I’ve spent a great deal of my life patiently explaining myself to people who didn’t understand. Until–here on these boards–I realized I was actually defensively justifying my existance. This was a revelation: it occurred to me that it’s not up to me to justify my existance; it’s up to the homophobes to justify their prejudice. The burden of proof is not on me to demonstrate that I’m a full on natural human being, capable of the same degree of morality and truth and beauty and future and life as they are; the burden is on the them to prove otherwise.
There are new homos being born every day–like communist infiltrators, born, undercoverlike, into STRAIGHT families. The gay kids today already have it a lot easier than I did. They have me, for one; I volunteer with gay youth. They have Will and Grace; I had The Children’s Hour. Let them take up what will HOPEFULLY be the last round of education.
I’m done educating. I’m gonna live my life, as if homophobes are in my way, which they are. I’m perfectly content if that makes me the lunatic fringe; I’m more than happy to be the lunatic fringe on this topic; helps define the center a little more clearly to have the boundaries laid out distinctly.
It is SO not my job to sugar coat the FUCKING TRUTH to make it easier for assholes to swallow it. Been there. Now, either swallow it on your own, or understand that I will choose my OWN method for getting it down your throat. And I won’t take the time to do it delicately, because it’s no longer my problem. It’s yours: the world is passing you by, and your children will turn to someone else to talk to when they learn that they are gay. Not my problem any more.
Here’s what I love: all you assholes (non-assholes excepted) basically saying: “If you talk mean to me, I’ll never allow you to convince me.” AS FUCKING IF! As if that means, “If you talk NICE to me, I’ll change my mind and let you get married and cry tears of joy when my son marries a urologist.” Bullshit. Bullshit bullshit bullshit.
You’re trying to extort “civility” out of me, with no intention whatsoever of budging one millimeter on the subject. Bullshit bullshit bullshit. I’ve come out the wrong end of THAT bait and switch ENOUGH times to know that as soon as I moderate my tone and flap my false eyelashes, you’ll go “PSYCH! still a homophobe!”
Prezactly. So the religious aspect is (and should be) immaterial to anyone who doesn’t subscribe to a religion. And it most certainly should not be the concern of the government; marriage should be available to anyone who wants to marry; whether for love or money.
I find it hard to sympathise with those that are pissed off at Lissener. Put yourself in his position – give up the rights that everyone around you enjoys. Be the target for a while. Live with the evil eye that he gets from family, church, government, etc. – and see if you don’t get your bowels in an uproar. I’d be hoppin’ fuckin’ mad if I were in his shoes.
I really want to see Res’ answer to Miller’s post.
Re: Res’ comment about Catholics condemning homo relations based on more than Leviticus.
IMO the Church’s position on Human Sexuality is backward, oppressive and hurtful. Endemic pedophilia is just a symptom. How does Res reconcile that? What about the whole “men have a place (in the Church) and women have a place (barefoot and pregnant)” mindset? Isn’t that just a little disturbing? Are there any examples of hierarchies where women and men have proscribed roles, in which everyone is happy and free? Because all of the ones I can think of offhand are despotic regimes rife with oppression.
And about the “would rather toe the line than be a maverick”, isn’t that just a little disturbing as well? It smacks of “just following orders”. It reminds me of all those tv shows and movies where terrible things happen because people would rather have security than freedom.
Res, I admire your open-mindedness and willingness to learn, but the way you put things just scares me.
Most respectfully and sincerely, your “Scorched Earth Policy” regarding homophobia is not going to work. It’s only going to drive a wedge between your message and the people you are likely quite apt to otherwise enlighten.
Several years ago, I discovered I was a homophobe, even though I had many gay friends and thought I was pretty clear on the whole idea of homosexuality and how it related to me. At that point, if I’d have made an offhand comment, you probably would have come down so hard on my sorry ass that my mind would’ve plumb closed up. BTW: I’m better now.
Please reconsider your tack; this is an issue that is so difficult for the standard male to grasp that you will always bear the burden of his projection.
This is clearly a strawman. No one asserted that your sexuality is/was a choice. We are discussing homosexuality in general. Your personal experience in the matter is largely irrelevant in making a determination that is to apply to the entire population of homosexuals. As you said here, "* …personal struggles are entirely anecdotal and really outside the question at hand.*”
This is how you defined homophobia in this thread:
That being said, what exactly is my position that makes me a homophobe? I have not seen conclusive evidence that proves homosexuality is 100% genetic. Logically, I do not believe it can be because if it were, it would effectively breed itself out. You see how that makes sense right? I also fail to see how it could be 100% environmental. As I stated before, likely it is some combination therein. What I take exception to, is your condemnation of those who would believe this, in place of your misplaced fanaticism over what homosexuality is and what is the cause of it.
I think TVAA said it best in this thread: “Choice and genetic influence aren’t opposed. They’re not even complete.”
So what’s the point of all this? Your definition of what a homophobe is, sucks. A person can easily fit your criteria (as described above) of what a homophobe is, namely, thinking that homosexuality is a choice, and still believe that homosexuals are in every respect equally valid human beings as heterosexuals, deserving of all rights and protections as every other human being. Your homophobe-painting brush is too wide. I would guess that most secular libertarians would feel similarly. So like I said, you want to be all militant and accusatory with people who feel differently than you, label them homophobes, call them irrational and ignorant, and vilify them, go right ahead. It just makes you an asshole.
[list=A][]Thanks for telling me what I would’ve done. What I would’ve done is ignored you, written you off, moved on.[]And yeah, you would have been closed up AFTER I called you on it. MY fault. Bullshit bullshit bullshit.
[list=A][li]Thanks for telling me what I would’ve done. What I would’ve done is ignored you, written you off, moved on.And yeah, you would have been closed up AFTER I called you on it. MY fault. Bullshit bullshit bullshit.[/li][/quote]
Guess it’s time to write you off as a bitter, spiteful vigilante.
Lissener, you seem like a very angry, hate filled man. This whole ‘asked and answered bit’ is getting tired. But it’s really the only thing that you’ve been saying consistently that’s not filled with hate. Good job on the improvement. Bravo.
I think you need to be more clear on the difference between environmental influence and choice. This has been pointed out, but you appear to be consistently conflating the two.
Your incapacity for understanding some people weren’t born with gay acceptance coursing through their veins makes you ignorant. Your attacks make you hateful, and reasonable people who might be slowly creeping to new understanding will shrink away from your rhetoric.
I really dont see much of a difference between environmental influence and choice, in an abstract kind of way. Environmental influences (like the actions of a parent) are still choices. They are choices not of the specific individual in question, but choices none the less. Anything that is not genetic, is a choice. (I hope that’s not too much of a blanket statement. I may have to modify this further, but I’m trying to keep it simple)
I said this on page 2 (I view threads 40 replies at a time):
I will add further to that, that I dont care one bit on the cause. It does not mean I treat homosexuals any different than heterosexuals. I do not believe that homosexuals are less valid as human beings, deserve less rights and priledges, or deserve less protection under the law.
But since I believe there are elements of homosexuality that are environmental/choice oriented, Lissener brands me an ignorant, irrational homophobe.
Yep, if it wasn’t for those uppity niggers and their bus boycott bullshit, the KKK would’ve come around eventually.[ul]Here’s me, your ideal version: “But Mr. B, please allow me to patiently justify my humanity to you.”
Here’s Ann Frank: “But Officer Stormtrooper, please allow me to patiently justify my humanity to you.”
Here’s Lynching Victim Number N, to the white hooded mob with the rope over the tree branch: “But Mister White Man, please allow me to patiently justify my humanity to you.”[/ul]
Here’s me, in real life: kiss my entire ass, Mr. B.
(You have my permission to use my Nazi parallel as a lame excuse to declare this thread over; after all, such parallels–even when discussing the majority’s oppression of a minority and its historical precedents–are against the rules.)
Well a lot of other people do, so it might be wise to be a bit more precise - you never know when you might be talking to one of these people.
And I’ll bet 99.99% of people assume when someone says “homosexuality is a choice”, that they mean a choice by the homosexual. Also the idea that parental decisions are a choice is a bit misleading in it’s own right - the parents may (or may not) have made a conscious decision to raise their children in a manner that influenced their orientation, but they likely did not chose to make thier children have that orientation.
In sum, I’m not saying that you can’t defend your choice of terms, but I think a bit more precision would be warranted, particularily given the sensitivity of the subject matter.
