s got five kids. He’s gay. Might furthermore want to tell all the lesbian and gay parents out there. I bet they’d be really shocked to hear they aren’t perpetuating humanity with their biological kids.
That analogy might be the worst in this thread, and bear in mind we’ve got one comparing heroin addicts to gay men.
A gay man isn’t chasing a straight man trying to convince the latter that he’s gay.
Gay men ain’t skunks, nor are they comparable to them.
Even with those two things aside you’re STILL back-asswards.
This makes less than no sense. If I parse this and apply the objects to various people, I still can’t make any sense of it.
My thanks to Mr. Visible. I did take a deep breath, and feel much better now that the oxygen made it to the starving brain cells. Crunchy Frog, muy gracias to you as well. I’d like to start by saying I don’t consider myself a paranoiac in need of chemical assistance. I don’t actually worry about the scoutmasters with my sons, both pre-teens by the way. I don’t want to see gays swept off the planet and out of the gene pool, nor do I like to see females aborted in India or China, or the woman who’s suing the fertility clinic because her red-headed children would have been “more attractive” if the right sperm donor had been used. I’m appalled at such attempts to “perfect” the human species. I’ve been rereading some of the more recent posts, and well, yes, I have been thinking. Hallelujah! I guess my point in a nutshell is, there’s lots of variety in humans, why does society have to recognize them all as equals? Do toe-fetishers need love too? Is it enough just to say gays are ok, or am I being a twit superior again?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” -The Declaration of Independence.
Good enough answer for you?
Well, I quit this discussion when I realized MC wasn’t up to understanding anything that was explained to him. I don’t explain physics to my cat either.
Hopefully no one minds me jumping back in for a moment. NaSultainne, I like this argument that homosexual sex doesn’t lead to reproduction, and is therefore unnatural. Continuing down the slippery slope you insinuate this also makes it abhorrent. Your lack of knowledge of biology is only matched by your lack of empathy for your fellow man.
You do know that oral sex does not lead to reproduction, nor does protected sex? I do hope you are not engaging in these activities. You simplify the idea of natural selection, or perhaps you don’t understand it. If gayness is indeed a trait, there is every possibility it may be coupled with advantages that overshadow the apparent lower birthrate. We as people do not decide which traits are adaptive or maladaptive. It is quite beyond us, but never fear, nature herself will sort it out.
As for homosexuality being unnatural… simply put, it happens in nature and is therefore, by definition, natural. (Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl, St Martin’s Press, New York 1999).
And all this should be moot. Why search for ‘scientific’ reasons to frown on homosexuality? Even if it were a ‘defect’ (which it is not), does that make these people any less human? Please state why these people are deserving of your disdain. And before you claim that you didn’t say this, let me just paste this in here: “why does society have to recognize them all as equals?” Sounds like disdain to me.
Stop with the toe-fetishers and cross-dresser comparisions, as they are not the same thing.
I fail to see how you compare being homosexual with these other fetishes you’ve mentioned. People with fetishes are not denied any rights of other people in the country, as long as they are straight. Gay people are being discriminated against, so where is the comparision here?
Why don’t you give those Darwin Awards* the old college try? If you’re gonna go down, at least go down in style, man!
*[sub]Note that I am not advocating that NS kill himself. It is only required that one become sterilized to be eligible for a Darwin Award. And really, so long as NS doesn’t breed, I’m cool.[/sub]
Okay, that’s better. Well done. Now, at least, we have one cogent point to address. I think you’ll find that if you apply that method to posting, you’ll get much more in the way of positive response.
So, the question on the floor is, “there’s lots of variety in humans, why does society have to recognize them all as equals?” It’s actually a pretty good question. I’m going to narrow it down to include only gay people, as that’s where this already-seriously-hijacked thread has been mostly revolving around.
I feel that I should be recognized, not as a member of a subculture, or a subgroup, or a political movement, but as an individual. I feel that I should be judged as an individual, according to my actions and my words. I want to have my accomplishments lauded or derided on the same merits as everybody else’s. I want to be judged, not on the basis of genetics, or hormones, or developmental factors, but on how I treat the people around me, and how well I’ve lived my life.
If you judge me as a gay man, before you know any of that about me, then you are deriding everything I’ve accomplished. That is prejudice.
The current situation in the US has a foundation of prejudicial legislation that makes gays, in effect, second-class citizens. Crimes against gays throughout the country are common, and are, in some cases, difficult to prosecute. In most parts of the US, you can be fired or evicted for just being gay, and have no recourse whatsoever.
Imagine your boss firing you because he found out you had blue eyes.
I’m not asking for handouts, or for “special rights”. I’m asking that you let go of your preconceptions about gay people, and treat them with the kind of respect that they, as individuals, deserve.
Now, NaSultainne, what about the current issues confronting gay people bothers you? Specifically. Make your points, one by one. If you argue them carefully, and well, then I for one will be happy to talk things over with you.
Iampunha, as the Declaration of Independence is unique to the US, I’m not sure how valid that is as an argument, but I’m adding it in. Waverly, you’re right and I apologize to all on this board. I can see I still have much to think about. I must be really stupid to keep hammering on this question, but…nevermind. I’ll get back when I can make sense.
I think perhaps I can make some sense here. We’ll see.
As a straight woman and a breeder(too late!), obviously being gay hasn’t been a concern of mine. I started whining here, and had to slap myself. I’m sitting here, frowning at my computer, and thinking to myself, I just don’t get it, at least not totally. I get the anger and frustration over being harassed - it’s certainly more common in this world for everybody than not. I just really don’t get why gays feel the need to be accepted by all the world? Aren’t there lots of people who are merely tolerated, rather than accepted? And would tolerance be enough? I know I’m about to get kicked all over again, but I just think not everyone is equal, or the same, or what have you. It’s just a fact of life. I’d personally like to be equal to Charlize Theron, but, whoo boy! ain’t gonna happen. Saying it don’t make it so. Do I run around begging for equality? No, 'cause I’m basically a fatalist anyway. Now, you phrased it as equal rights, so let me ask; is gay marriage the be all and end all goal? Is there something else?
Just because people are tolerated doesen’t mean that they don’t feel the need to be accepted. Personally I find that it is a fact of life that everyone is equal. Saying it isin’t don’t make it so.
I don’t think being accepted by all the world is the goal. But being equal in the eyes of the law is a lot different.
**
Just think about that for a second. Blacks were tolerated but not accepted (separate but equal - and it wasn’t even that equal). It isn’t enough to be tolerated. Gays aren’t asking for anything special, just to be treated the same a anyone else in the eyes of the law. It is against the law to discriminate against a person for having different skin color or being a different sex. However, having a different sexual orientation is still very much legally discriminated against. These are human beings we’re talking about. Not defects, not mistakes of nature. Human beings who are only asking that they be afforded the same rights and chances as other human beings.
**
In the eyes of the law, you already are equal. Don’t confuse the issue.
**
That’s you. Many people aren’t content to enjoy the shit sandwich being handed to them.
**
You’ll have to ask a gay person for that one.