tomndebb:
I don’t believe this. Unless they live in a very backward part of the country, some small hick town. I live in Orange County California, a right wing stronghold no less, and they would not have this kind of fear here.
Note, please, that I don’t “favour lowering the age of consent”, per se. I favour determining the age of consent on the basis of the individual, not some arbitrary line.
This is going to play into someone’s hands here, so I’ll note that I’m approaching this as someone who spent quite some time in just the last few years worrying about whether my sex partners would get busted because I was under the age of consent (or at least one of the ages of consent we have in Canada). Not to mention as a humanist.
Uhhh… you didn’t answer my question.
If it’s a conscious choice, why can’t they just choose to change back?
A black person cannot change the color of his skin. A gay person cannot change his sexual orientation. Both groups are hated without reason and should have the same rights as everyone else. NOT special rights, the SAME rights! What the hell don’t you understand?!
How? Even if it were, how would it be hurting you, and why should we deny those who participate in it their equal rights?
I am the user formerly known as puffington.
I’m curious why you would believe this (other than because you are saturated with gay-bashing literature).
The first homosexuals I encountered were frightened kids who had no idea why they were attracted to their male classmates and not their female classmates. The most important thing in the world, to them, was the ability to “fit in.” They couldn’t do it and it ate at them.
So what was their point in “choosing” the one aspect of their personality that effectively prevent them achieving everything they really wanted–acceptance?
Before you try to dismiss them as having fallen for homosexual propaganda, I will note that I met them in 1968 and 1970. The Stonewall Inn raid occurred in 1969, but I can assure you that no one who was not already paying attention to the NY gay community heard anything about it–particularly not the middle-class suburban kids that I knew.
Your other comment about there not being a gay gene is also, at best, disingenuous. Consider all the things that we do not know about human development and sexuality, in general. The fact that we have not found a specific trigger for that orientation (while only a very few researchers are even looking and no one has been looking for more than 20 years) means nothing. What causes cancer? We have spent far more money and energy for far more years on that subject. Is cancer a psychosomatic problem because we have not found the specific agent that triggers it?
(While I am sure that you would like to compare homosexuality to cancer, itself, the only comparison actually made is that of knowing the physical sources for mysterious organic expressions.)
From where I sit, you have made an a priori decision to oppose homosexuality based on no evidence and you now want your opponents in debate to provide “evidence” when you have provided none. Having looked over the SPHI web-site, I would have to say that there is far more deceit and exploitation among those that are trying to claim that homosexuality is a choice. (Can anyone at SPHI actually provide a citation to a site or a document in the public record that enumerates the “gay agenda”? (Especially in complete context?) Or does the SPHI invent what they need to promulgate in the same way that libeal bashers of Nixon or the John Birch Society have done in the past?)
Tom~
tomndebb:
Exactly what does “oppose homosexuality” mean? I assert that I have a complete right not to engage in, associate with, or support homosexual behavior in any form. However, I also assert that NO ONE has a right to discriminate against homosexuals solely on that basis. Do you see the difference?
As for evidence, there is ample that homosexual behavior is indeed self destructive. You, of course, would claim that it is only self-destructive because it is not accepted as a legitimate alternative to heterosexuality; ergo, we need to change the minds of those not so ‘enlightened.’ Your mindset is not unlike that of the OJ Simpson jury.
Homosexuality may or may not be right for the individual so involved. That is entirely their business. Of course anyone who disagrees will be labelled a ‘homophobe’, ‘bigot’, ‘gay-basher’, etc., ad nauseum. This is always the tactic used against those who wish to maintain their own personal standards. Once again the homosexual contingent has no business attempting to use the power of government to impose it’s values on the rest of us. I have outlined, via the link, their strategy in detail. If you had read it with an open mind, you would see how the plan developed in 1987 has come to fruition.
It’s there. Time, place, author, publication. Simply because you assert it is not does not make it so.
What is a ‘special right?’
Anytime an extreme group attempts to use the power of government to impose it’s values on the rest of society, that group is demanding a ‘special right’.
The left will assert that homosexuals are an ‘oppressed minority’. The strategy is make the link to blacks, Jews, women, etc., hijack their cause, call it their own, classify themselves as victims, gain the sympathy of society and thereby effect legislation.
However, the religious right is also an extreme group wishing to use the power of government to impose it’s values on society. You will not hear the left, however, rising to their defense. Why not?
Boomer
[quote]
In February 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations met at the Armitage Avenue United Methodist Church in Chicago. The demands I posted above are the result of this meeting, and probably the beginning of the radical activist ‘in your face’ homosexual movement we are witnessing today.[/quoye]
I should have realized something stank about this cite the first time he gave it…
I have checked several books on the history of the gay movement and am unable to find any reference to a group called the “National Coalition of Gay Organizations.” The closest thing to it I can find is the “North American Coalition of Homophile Organizations,” or NACHO (pronounced NAY-CHO). As NACHO formed in 1966 and broke up in 1970, it’s unlikely they met in 1972 and promulgated this list. Booker’s list, if it actually came from a “gay liberation” (as they were called in those days) group, was probably written up by a “group” of one or two, formed for the express purpose of issuing this manifesto and then vanishing, never to be heard from again. Still, even if this is a genuine list of some sort, even Boomer admits that he only considers a few of them to be “special rights.” So let’s examine each of those in turn:
This is asking for “encouragement and support” for a particular curriculum, not a demand that such a curriculum be implemented or a claim that such a curriculum is a right. Next?
I’m suspicious of the bracketed words. Who bracketed them and what was the original text? Anyway, since laws which make discrimination against gays illegal also make illegal discrimination against str8s, this does not fit the definition of a “special right.” Next?
As long as the legislation addresses “sexual orientation” as opposed to “homosexuality,” then it’s not a “special right” as str8 people would also be protected. Next?
Since age of consent laws apply to everyone regardless of sexual orientation, this also does not fit the definition of a “special right.”
“Gay rights” are civil rights.
Gee, I go to all the activist homosexual meetings, I didn’t see you there! Were you the one in the hat?
Unless the landlord or boss is there, or the person describes their sex life, they don’t. As we are talking about sexual orientation your attempt to divert it into a discussion of “sex lives” is unwarranted, as sexual orienation and sexual behaviour are not synonymous.
One recent example of blatant illegal housing discrimination took place in Park Slope, a Brooklyn NY neighborhood. A gay couple tried to rent a one-bedroom apartment and were denied it because the landlord “didn’t feel comfortable renting to two young men.” Their rental agent, at least, had the decency to apologize, although she allowed the discrimination to be perpetuated by refusing to show the apartment to other same-sex couples (claiming it was “too small”) while enthusiastically showing it to married str8 couples, non-married str8 couples and even str8 couples with children. I drew this information from The Lambda Update, a publication of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, but it’s also available at their website. I don’t know how to put a link in here, so the address is http://www.lambdalegal.org/.
You people make me sick, daring to equate this with the real suffering of real victims. Obviously this is just an attempt on the part of a heterosexual activist to claim victim status for himself in the hopes of getting special legislation passed.
Sarcasm aside, you were subjected to sexual harrassment, which is illegal.
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equality under the law, yet additional civil rights legislation is required.
](http://www.sphi.com/the_gay_agenda.htm
[/quote)
Ah. So his source for all of this is a website created by the radical religious right, “Stop Promoting Homosexuality International.” This group formed following the Hawaii SC decision that denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples was a violation of the state constitution. Its sole purpose at that time was to pass a state constitutional amendment barring recognition of same-sex marriages. They succeeded in passing it, but to their chagrin the HSC ruled that while the state was now prohibited from issuing marriage licenses, all the rights and reqposibibilities of marriage were still due to same-sex couples. In supposedly “protecting” marriage, SPHI and their ilk managed to reduce it to nothing more than a piece of paper.
Boomer parrots this website, down to quoting unattributed sections of text as if they were his own thoughts. Here’s an idea, why don’t you look at websites and resources which aren’t created by the radical right?
Then stop parroting their websites and their agenda.
No, it is not. It is an ORIENTATION. A homosexual is homosexual even when s/he is not having sex. Just like a heterosexual is heterosexual even when not having sex. I’m assuming you’re not having sex as you read this. Are you not heterosexual at this moment?
How am I going to destroy myself because I am gay? Last I heard, everyone ends up dead e
tracer
I spell str8 with an 8 for one reason only; str8 being a shorter word, I’m less likely to mistype it.
Otto:
You are quite correct. I’ve just spent the last 40 minutes with multiple search engines looking all over the net and have been unable to come up with a reference to a group by that name. BTW, I have also asked/challenged sphi to provide a referencing pointer to their source. Next I’ll look for support for the alleged article called "The Overhauling of Straight America’’ by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill and appeared in Guide Magazine, November
1987.
So maybe I’m just dense, but if you don’t advocate discrimination based on sexual orientation then why are you so upset by the idea of laws protecting people from such discrimination?
I don’t think you object to laws protecting women or African-Americans from discrimination, do you? Are such laws, in those cases, a demand for “special rights”? If not, then why do they involve “special rights” in the case of homosexuals? Now, please understand that I’m not asking whether you think such laws should be extended to homosexuals – you’ve made your position quite clear on that. I’m trying to clarify when it is that you feel laws against discrimination are demands for special rights.
Up, up and away!
And you still haven’t. Yes, folks, debating the BOOMER way, you CAN’T lose! Just ignore whatever you can’t answer and spout the same rhetoric over and over. I know I’m convinced. If you’ll excuse me, I’ve got some gay bashing to do.
I am the user formerly known as puffington.
Is it my imagination, or is Boomer now starting to sound an awful lot like Rousseau, whom we haven’t seen in a couple of weeks now (which I find odd)? And I won’t even comment on his similarities to Diamond and StarvinMarvin, because I think I’ve done that joke to death…
First of all, posting a list dated 1972 is at its face value ridiculous - we’re talking a mere 3 years after Stonewall, the very beginning of the gay rights movement, and in the midst of the sexually-liberal, pre-AIDS mindset of the late 60’s/early 70’s. Puh-lease - to tout this as “The Gay Agenda” is insulting, biased, and wholly ludicrous. On top of that, the group you cite finding it from is a rabidly anti-gay, religiously-oriented organization with little merit or national recognition.
Let’s see what a more up-to-date organization has to say, namely the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF.COM):
I think that would a little more accurately spell out the mythical “homosexual agenda.”
[ul][li]All heterosexual male teachers should be fired immediately, as they are the overwhelmingly largest percentage of child molesters. (OK, you can grow up now.)[/li][li]Presenting a fair picture of the world at large, where gay men and lesbians exist despite your objections, would raise our children to be a little more accepting of the differences in people. This is bad… how? No one is forcing anyone to do anything they don’t want to do.[/li][li]My sister takes an active interest in her children’s upbringing, and when her oldest came to the age that sex education was offered, she went to the presentation outlining what information would be covered in the course. She also had the option of not letting him take the class. I would hope that when the time comes, you take just an active role in your child’s welfare, and if you see something that you don’t want to raise your children learning, remove them from the class, or put them in a private school, but don’t make decisions for my child, whom I would wish to take such a class.[/ul][/li]
And again, the “sex for all ages” angle has been dismissed as most wholeheartedly not being a part of the “gay agenda.”
Religion is a behavioral pattern, yet they have tax-exempt status. Sounds like special rights to me.
You asked why we would need legislation that specifically spells it out. Well, hmmm, let’s see, by that mindset, I guess we didn’t need racial legislation in the 60’s, because really all those things are given to blacks - why did we have to “spell it out?” And I suppose that whole ERA thing was just superfluous, did nothing to raise the status of women in the country. Yeah, all really unnecessary, because we live in such a perfect society.
[ul][li]We do not have all the same “rights” - this has been pointed out over and over again, but you seem to keep ignoring it.[/li][li]I think Catholics have a deviant lifestyle; it’s a choice; so why should I be forced to accept it?[/ul][/li]
Uh, hello? What planet do you live on? When two guys buy a condo together - ding, whether it’s true or not, the landlord will assume, and could therefore discriminate. “Say, Bob, when am I going to meet that lovely wife of yours at the Christmas party? What? You’re 42 and still have a ‘roommate’? Hmmm…”
I would have thought your experience at the hands of homophobia would have made it all too clear why it is unacceptable, particularly since you were the additional victim of innuendo and assumption. Perhaps we ought to just treat each other equally, eh? Duh…
And you, like Rousseau, seem to dismiss out-of-hand the experts’ opinions on the subject (such as the American Psychological Association, among many, many others). Fine, believe what you will, but are you prepared to admit that there is no civil discrimination against gays and lesbians in this country?
Try reading your local paper - the kids at El Modena High School would disagree. And I live in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - 6th largest city in the nation, wholly Democratic - and I wouldn’t dare walk through center city holding hands with my boyfriend because I would not feel safe; some would, some wouldn’t even be seen in public with another man. Why should anyone be in fear for their lives for holding hands?
Boomer, if you’re really against discrimination, why are you standing by and letting it happen? What is your problem with specifically spelling out what, by your own admission, should already exist?
Esprix
Esprix:
I thought religious organizations were exempt from taxation becauset they were non-profit organizations…a category which includes many non-religious ones as well.
Or am I wrong about that? Prehaps one of our resident tax lawyers could correct me if I am.
That’s my only comment…you may now resume the gay stuff.
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@kozmo.com
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
Esprix said:
Question: How many of us who read that started hearing Bruce Springsteen or seeing Tom Hanks in our heads at that point? 
cmkeller:
I do not believe churches are non-profit organizations. If they were, then it would not be an advantage for organizations like Scientology to gain recognized status as a church, they could simply file for non-profit status.
Spiritus Mundi:
I don’t know if it’s that simple to obtain non-profit status, especially when you’re obviously selling books like “Dianetics” at what’s probably a profit. Also, there are definitely some other advantages to being recognized as a church. For one thing, it puts your followers under “equal protection” statutes as they apply to religious discrimination; it gives recognition to your clergy (if your religion has clergy) for a number of benefits, including performing marriages, visits to prisoners as a recognized chaplain…I’m sure there’s more to the Scientologists’ desire for recognition as a church than the tax advantages.
However, the above is merely speculation. Any tax experts out there, I’m interested to hear what you have to say about religious organizations and taxes.
Chaim Mattis Keller
I do not believe that non-profit organizations are prohibted from making profits on individua economic transaction, only from keeping those profits as assets. Otherwise NPOs would not be able to sell anything to raise funds.
As to churches, I am reasonably certain that they are not required to maintain non-profit status. Looking at the amount o wealth that has been accumulated in a number of churches worldwide certainly sems to bear this out. I am not, however, a tax lawyer.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
More to my point is that people use the “it’s a choice” argument to try to deny equal treatment under the law, whereas they would never advocate such a position if we were talking about other “lifestyle choices” such as one’s choice of religion.
Still, I would like to hear about tax status of churches myself…
Esprix
Not that I really miss him, but what the hell happened to CalifBoomer? He dumped that lousy list of gay “demands” and then ran for cover when the shooting started. I still want an answer to my question about when civil rights become special rights.
Up, up and away!
Clark K:
What ‘laws’ are you proposing?