Anti-Discrimination, Oppression and Over-Legalism

Remove all ads!

All I ever bloody here is the same bloody arguments. Homosexuals CHOSE the life they lead. The people espousing this putrid crap amaze me.
Please enlighten us with your profound wisdom on this matter. Dont start quoting psychologists you have links to. We can all play that game. You come up with links to people saying it is a choice, we come up with links to those saying it is genetics. Round and round the rose bush we dance. Frollicking in our arrogance.

The blind fact is this. You believe that it is a choice. Your faith says it is wrong and immoral. Those are your doctrines. If homosexuality was not made by choice, and was something these people had no choice over, then that would conflict with your doctrine. They would have been made that way by God. So, for your beliefs to hold water, they MUST AT ALL TIMES have chosen that life. No matter what ever gets studied, proven by science, whatever. No matter what ever gets said, for the sanctity of your beliefs it has to be CHOICE.

Sorry but we think that is You believe one thing, we believe something else. Can we please drop the F***ing subject now? or do egos and sabres still need to be rattled. Do people still need to convince themselves they are right?

 

That is the fundamental disagreement, is it not? There really isn't much value in it because the entire arguments of both sides are based upon unprovable thoughts. That said, I will try to bring in another perspective...

I have asked homosexuals and bisexuals about their orientation; they have never described a point in their life when they "chose" their orientation. Rationally speaking, what person in Western culture would choose a way of life that is full of persecution? It makes no sense. In fact, some of them fervently wish that were "normal" heterosexuals. However, try as they might, they cannot overcome the essential part of their nature.

At the very least, try to put yourself in their place. Imagine that you were a heterosexual, but, instead of the normal situation, you were a member of a minority in terms of sexual orientation. You have felt this way for all of the years of the sexually-aware part of your life. However, society condemns you for not being homosexual. If you reveal your orientation, you become reviled and ostracized. You are an outcast. Many religions will not tolerate your existance and deny your essential nature. To defend you is dangerous for anyone in politics, let alone admitting that you are one of the "dirty" heterosexuals. In school, people avoid you in fear of guilt by association. It is almost suicidal to admit what you feel in public. So, you refuse to admit it; you may not even accept it. Every day of your life is a lie without any hope of escape. Occasionally, you find other people like you, other heterosexuals, and you can return to your natural state. Simply to let that happen is almost heavenly.

To say that all homosexuals are promiscuous is a lie and a malicious generalization. To have multiple unprotected partners is a problem for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. It is discriminatory to single out homosexuals as the only people performing anal sex; anal sex is hazardous for people of both orientations. STDs also do not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual partners; the primary reason behind the spread of STDs in homosexual communities is that they are likely to have sex with other people in the same community. Once the disease enters the community, it is likely to continue to spread throughout the community. The same thing would happen in an insular heterosexual community with as few members.

All that said, this is one of those times where I fear that we can only agree to disagree. I hope that, in any case, this will be closed soon, at least for a little while.

EDIT: My apologies to Darkthrone and Takara, whose posts were not up when I started writing this. I also apologize in advance in case this thread continues.

[ December 13, 2004, 13:46: Message edited by: Gavin de Valge ]

 

You all know what, we have two, maybe three people on this board insisting on talking homosexuals again and again. Giving light to a topic which for most people is firstly obvious and secondly not all that important.

This board is starting look like a mirror of the American election where the question of equal rights for gays took a prominent position, playing on humanities eternal fear of the deviant before questions most people find a lot more important.

The reactionary and bigoted views spouted here by some members, just thinly veiled so as to not say outright that all those darn homosexuals should just go lock themselves in a closet again and not insist on believing that they are as much humans and have as much right as everyone else is appalling. For me it feels like trying to reason with racists or fascists. The very fact that we try to reason with them makes their views acceptable, a part of discourse. Would we accept this if we replaced homosexuals for jews? Or blacks?

The most disgusting thing is that these reactionaries have the gall to take the victims role. Whining about being oppressed by the evil powerful viscious homosexuals and their world conquering agenda.

This is the closest thing I have ever got to a flame but it pisses me off to again and again see these topics which if you only replace homosexual by jew could take place on a nazi convention. Heck, the nazis gassed the homosexuals too, I reckon that is one group some people here are saddened the nazis didnt manage to finish off.

 

From Bion:

Jesus spoke in descriptive terms, basing on His knowledge. It is reasonable to say that as an omnipotent and omniscient God, whether in a human body or not, He knew how things would go on in afterlife. However, there's no phrase close to personal arbitrary condemnation. There were even converted Pharisees and Saducees and members of the Jewish priesthood. Think Joseph of Arimathee or Nicodaemus.

The point is that comparing two sins and deciding that one of them is lesser still doesn't make a licit act of the lesser sin. Your logic looks like:

Jesus spoke against the sins of the spirit more vehemently than against those of the flesh, ERGO it's licit to commit sins of the flesh and it should be seen as righteous to do so

Sorry, but this inference doesn't hold. The only conclusion from your premise is that the sins of the flesh are graver than the sins of the spirit.

From the point of view of Christianity, love is more important than judgement. You indirectly agree with this by submitting that the grace of God overrides the judgement under law. Consequently, the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" has more importance than the phrase "judge not lest thou be judged" in Christian doctrine. Which invalidates your initial premise that the latter is superior to the former. With the premise invalid, the argument doesn't hold.

The basic message of Paul's is that you shouldn't get a wife if you don't need one. You're better off celibate. But if you need a woman, you'd better get a wife in love and honour than fornicate. The Bible insists that marriage is "all honourable" and never reprobates it; the praise of celibacy with regard to certain persons does not invalidate this view of marriage.

Which does not translate as "a man is eventually saved by grace, so he can sin as he will in this life". This only means that we're all sinful, but in no way encourages us to condone and endorse sin. Consequently, this doesn't hold as an argument in favour of legalising homosexual "marriage", adoption and other rights.

Done with the Bible. Now on to Darkthrone:

Here's the news: anti-homophobia laws are passed by the state, not by the people. Also, racism and all associated discrimination was exercised by all layers of the society, not just the state and state officers. Also, there is a difference between the colour of your skin that you can't change and homosexual intercourse that you can choose not to have. Thus, the analogy doesn't hold.

If homosexuality isn't a choice, it cannot be a reason to be proud of yourself. Think gay pride parades. Pride of yourself implicates a sense of own merit and that always comes from conscious choices and acts as if you did your job well. So? One way or the other, can't have both.

My statements are well-meant, but their positive reception is of secondary meaning to me.

Someone always comes up with advocacy of homosexual lifestyle or legalisation thereof. Whenever I speak on homosexuality, I speak in response to points or questions raised by someone else. Either on these boards or on the political or judicial scene, ranging from anti-homophobia laws to unlawful verdicts of courts usurping legislative authority to promote the political agenda of the judges.

What I see is that valid researchable and scientifically proven facts are only those which support the pro-homosexual side of the debate, so far as you are concerned.

Doing my best. God loves you, you know? Heck, even I do. Just not in "this" way, you know.

I won't shut up when wrong is called right, unnatural called natural, and so on, if that's what you mean.

From Takara:

From a Christian standpoint, if you don't choose it that way, the sole fact a man (if you're male) or a woman (if you're female) attracts you doesn't make a sin yet. Problems begin when you start to harbour lust for that person, and especially if you move on to sexual interaction with that person. Personally, I don't believe homosexuality is un-chosen. But there might be such a possibility in case of some people. However, you always choose whether or not to have intercourse. Hope this helps to clear things up a bit.

See above. And an example: to be cleptomaniac isn't a sin. But this doesn't make it right to steal. The culpability of a cleptomaniac person is reduced so far as his psychological conditions precluded him from resisting the temptation. Homosexuality is construed as just an orientation, without an obsession-compulsion directed at having sex. So homosexual persons are driven to homosexual acts even less than cleptomaniac people to steal. Why make an exception here?

Especially in those Christian churches where non-marital (whether you call it pre-, extra- or whatever, just anyone other than your lawfully wed spouse) sex is a sin, why make it not a sin for homosexuals? Are they under more of a compulsion to have sex than heterosexuals are?

If you get addicted to something, the choice is initial and reduced up to close to null over time, but the results are lasting and come from said initial choice. So far as sins in Christian doctrine go, if your choice capability is reduced, so is your culpability for acts you commit.

I'm sorry, but no. If the discussion bothers you, you don't have to read it.

From Gavin de Valge:

How did they call it, then? Did they discover it? Or did they give their own gender a go and decided it was as good or nearly as good as the opposite gender? Or maybe after several failures in the field of relating with members of the opposite sex they switched to their own sex and it worked for them? Various ways to put it.

If even homosexuals and bisexuals see their orientation as less than natural and normal, why do activists need to claim the opposite?

I.e. they tried a bit and decided they couldn't do more, so they were "relieved" of an imaginated duty and could freely throw themselves into the gay world. Something like this?

I would be a member of a dying society, then. Unless all citizens were imported from abroad or cloned.

As if I enough mud weren't thrown on me as a bigot, homophobe, Catholic Trollock... whatever.

Sometimes I wonder if gay movement activists will stop short of taking over the world, though.

A homophobe, you mean?

There's already a significant difference between the number of people opposed to gay rights movement who vote nay in polls and the number of those would speak their mind in public. There's a reason for this and there's going to be even more of one. It's going to become illegal for them, if those idiotic anti-homophobia bills were to be passed.

Or at least a misguided one, I agree. It's possible for a homosexual to be more or less monogamous. It's the gay environment what creates promiscuity, as you say later in your post.

Anal sex is characteristic of homosexual intercourse, but not of heterosexual one. Gay men have to resort to "rear entry" (unless they prefer oral), but heterosexual people have the proper entry at their disposal, so to put it.

So now you say that homosexual men actually are promiscuous. So, they are promiscuous but it's wrong for a heterosexual to say that they are? Busted!

Which requires either group sex, or switching partners around. Say "p", say "r", say "o". Yeah. How is this called? P-r-o-m-i-s-c-u-i-t-y. Busted!

[quoted]The same thing would happen in an insular heterosexual community with as few members.[/quote]

Possibly yes, because it's about promiscuity and not about being gay. But that's the problem with the gay environment, that promiscuity is the standard, as you say.

From joacqin:

Do I call your views libertine, nihillistic and amoral? If I do, show me. Otherwise please hold your tongue if you can't be polite.

This is a very cheap move to drag and stretch the tragedy of Holocaust to support your aggressive remarks. It's gravely disrespectful towards the victims.

Can you get closer to calling me a Nazi? Is calling people names all you can do when you run out of arguments?

 

Well, if that is an accurate description of the views expressed it what will be brought forth.

I view it gravely disrespectful of the victims of the holocaust to see people spout the pretty much the same arguments the nazis spouted to justify their attempted purge of homosexuals from their society.

I thought long and hard whether or not I would introduce the nazis in the post as I knew it would open it up for easy criticism but this is one case where comparison towards nazism is valid.

Also, seeing as I am rather libertine, nihilistic and amoral I have no problem being called that. It pisses me of though when people who would be that or in the case of you chev, reactionary and bigoted refuse to even label themselves correctly.
Or are you not proud of your stance?

 

Well, considering these same churches refuse homosexual partners to marry, I guess you are pretty much repressing them. Way to go Mr.Compassionate and tolerant one.

 

@toughluck: Just go back step by step and reread my discussion with Chev. After doing this you may freely post insulting comments again. But don't be surprised if everyone thinks you a fool.

@Chev: The parts you quoted just indicate thinly that promiscuity within gay society is a societal phenomenon, not part of every homosexual being.

It's quite understandable, really. Imagine an homosexual human being who knows that society does not accept his sexual orientation. He/She feels opressed and has a building desire to have a sex life according to his/her orientation (and not your self-constraint).
Now he/she comes into the homosexual sub-society. Societal pressure lifts and he/she can live out his/her feelings. The promiscuity-level rises.

Later, I assume, it goes down again, because sex is becoming less and relations more important.

Your assumptions of heterosexual behaviour are just that: assumptions. You cannot base a comparison on that.

Your failure (if you want to call it that) is, that you argue from what you think is a high moral position. Your lifestyle is not that of average joe or jane.
You think, that sex should only happen between a married couple. Gays mustn't marry (because the church says so), so they are not allowed to have sexual intercourse.
It may be better for you if you'd be able to step down from that horse and accept that different people lead different lifes.
I hope that someday you can learn that your lifestyle is yours and doesn't fit anyone else.

 

OK, I HAVE to bring this up from a comment that Chev made waaaaay back in this thread. He stated that is was typical for heterosexual couples to have something around 10 partners in their lifetimes. To me that sounded like a pretty fair number. Then he goes on to say that the number for homosexuals is more like 100, and even 1000 is not out of the realm of a possibility.

This is sounding like every homosexual is part of the Wilt Chamberlain fan club! (Wilt Chamberlain wrote in a book that he had sex with over 10,000 people - presumably all women. My reference was the ridiculously high number of partners, not that "Wilt the Stilt" was homosexual.)

The point I'm making is it seems like a number like 100 to be somewhat of an inflated number, and 1000 seems to be completely artificial. Just do some simple math here:

Say someone who is homosexual goes to a bar every weekend and picks up a different partner every week and has sex with him/her. At this rate, a person would have to continue this action every weekend for nearly 20 years to reach 1000. Moreover I know several homosexuals. Granted, the ones I am friends with are women, so it may be different for men, but of the ones I know they have all been involved in long-term relationships, and none of them have even approached 100, never mind 1000 sexual partners.

 

And those of us that don't support Homosexuality want to be free to voice our opinions and beliefs without being branded as "Nazis". The Gay rights crowd has as much right to plead their case as we have to oppose it. If you're going to sue or imprison someone who doesn't like what you are fighting for, then you are fighting the whole social order rather than just fighting for a few priviledges.

When I hear about people being arrested or imprisoned for speaking out against homosexuality, then I begin to fear for myself. Fear, left unchecked can grow into hatred. I don't advocate dragging a gay man out of his home or where ever he is exposed and beaten severely. But I also don't want good people's lives and reputations ruined because they refuse to tow someone else's desired line.

The biggest worry I have with the imprisonment of the minister in Sweeden or the attempts to censure this guy in Australia is that the Gay community is creating martyrs in the Straight community. Martyrs that people will rally behind. Living proof that the freedoms they once enjoyed are threatened by a bunch of upstarts. I worry that this may lead to violence against the Gay community. I refuse to abandon my convictions on the topic, but I don't want my rights and freedoms taken away by some loudmouth special interest group.

 

From what I know of this preacher man is that he was free on parole and never spent any time in jail whatsoever. Secondly, in Sweden like in Germany and some other countries there are some limits to free speech. You arent allowed to in a public setting give a speech telling people that black people are monkeys, jews are vermin and homosexuals parasites and that they all should be exterminated. Whether these laws are good or not is probably part of this topic and I am convinced either way. Going back to this preacher, he wasnint preaching even stuff like what chev and others have said here but something along the line of homosexuals being a plague on society which god would smite and so on and so on. Pretty much just reiterating what is in the bible about stoning and such. The thing is that he was breaking the law and if you do that while living in a reasonable democratic society you better pay the price even if you happen to disagree with just that law. This preacher guy was just so unlucky as there was some gay person around who got pissed off at the speach and thought that he might have a good case if he reported it to the police so criminal charges could be put forth. A duly appointed court of law then found the preacher to having been in breach of the law and sentenced him accordingly.

 

There's a difference between homosexuality and homosexual persons. From what I know, the preacher was speaking against homosexuality and not against homosexuals as persons, nor did he incite any sort of violence. So if the law prohibits speaking against persons only, or inciting violence only, then there was no due process of law. But maybe the law protects the homosexual lifestyle and the pro gay rights movement?

I don't want any police or civil officers to tell religions what to preach. Not even court judges.

[ December 14, 2004, 12:25: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I am no lawyer but I actually have a hard time believing the Swedish court system would convict anyone due to pressure from some gay lobbyists, if such even exist. Secondly, even if you have some law education I doubt whether you are an expert on Swedish law, nor am I but I have never been given a reason to seriously question a courts decision. You can attack the law for not allowing hate speech, you cannot attack the courts for upholding the law.

What is the homosexual lifestyle? What is the pro gay rights movement? Blah! I refer back to my previous post, you are paranoid and conspirational. I think I can tell you that there is no vast cabal of homosexuals who plots and schemes to get access to your little bottom.

 

So if I started preaching about how Catholicsm is parasitic and evil and should be banned.... that would be ok?

Afterall, I'm talking about Catholicism, and not catholics.

 

@Gnarlfinger:

Sorry just to clarify -

What freedoms are you referring to here? I assume you're referring to freedom of speech, but given the subject matter, I'm not sure.

 

You're confused ArtE. You see, Gnarfflinger is talking about how freedom of speech should allow these people to advocate their opposition to homosexuality.

In the other thread, red state values, he goes on about how that same freedom of speech doesnt apply to homosexuals.

You see, any material that covers that must be censored and removed.

I do so adore double standards.

 

And where's the inconsistency between wishing for homosexuality to be banned and demanding freedom to criticise it?

 

Well, on one hand you cite freedom of speach allows you to say inflamatory and critical things. Fine. On the other, you are trying to prevent freedom of speach to censor and ban what you are critical of.

What do you want? freedom of speach or censorship? You cant switch position just to suit your own ends. If you dont want to have your views censored, like these anti-homosexuals, then you have to oppose censorship of those with pro-homosexual attitudes.

Otherwise you are nothing more than a hypocrite.

 

Chev, are you serious?