drakers

MOJO: We accept the fact that you don't like homosexuals and that it is your right to not have to tolerate homosexual views. But how can someone think that calling someone who is actually gay, a faggot or queer, and think that is okay is just messed up. That is pure intolerance at its worst and even if they are trying to prevent that at a young, would you want your kid calling someone who is gay a faggot to his/her face?? Some of you conservatives need to grow up!! I feel like it is the 60's when people who called black people "niggers" and they thought it was okay. Well were at that stage now where calling someone who is gay, a "faggot" or "queer", is just pure hate.

kutulu

Sorry, I should have said "These types of Christians" instead of all. My bad.

filtherton

Just to be clear, i think mojo was being sarcastic.

Mojo_PeiPei

Thanks Filth, give me some credit, jeez.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

sob

Getting locked up or sued because they said something bad about a homosexual?

sob

Now this is scary.

I agree with every word of the above.

sob

You're right. Christians are all ignorant. Must be that extra bone in their leg, or that they can't handle alcohol, or they're all misers, or one of those other things you always hear about all of "them."

StanT

I'd call it another facet of every day non-politically correct life. Calling people names may not be nice, but it's a regular occurrance in everyday life. By creating a week to call attention to them, these folks are giving these words extra meaning and power. The guys I work with give each other shit, constantly. If I screw up, I'm a dumb polack. There's also the idiot wetback, the dumb broad, and the stupid chink. No one is offended. They are just words, they only carry the importance that you give them.

alansmithee

What is sad about it? Is it sad to have disdain for people who have sex with children? Or what about people who smoke? Or people who are lazy? Because they are all choices people make. And if we can't have disdain for people who make certain choices we think are wrong there should be no criminal justice system, because obviously the most important thing is that there is no negative connontation to any action.

alansmithee

No, they want to be treated like heterosexuals. That's a big difference. I'd like to be treated like a millionaire, but unless I take the actions to make that happen I have no right to expect that treatment. If gays are sick of being treated poorly, they should quit identifying themselves by an action that many people find disgusting or morally repugnant. It's that simple, no decoder ring needed. Just the grasping of the concept that certain actions have certain connotations, oftentimes negative.

alansmithee

There is a BIG difference between calling someone a "nigger" and a "faggot". I cannot change the fact that I am black (not that there is anything wrong with it). I can not wear baggy clothes, listen to rap, eat fried chicken, and other behaviors often associated with being black, but none of that will change the fact that I'm black. However, people CAN stop being gay. It's really simple-if you're a guy don't have sex with men. Being gay is a choice, and that's a huge difference.

shakran

considering his position on this issue. . . there's a joke in there somewhere

Bauh4us

I'm not sure that people just wake up one morning and decide they're gay alansmithee. It's not like picking out what socks you are going to wear that day, at least this is what I have heard. If someone that is gay wants to correct me, please go right ahead.

__________________
"I aint got time for pain! The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!" - Terrible Terry Tate

Mojo_PeiPei

There are many arguments to that Bauh. If it's not a choice, if it's inherent, does that not make homosexuals biologically broken? The most basic principle of any species is survival through procreation, homosexuality is therefore counterproductive, there seed won't get passed on. It's a valid argument, however doesn't have much merit whether no name calling week should commence. Also you have additional parallels to natural behaviour such as matricide, patricide, (or abortion 40+ million here go Roe v. Wade!), canabalism, does the fact that all those naturally occur make them acceptable?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Mojo_PeiPei

I missed this post initially... I assume Filth's post regarding my sarcasm, which I was surprised about (thank you sir), was in regards to this. But get serious I was clearly being sarcastic, and I resent the fact that you try and pass judgement on me, you sir don't know me. You know nothing of God or the doctrine of my creed. For the record, I am for civil unions, I don't personally agree with homosexuality, I suppose in your tolerant eyes that makes me a bigot though right? I don't pass judgement on my homosexual friends, judgement isn't reserved to me... ofcourse being a good indoctrinated Christian you would already know that, right?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Bauh4us

One never hears anyone say "I decided to become gay", you only hear "I discovered that I was gay". A very important difference.

I don't think you can put someone being gay in the same ballpark as someone killing their mom/pop/baby. The fact that they involve murder is what makes them unacceptable acts. The fact that abortion is considered acceptable is the fact that we have yet to determine when life begins. Most abortion advocates see the fetus as an extension of the mother, and therefore more akin to a tumor or parasite. Untill it is established when life begins, I think abortion will remain legal. Being gay involves no one but those who are gay, and therefore deserves to be "acceptable", live and let live. Just because you think it's gross that I like salami and jelly sandwiches does not mean it should be unacceptable for me to eat one.

But back to no name calling week. I personally think it is a stupid idea. Kids are always going to call each other names. If someone sees another person that has some trait which they deem to be negative they will vocalize it. Name calling should be punished in accordance with what it is, a very minor infraction of acceptable behavior. I hope we have not all gotten so far down the polictally correct trail that we can't recognize name calling as being less than many many other infractions (ie fighting, stealing, robbery, etc).

Making some week a "no name calling week" just calls attention to name calling. Anyone remeber having a "smoke out" day where no one was supposed to smoke. If so remeber how that went? If not, I will tell you, it backfired big time, which is what I think will happen here.

__________________
"I aint got time for pain! The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!" - Terrible Terry Tate

Mojo_PeiPei

I realize that, that wasn't the point of my post. It often seems that a justification of homosexuality is that it "occurs naturally". Penguins in the New York zoo are gay, hold hands, and partake in familiar relations to the rejection of female penguins... therefore it must be normal and natural for humans right?!

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Bauh4us

You got it!! It is normal and natural for a small portion of the human population to be like that. Most penguins don't act like that, but some do. Most humans aren't gay, but some are. It's not wrong, and I don't think it's a choice (though this has not been proven so there is some wiggle room here), so what's the problem?

Anyway, we seem to be on the same side of "no name calling week" argument. Lets try to focus on that .

__________________
"I aint got time for pain! The only pain I got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!" - Terrible Terry Tate

Mojo_PeiPei

Paragraph 1 we may more or less have to agree to disagree to some of the specifics.

But I certainly agree with number 2.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

alansmithee

It might not be a choice to be attracted to members of the same sex, but it is a choice as to act on that attraction or not.

hannukah harry

so what? they shouldn't have to go against what is natural for them just so you don't feel icky. now could you get back to the thread topic? start another thread if you'd like discuss whether or not homosexuality is natural or a choice.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

jorgelito

Ha! There it is, that's the most reasonable and wisest thing said today!

roachboy

problem with message boards: sometimes you just whip by sarcasm.
my apologies if i misunderstood the post i reacted to of yours mojo.

but the post itself prompted that reaction. no speculation about motive.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

filtherton

First of all, it sad when you go out of your way to be offended by the actions of homosexuals. Why do you care? Why is man on man action such a huge deal to you that you must go out of your way to condemn it? Why do you think that you even have the moral standing to pass down judgment on complete strangers for what amounts to a harmless lifestyle choice? I'm not saying you can't look down on people who you think make worse choices than you, even though i think that in itself is kind've sad. What i'm saying is that it is ridiculous that people like you even get upset about homosexuality because it has a miniscule effect on how you live your life.

I don't care if someone is a packers fan, even though i know in my heart of heart that they are misguided and probably intoxicated . I don't go out of my way to publicly condemn packers fans(aside from this particular example), because i realize that living in a community means that we have to put up with a multitude of different lifestyles and viewpoints.

Homosexuality, like melanin levels, is not a choice for most people. If you doubt it, then why don't you spend six months enjoying chugging cock. Don't just go through the motions, but actually enjoy it. Then tell me about the wonderful choice that is homosexuality. Homosexuality isn't a choice. Homosexual behavior, like all behavior, is a choice. Unfortunately for you and your ilk alansmithee, people have a right to express their sexualities in consensual ways with other people. To look down your nose at this healthy natural expression of human sexuality is to be irrational. Please don't try to make comparisons to criminals or pedophiles or aminal humpers, they don't apply.

end threadjack

FoolThemAll

So then you agree that homosexuality isn't a choice?

Or are you saying that a man with attractions to the same sex who chooses to have sex with women or chooses to abstain is straight?

Either way, 'faggot' isn't exclusively used on gay people who have same-sex relations.

Hell, it isn't exclusively used on gay people. Which is why I'm not necessarily upset by its usage. Depends on the context.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Mojo_PeiPei

Thank you and apologies myself.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

roachboy

bows with sweeping gesture of the hat in the direction of mojo.



on another topic: i have kind of a problem with the migration of invective from field to field---example: the phrase "x...is gay" to mean weak or bizarre or stupid--last week, some nimrod student in one of my seminars signed an attendance sheet (which i hate having to keep, but that is another story) with his name on one line, and below it "x_______________is gay"

i found it juvenile on the one hand (as a thing to do) and offensive in itself on the other. really irritating to have to deal with at the university level.

i dont pretend to know how this trend got started, but i see it as something of an attempt (conscious at some moment or not) to normalize the abuse of a particular group of people based entirely on who members of that group choose to love.

that this abuse has currency amongst a segment of the american right is distressing...but it is also curious, in that it seems to waft up from protestant fundamentalist groups who in the main believe in the "literal interpretation" of the bible--what it shows is the arbitrariness of the readings that these groups construct based on the assumptions of "literalness"---for example, what i have seen/read is based on a mixing of the priority between old and new testaments--which seems an odd thing for christians to do--i would have thought that the new testament would have a relation to the old as christ said it did: it supercedes it. and the central message of christ is one of not passing judgement on others, of extending love to your neighbor, etc. i dont understand this.
anyone care to explain how this reading works?
how it is justified internally, among fundamentalists?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

filtherton

It need not be justified, only ignored. The bible contradicts itself, adherence to a strict literal intepretation would yield schizophrenia.

kutulu

I'd love to add to that but I'll be nice and hold my tounge.

Mojo_PeiPei

It is interesting. Catholics, more or less, were the first sect to emerge after Jesus (albeit many many years later). As more and more cafeteria catholics came along (picking and choosing what they liked and wanted) some reverted more and more to the old texts and stricter interpretations.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

drakers

I think if you really want to go into that discussion, I think most people would agree that being gay is instained in someone and not something someone says, oh I'm gay I think I feel like being called a "faggot" today. Show me some non-biased evidence of being gay is a choice and not something that can be like a light switch, which can be turned on and off. That completely nieve to think someone can just choose when they are and are not sexually attracted to men. Your comments seemed to me that your trying to convince yourself that gayness is a choice by responding to every view that is not associated with yours.

flstf

In my opinion this is one of the best explainations that I have read in these forums to those who are so disgusted with homosexuality. While it is not the norm to be homosexual it is normal that a small percentage will be wired that way. Live and let live.

Back on topic: I still think the "no name calling week" is a silly idea that will backfire on the advocates. The kids will probably go out of their way to not follow it. There must be better ways to promote mutual respect and understanding.

alansmithee

My point is this: I define "gayness" as the act of someone having sexual relations with someone of their own sex. Not being attracted to, or haing an inclination toward, but acting on it. That being the case, I personally feel it's irrelevant if this attraction is inborn or not. That being the case, it's a CHOICE whether you act on those actions or not. And I think it's a dangerous precedent to say that behavior and not inclinations can be set in genes. There's no scientific way to "not" prove something. If we accept that some poeple can't control their sexual urges because of genetics, what's not to say that others like pedophiles can control their urges either. And honestly the only real difference between gays and other people who practice abnormal sex is gays have better P.R. I'm sure given time NAMBLA could become just as accepted as GLAAD. I know a different poster said that this "healthy natural expression of human sexuality" can't be compared to "animal humpers" and pedophiles, but im sure those people think that they are also practicing a "healthy natural expression of human sexuality". Who are you to look down your nose at them. It's sad that people of your ilk currently can condemn such behaviors as not healthy. Why I remember the days that being gay was also thought of as unnatural .

And as for why I care it's because they are taking something that belongs in the bedroom between 2 (or more) people and demanding special rights based solely on a behavioral choice. And I actually don't mind most instances (property transfer and hospital visitation I couldn't care less about), but when conpanies and the gov't would give benefits or tax breaks is where I disagree, and those do affect me. Also, I find it appaling that many people are being forcefed into accepting a behavior as proper when there is really no reason to. If my "ilk" choose to think that behaving in a certain way is immoral or disgusting that is our right, and it makes you or anyone else no better on any grounds for choosing to accept that behavior.

roachboy

gee, and to think that the question of whether gay folk should be afforded the legal protections of the secular institution of marriage is actually an equal protection issue. so obviously the right--because they knew and know that they have nothing to stand on if these grounds remain constant--have turned it into a festival of bigotry. and now, luckily for us all, we get to see the above appalling, idiotic tripe passed off as legitimate political opinion.

hooray for conservative discourse.
what a fine thing it is.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

filtherton

Last i heard, your definition of gayness was yours and yours alone. Sexual orientation is who you are attracted to, not who you fuck. As for healthy and natural expressions of sexuality, i don't know how you choose to define it in your own world, but i think most people would agree that having sex with someone who is unable to understand what sex even is(children, aminals) would not constitute a healthy expression of sexuality. Roll your eyes all you want, but your inability to make a distinction such as this merely exposes your inability to think rationally on this topic.

I try not to look down at anyone, because who the fuck am i to tell someone how to live their life if they aren't fucking over me or society in general?

I also don't know how "equal rights" amounts to "special rights". Let's hop in a time machine. "Black people could always drink from drinking fountains, i don't know why they think that they deserve the "special right" to drink at any fountain they want." Is that what you mean by special rights? "No one's stopping minorities from getting married, i don't know why they think they deserve the "special right" to marry outside of their race". Is that also what you mean by "special rights"?

I find your framing of the struggle for gay rights in terms of tax breaks and corporate benefits laughable. That's like saying apartheid was about housing benefits. No one has to accept homosexuality as proper if they don't want to. What they shouldn't be able to do is discriminate arbitrarily based on someone's sexual orientation. There should be a more compelling reason to deny financial benefits to homosexual couples than a collection half-assed psuedo-logical rationalizations.

hannukah harry

i give this three snaps in the 'z' formation!

/men on film

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

alansmithee

It's obvious to me that your personal attacks are FAR more logical. Also your baseless assumptions point out your obvious intellectual and moral superiority.

alansmithee

I haven't seen what other people define sexual orientation as. I provided what I think to show where my opinion comes from, as opposed to making groundless assumptions about what other people may or may not think. And it's debatable as to children knowing what sex is. In some western countries, age of concent is 12. And I would say that your inability to see the similarities between the issues shows your bias toward a leftist agenda and a refusal to even contemplate any opinion which doesn't fit into your view of the world. Your response to my claim of the issues being similar boils down to "it just is" without any logic or rationality behind it. And then immediatly after say how you try not to look down on anyone, which is clearly something you fail at. I also find it appaling your inability to separate the issues of race (something born and immutable) and sexuality (which is debatably inborn and can be changed). And how sexual orientation is any more arbitrary than any number of ways of discriminating against people's acitons is beyond me. Again your linking of the "struggle for gay rights" and aparteid is ridiculous and shows how little you think of the civil rights struggles of minorities. And since when is it a requirement to have reasons for denying benefits. The burden is to show why society is benefitted, which for all your handwringing you have yet to do. There is no innate right. And going by recent rulings in the Florida and Louisiana state Supreme courts, my opinion is at the very least legally valid.

jorgelito

So if homosexuality is defined by a sexual act (homosexual), then is heterosexuality also defined by a sexual act (heterosexual)?

What if you haven't had sex yet? Does that make one asexual? I guess all those abstaining couples can't be considered heterosexual then and therefore not entitled to heterosexual benefits.

So if a homosexual platonic couple want to get married then they should be able to then because as long as they're not having sex then they're not gay. Right?

I still don't see how homosexuality has led to pedopheplia or molestation. In fact, aren't most committers of pedophelia and molestation fathers, uncles, and *gasp* priests! Does that mean they are all gay???? I guess the Catholic Church has a really big problem then.

Kadath

Just a clarification, pedophilia is not limited to young boys. You are thinking of pederasty. In fact, most instances of child abuse are heterosexual, with 58% of all perpetrators of child abuse being women

alan smithee, I appreciate your earnest discussion of your point of view. However, I find your opinions ignorant and revolting.

__________________
it's quiet in here