US Democracy, why I like it

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well, this argument just became about five times less mature:

Why don't we just stick to the classics? I'll say, "Nuh-uh!" and you say "Uh-huh!" and we'll see who wins, uhmkay? Out of curiosity, how are you qualified to make any statements about my intentions?

With that aside, the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas was only the first step. Gay couples still cannot marry; in one state, they cannot adopt; in Tennessee, their actions were to be defined as "a crime against nature"; and so on. I can give ample evidence of the lack of gay rights in modern society, and all you can point to is the fact that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional? Please.

And of course I want acceptance, emprworm, but distinguish between what I want and what I fight for. I fight for my human rights, and hope that, someday, society will accept me. Everyone desires to be accepted, and claiming that homosexuals should stop working to improve their condition because people will "despair" them is foolish. There were people like you after the Civil War, too. You told emancipated slaves that they weren't equal, and they should stop acting like it, then passed the Jim Crow laws to make sure that you were right. No one listened to your ilk then, and we had the black Civil Rights Movement. No homosexual is listening to you now, and our Civil Rights Movement is progressing nicely, thank you. I dare you to find a gay rights protest at which they chanted:

"WHAT DO WE WANT?"

"SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE!"

"WHEN DO WE WANT IT?"

"NOW!"

It's not going to happen because social acceptance is a by-product of political equality.

You make the claim that your parents taught you to be straight, thus revealing how truly ignorant of this topic you are. Sexuality cannot be learned or chosen. You did not choose to be attracted to women, and I did not choose to be attracted to men. Your parents did not ever sit you down and say, "Worm, this is how to be a breeder." Mine never sat me down and said, "Dan, this is how to be a queer." I would not be surprised if your parents gave you a talk on the "sinful nature" of being gay.

Which is why schools should teach acceptance. Believe it or not, emprworm, morality and religion are entirely separate from one another. Perhaps your particular brand of morality is inspired by religion, but mine isn't. A lot of people develop morals either partially or entirely apart from their faith, because most people can think for themselves. Schools should be responsible for educating the mind and the spirit. That is, they should take it upon themselves to dispel bigotry as early as possible, before it becomes entrenched in the child's mind.

Doesn't "homosexuality is wrong" strike you as more of a moral conclusion than a moral argument?

Go ahead and argue for why marriage should be abolished. What you're saying has no bearing on this discussion. As it stands now, marriage has not been abolished. It is a part of American culture and a part of American law. Homosexuals are barred from participating. This is not so because we have done something wrong, or because we don't have legitimate claims to these rights. No, it is so because people have no problem declaring us second-class citizens. This discussion can be interpreted in any warped and twisted you like, but it is impossible to argue the facts: Marriage is a right granted to heterosexuals. Homosexuals are human beings and American citizens, but are denied that right.

Dan correct me if i am wrong... but i was taught that Gay men are not really

[danielsh]

What you miss is that most gay men know that they are gay even before they experience the joys of anal sex. I, for example, came out of the closet at 16 and had known that I was attracted to other men for years before that. There's more involved in being gay than enjoying anal sex. To the best of my knowledge, there are indeed straight men who enjoy anal stimulation, but much prefer it from women. (Or, as you pointed out, themselves.) Because they aren't attracted to men.

I don't expect that what I've said will change your opinion about homosexuality, which is most likely deeply-ingrained. Consider, though, that an real, bona fide gay person is probably a better authority on homosexuality than your parents/church/teachers.

I pose this question to you: could you chose to be gay? Could you make a conscious choice to be aroused by attractive men and desire to do obscene things to them? Does the idea of having another man penetrate you seem appealing? Could you make it seem appealing? Think really hard. PM me if you'd like some porn to get you started. No? I didn't think so.

Okay, fine, if two parents were to say to their young child, "Put this in your poop-chute! It'll be fun!" then the child might decide that he enjoyed anal stimulation. If, however, the child were a heterosexual, then he would not suddenly decide that men were attractive. Another rhetorical question, if I may: is being 'straight' simply the condition of enjoying vaginal stimulation of the penis? Or do you also enjoy breasts, and female cabooses, and the female body, and so on?

No matter what you may have been taught, being gay is not a choice. You can only base this idea on a vast oversimplification of the concept of sexuality, one that does not account for the fact that most children 'know' at a very early age whether they are attracted to men, or women, or both, or neither. The fact that you were taught something does not make it true. I could begin teaching children that being African-American is not an inborn trait, but rather a choice, but that would still be crap. No, sexuality may not be genetic, but it is still not a choice. Instead of basing your opinions on what your parents/teachers/church taught you, why not find a gay person and ask him? If you are polite, and maybe were to explain what you were taught without coming to the conclusions that you just drew, he might be happy to repeat what I just said.

Some people are bisexual, in which case they can "chose" to live with a same- or opposite-sex partner. (Usually the latter, since the former is so much more difficult.) However, they did not chose to be bisexual. And people do not chose to be homosexual. And people do not chose to be heterosexual. It simply does not work that way. All of the bogus research in the world won't change that, because everyone knows how he works. If you want to prove that homosexuals chose their sexuality, then you'll have to prove that heterosexuals did the same. Betcha your 'research' becomes a lot more controversial once you go down that road...

[GUNWOUNDS]

Okay, fine, if two parents were to say to their young child, "Put this in your poop-chute! It'll be fun!" then the child might decide that he enjoyed anal stimulation. If, however, the child were a heterosexual, then he would not suddenly decide that men were attractive. Another rhetorical question, if I may: is being 'straight' simply the condition of enjoying vaginal stimulation of the penis? Or do you also enjoy breasts, and female cabooses, and the female body, and so on?

yes the overall appearance of a woman is part of the attraction... and let me ask you....just wondering..... does vaginal penetration  repulse you?

[GUNWOUNDS]

I pose this question to you: could you chose to be gay? Could you make a conscious choice to be aroused by attractive men and desire to do obscene things to them? Does the idea of having another man penetrate you seem appealing? Could you make it seem appealing? Think really hard. PM me if you'd like some porn to get you started. No? I didn't think so.

How does this work in prison?... obvious many of the men are straight.. but they somehow condition themselves to find man-love appealing... how do you explain this?

[danielsh]

Depends on what you mean by "repulse." It doesn't appeal to me, and I don't particularly like the idea at all. Given the option, I would prefer not to engage in vaginal penetration. Ever seen the Vagina Monologues? Yuck. (Excellent play, however.)

I can't offer an opinion about prison, really. There are gay men who spend years in the closet having sex with women... perhaps it works the same way? That is, if it's easier to just settle, maybe a person can close his eyes and pretend. Abstinence, we can all agree, is no fun, and their judgment must be that self-stimulation doesn't quite live up to the real thing. Again, I've never been in prison, nor have I read any serious discussion of this phenomenon. I assume, however, that as soon as a prisoner leaves, he goes back to breeding.

[emprworm]

And of course I want acceptance, emprworm, but distinguish between what I want and what I fight for. I fight for my human rights, and hope that, someday, society will accept me. Everyone desires to be accepted, and claiming that homosexuals should stop working to improve their condition because people will "despair" them is foolish.

of course you want acceptance.

[danielsh]

I admire your ability to quote me out of context. Here's what I said about social acceptance:

And of course I want acceptance, emprworm, but distinguish between what I want and what I fight for.

[snip]

I dare you to find a gay rights protest at which they chanted:

"WHAT DO WE WANT?"

"SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE!"

"WHEN DO WE WANT IT?"

"NOW!"

It's not going to happen because social acceptance is a by-product of political equality.

The fight for gay rights is not about acceptance. Acceptance is a by-product of political equality.

I agree, the government should not impose its morals on the people. Therefore, the government should allow homosexuals to marry. It's not pandering to anything or anyone. When I last checked, giving an oppressed group its human rights was not a sign of weakness. Since no one can refute the ideas that homosexuals are human beings and that human beings deserve equal rights & protections under the law, there is no rational objection to legalizing gay marriage. The only objection that can be made is a moral one, and it happens to be either completely invalid or based in religion---or both---which means that it has no place in government.

Marriage is indeed a human institution. So let all humans participate. It doesn't matter if it's always been done your way. This is an argumentum ad antiquitatem and a logical fallacy; the fact that marriage's old definition has survived for so long does not make that definition good or right. You say that there is no longer any definition to marriage "thanks to minority groups like gays," but that, of course, is wrong. How can homosexuals destroy the definition of marriage if we can't get one? What other "minority groups" have redefined marriage? Polygamists can't marry. Was it the legalization of interracial marriage that sent us down the moral tubes? Or are you just pulling this stuff out of your ass? Here's my definition to marriage, one that probably won't be complicated too much by us dirty fags: "A union between people who love and are committed to each other that represents that love and commitment while affording thousands of legal protections for the involved parties." Sound okay to you? Or would the government be "pandering to a single particular lifestyle" to implement that?

I never implied that homosexuals and slaves are the same. I made the comparison between laws being pushed across the country now (Florida: gays cannot adopt children, already passed; Pennsylvania: gays cannot be given marriage benefits by the state, cannot adopt, and lose a bevy of other rights and protections; Tennessee: homosexuality will be defined as a "crime against nature" and gays will be removed from the state; 38 states in the Union: gays forbidden from marrying; all the rest: gays cannot marry) and the Jim Crow laws. No, it's not a perfect comparison, but the comparison is there nevertheless. Furthermore, study the history of the Republican party. Before the 1920s, the Republican party was liberal and the Democratic conservative, socially. I don't believe that I'm victimizing myself here. When I imagine a victim, I imagine someone who feels wronged and just bitches about it, with no legitimate claim to redress. Not only do homosexuals have a legitimate claim to redress, but most of us who are complaining are also taking action. Most of the American people, along with their politicians, are trying to make us into victims. But they've been doing that for a while, and we're still around, still fighting for what is due us. Have you ever been a homosexual? Have you spent years of your life hiding who you are, while listening to the people around you attack your true nature? Have you heard people use a term for your sexual orientation as a pejorative word, constantly? Have you listened to politicians accuse you of destroying the morals of society, blaming you for the divorce rate, calling your sexual preference a disease, and lobbying to treat you as a second-class citizen? Have you ever seen brutal and terrible murders committed out of hatred for your kind? Hatred that comes from the fear and inequality that is present in more and more of our society and government today? Once you go through that, talk to me about not making myself a victim.

As I stated, morality is separate from religion, and neither one necessarily leads to the other. If you read Frederick Douglass' slave narrative, you'll find that he emphasizes the fact that the cruelest masters were the Christian ones. They beat their slaves with the fury of religious fervor.

I did not say that anyone is born gay, I said that sexuality is neither taught nor chosen. It is something perfectly natural over which no one has control. It is certainly not a reasonable basis for legal discrimination. Indeed, there is no reasonable basis for legal discrimination. The government may not deny me the rights that it gives you because of what I do at night. This isn't a question of "imposing" anything on anyone. Religious bodies won't have to marry homosexuals, nor will they have to get married to members of the same sex, nor will they have to pay us any heed. All we want is to be left alone, given the freedom to live our lives as we will. With whomever we will. And I fail to understand why that's such a big problem.

[emprworm]

The only objection that can be made is a moral one, and it happens to be either completely invalid or based in religion---or both---which means that it has no place in government.

it has no place in government, if it is religious OR advocates a moral view.

[Dante]

I thought it already had?

Besides which, what kind of government would outlaw that which is correct?

And incidentally, isn't it a bit oxymoronic to use the words 'liberal tyranny' ?

[emprworm]

And incidentally, isn't it a bit oxymoronic to use the words 'liberal tyranny' ?

not at all.

[HasimirFenring]

"hitler-esque signs"

I'm curious...What is a hitler-esque sign?  I could be wrong, but I doubt very much that any of the anti-war type people are nazis (keep in mind, you're talking about liberals and the nazi party was right-wing).

[emprworm]

they make pictures of bush, and US flags and superimpose swastikas on them.  representing their enfatuation with Hitler and their ultimate expression of hatred and rage.

[nemafakei]

"liberals are some of the most hatefilled people on the planet"

Uh, even if this were true, you have to ask what it is they hate, and you find that freedom is, by definiton, not one of them. Hence, yes, "Liberal tyrrany" is an oxymoron.

[emprworm]

"liberals are some of the most hatefilled people on the planet"

Uh, even if this were true, you have to ask what it is they hate, and you find that freedom is, by definiton, not one of them. Hence, yes, "Liberal tyrrany" is an oxymoron.

fallacy of the slippery slope.  Look at the crazy line of logic you give.

"What do liberals hate?"

"Freedom isn't something they hate"

"therefore liberal tyrrany" is an oxymoron

using your negative definitions, it can be reworded to this:

"Freedom for themselves and those of like-mind isn't something they hate"

"people that oppose them, fundamental christians, conservatives, etc.,..are something they hate"

"therefore liberal tyrrany" is a reality

[HasimirFenring]

First of all, your response to Nema's post is nonsense... Second:

"they make pictures of bush, and US flags and superimpose swastikas on them.  representing their enfatuation with Hitler and their ultimate expression of hatred and rage. "

I can't imagine that anyone could actually believe this, but I'll explain it anyway.  The swastikas on those signs are saying that BUSH IS LIKE HITLER!!!!  I may not agree, but the message is clear enough.  Nothing could be further from the truth than saying that it represents thier "enfatuation with Hitler"

[danielsh]

My rights are infringed upon.

[emprworm]

The vast generalization is awesome. Noam Chomsky once said, "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." And then there's Voltaire's: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." No, those laws do not seem appropriate to me.

interesting you would say that.

[Dante]

not at all.

[GUNWOUNDS]

"hitler-esque signs"

I'm curious...What is a hitler-esque sign?

[danielsh]

Yes, there are homosexuals who want that. There are homosexuals who are Republicans, too. I'm not one of them. *shrug* Not much more I can say on that topic. But I don't think it's fair to say, "Some gay people are intolerant of my intolerance, therefore all gay people are intolerant and hypocritical."

I really think that you were taking my examples to be criteria. I thought, when I wrote the post, that it was clear that I was saying, "Here are some reasons why long-term relationships should be protected," not, "Here are the protections that one should demand in order to entitle one to marriage." And no, I should not have said "The protections are designed for two people," and apologize for that.

Emprworm, I'm going to address your question about "better off" in a sec, but are you implying that gay parents will raise gay children? Someone was quoted on bash.org as saying how much sense that makes, considering that straight parents can only raise straight children. And, of course, considering that being around tall people will make you tall. As to "better off," I believe that gay parents who understand how difficult it is for one's parents to reject one are more likely to accept their children in any form---gay or straight, liberal or conservative, Atheist or Christian.

I don't understand your last few statements. Are you implying that I take some kind of perverse pleasure in the murder of Christians? I don't accept any death as fair, or justified. They are not my enemies. Not all Christians oppose gay marriage and rights. Indeed, some are pioneering our cause. I don't think that I said, "Homosexuals face the most severe abuse in history." There are degrees of abuse, degrees of victimization. But we, as human beings, should not condone any degree of abuse.

[HasimirFenring]

They make signs and flags that bear nazi symbols on them and they make bush have a mustache like hitler.... were you being sarcastic when you asked this question?

Not so much sarcastic as worried...  I was hoping emprworm didn't mean what I thought he meant.  It turned out he did:

"they make pictures of bush, and US flags and superimpose swastikas on them.  representing their enfatuation with Hitler and their ultimate expression of hatred and rage. "

I had difficulty believing that anyone would actually think this.  Those signs don't represent their infatuation with Hitler!!!!  They are comparing bush to Hitler AS AN INSULT TO BUSH!!!  Few groups hate Hitler more than those peace groups!

[VigilVirus]

Emprworm is just losing the debate, so he resorted to using logic full of fallacies. He knows he's wrong, he just doesn't want to admit it.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Emprworm is just losing the debate, so he resorted to using logic full of fallacies. He knows he's wrong, he just doesn't want to admit it.

i think empworm was trying to make a point... and that point was... that these peace groups compare EVERYTHING to hitler... whether its Bush or whoever...thats why he claims they are enfatuated.

[nemafakei]

"and you find that freedom is, by definiton, not one of them"

Understatement; I could have worded it more explicitly, but it would be ignored anyway.

""Freedom for themselves and those of like-mind isn't something they hate"

"people that oppose them, fundamental christians, conservatives, etc.,..are something they hate"

"therefore liberal tyrrany" is a reality "

And this doesn not seem to follow any (non-contradictory) line of reasoning.

[emprworm]

Emprworm is just losing the debate, so he resorted to using logic full of fallacies. He knows he's wrong, he just doesn't want to admit it.

nice poisoning the well fallacy