almostaugust

I choose to contribute to this discussion through verse, courtesy of Billy Bragg. (*Clears throat)

I’ve had relations with girls from many nations
I’ve made passes at women of all classes
And just because you’re gay I won’t turn you away
If you stick around I’m sure that we can find some common ground

Sexuality - strong and warm and wild and free
Sexuality - your laws do not apply to me
Sexuality - don’t threaten me with misery
Sexuality - I demand equality

__________________
'And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe
Maybe this year will be better than the last
I can't remember all the times I tried to tell my myself
To hold on to these moments as they pass'

hannukah harry

i don't think anyone could have said that better.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

filtherton

First of all, sexual orientation is as innate as race. Unless you're trying to insist that you could decide to enjoy being gay, which, you know, good for you. Most people can't. Second, i don't care how "you" define sexual orientation, because words need to have objective verifiable meaning outside of "well i think word 'a' means this so i will from now on pretend that everyone agrees with me on the definition of word 'a'." Sexual orientation is just as unchangable as race, you can't make the connection because your entire argument falls apart if you do.

It is ironic that you attribute to me an inability to understand the struggles of minorities whilst commanding an argument based on disrespect for the struggle of a minority group.

Some adolescents no doubtedly know what sex is, but i know you're not trying to claim that there are many preadolescents who possible understand what sex is. Therefore your point here is inconsistent.

You can attribute my perspective to "leftist bias", if you want. I have found that such labels are often just thinly disguised ad hominems. What does my political ideology matter in a discussion about a specific issue? I am not arguing for the left or the right, i am arguing from my perspective.

I honestly try not to look down on anyone. I don't look down on you. I probably wouldn't invite you to a dinner party, but i respect the fact that you probably do what you think is right in any given situation.

Mojo_PeiPei

Filth aren't both race and sex, socially constructed?

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

filtherton

Race as justification for discrimination is a social construct. Essentially, yes we are all human. I guess some would argue that there is inherent inequality among the sexes based solely on innate biological differences, but sex is not sexual orientation. Sexual orientation, as the term would suggests, refers to the orientation of one's sexual attraction, not who one actually chooses to have sex with. I've never heard a convincing argument that sexual orientation is the sole domain of socialization, and i doubt i ever will.

wnker85

This may be sarcastic, but it's very true. No one can change the way someone is going to think. But if we teach them to be civil then all is well.

My political views tell me to allow gays to have unions, but my Christianity makes it so that they can't. And, I ask for the respect, that you ask of me, to allow me to not want my beliefs shat on, because some one is telling me that the new trend is more right than my 10,000 year old religion.

How can you attack someone for having views, and turn around and force views down their throats. That is the most hypocritical thing I have ever seen.

And, I am not homophobic. I know gay people; they are very nice civil people. And I will never call someone a fag, nigger, dewb, Jap, wetback, or whatever you can come up with. I can not stand this rudeness as much as the Hypocritical way that you are bashing Christians who believe in certain things. Pull your head out of your ass and see that you are making “Christian” just as bad as "Fag" or "Nigger" by putting a bad (And wrong I might add) connotation with it.

filtherton

Depends on which christians you are referring too. Christianity is really a wide spread of ideologies whose only connection to one another is some sort of belief in the jesus chris. Btw, christianity has not been around for 10,000 years. Christ was born only roughly 2000 years ago. Some strict interpretationists date the earth at only 6000 years old based on the contents of the bible. You should know that there are also christians whose version of christianity completely allows for the broad acceptance of homosexual marriage.
For the record, i don't think anyone here meant to bash all christians, i just think a few people were perhaps lazy with their choice of words. Just like you weren't speaking for all of christianity they weren't speaking of all christianity.

Coppertop

wnker85, was any part of your post other than the first sentence directed at me? If so, kindly point out where I said/did such things. If not, then have a nice day.

alansmithee

First, I have yet to hear of scientific consensus on the issue of the issue if sexual orientation is innate or learned. If you have, I would be interested in seeing some. And my definition is based on the fact that I personally can't measure with certainty someone's attraction to another person without some action. Until they act on the attraction, I (or anyone they didn't tell) would likely not know about it. And similarly, I don't want someones genetic tendencies to be a measuring stick or excuse for their actions. I don't see genetics as a foreshadowing of behavior. That is why I personally differentiate between those with attraction and those who act on it. Because honestly, I don't see how there can be discrimination against someone who has certain unexpressed thoughts. This isn't Minority Report, we can't predict the future.

And following that line of reasoning, I should have specified. I don't see gays as a natural minority, or someone born into a certain condition. Gays are indeed a minority, as are math majors, people who drive Buicks, people who listen to classical music, or any number of other segments of society. However, that doesn't give them specific legal rights or protections. Again, it comes down to a choice. That is why I cannot see the link between gay rights and civil rights. I can't live in the suburbs for 30 years, then one day start listening to rap and declare I'm black; however there are many instances of gays living a normal life for numerous years then suddenly coming out.

Many people see the ages of 12-14 as still being part of childhood, although I would concede this is greatly dependant upon society. In America the age of concent is 16 in most states. Most people would equate someone over 18 having sex with someone between 12-14 as pedophilia in America. Hence I see no inconsistancy.

My stating of possible leftist bias was to show that your opinions might not derive from reason but blind ideology. I don't really see how that would be an attack (unlike many of the comments directed to me). If you say they are your own and reasoned out, I will take you at your word. Many on both sides however follow party/ideological lines regardless of the validity of particular positions.

I did agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Texas case outlawing sodomy laws (can't remember the name offhand) and I don't support physical violence toward gays, but I don't think they should recieve the same marriage benefits of a traditional couple. I personally see modern marriage as a support system for allowing people to raise their children. I also think that the recent Florida court ruling said something similar. Marriage recieves benefits because it is assumed that society benefits more from having children raised in stable environments than not. That is also why I am only against the more financial aspects of giving marriage rights to gays.

And on a more personal note, i'm disappointed that I wouldn't get a dinner invite. For free food I could keep my mouth closed for a few hours .

jorgelito

I think the issue is a bit more complex than that though you make your argument eloquently. However, I do disagree.

Not all minorities are identifiable by their phenotypical attributes.

EX: I did not know that Colin Powell was "black" until someone told me so. I swear he's white. I'm "blacker" than Colin Powell. Also, is Sammy Sosa black or Latino? What about Jews? Tons of Jews look "white too me. In fact, all Jews (except Sephardic and Ethiopian Jews look white to me). Likewise, there's no "gay" look (I know there's a stereotype) that identifies someone as gay. Additionally, I swear there are a ton of dudes that look like chicks and vice-versa (cmon, y'all know at least one).

The second issue is your (as well as others) assumption that gay marriage would somehow be "unstable". There is no proof of that is there? Could a gay couple do worse to the institution of marriage than J.Lo or Britney Spears? I think those two should be banned for sure. Maybe let them have civil unions, they're obviously not qualified to be married or have kids.

As to your contention that marriages as support system for raising kids, well, either the system is broke or that criteria doesn't exclude gays. The American family (modern) is a poor support system for raising kids. SO many divorced, single parent households don't raise their kids. at least a middle class gay couple that actually wants to raise a family should be given a chance. They really couldn't do worse than the average American family.

jorgelito

What's this about a dinner invite?

Oh, never mind, I get it.

Umm...I think having a mixed crowd at a dinner party would be really cool. I would seat you next to the gay couple and white supremacist (just kidding!).

filtherton

All the proof i need of the theory that sexual orientation isn't learned is in my own mind. I know i don't like men. I know that i couldn't one day decide to like men. I do not have a choice in this, i've tried to envision myself enjoying cock and it just doesn't amount to anything more than a shudder. I do have a choice when it comes to actually trying to have sex with men, but not a choice in whether i would enjoy it as much as sex with a lady. Perhaps you're different in this respect. Can you explain why anyone would subject themselves willingly to the heaping helping of scorn that is reserved for homosexuals by much of america? If you had the choice to be oppressed, would you choose it?

If you see the family unit's purpose as one mainly of child raising, than how would that be grounds to exclude gay couples from the financial benefits predicated on this assumption of child rearing? Homosexuals raise children just as well as hetero couples.

Mojo_PeiPei

Alright here is a semi-related topic question.

What the fuck is the deal with schools doing away with honor rolls? I mean are kids that big of pussies these days? Anybody else that the PC crew is taking it a little far in some respects?

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

jorgelito

Wait, Mojo, could you clarify please? I am not familiar with what you are referring to.

Mojo_PeiPei

I remember reading a news paper article a year or two back were certain grade schools had stopped putting out the honor roll. Apparently it was hurting some kids feelings and causing problems with self esteem when they wouldn't make it.

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

jorgelito

Hmmm... I think that's lame. Reminds me of another thread we had a while back about something similar...

It's like changing musical chairs so that all the kids can have a chair too. I think we were calling it "the wussification of America"...

Mojo_PeiPei

Exactly. Kids today are such pussies. They need GI joe, transformers, ninja turtles, toy guns, and playground fights.

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

jorgelito

Aha! I found it....here Mojo: look at this:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...musical+chairs

It's similar to what you're talking about.

alansmithee

I don't make any assumptions about the stability (or lack thereof) of gay marriage. Gays cannot have kids (with each other), it's a physical impossiblility. I heard on NPR around a month ago that they are experimenting with ways to fertilize eggs without sperm, so maybe lesbians will be able to in the future, but they also can't now. And personally i'm against gay adoption, but I think more research is required to determine if it's ok or not (there are unbiased studies and opinions both ways). In many cases I'm sure a child would be better off in a stable gay household. But they cannot have their own children, and that is what I was refering to. Reasons such as the ones you mentioned above is why i'm also in favor or reigning in current marriage benefits. Most court cases are breach of contract, and the vast majority of those are divorce. The concept of marriage IMO really needs to be reevaluated.

But now I'm waay off topic so yeah, no name calling week=teh suck.

alansmithee

But the problem with basing it on what someone personally feels is that you don't know if it's something that they accquired or was born with. You need scientific data. I can't see myself enjoying lima beans. I can eat lima beans, but I can't enjoy them. Same goes for country music, I can't stand it. Neither gives me special status.

And there are numerous reasons someone would subject themselves to scorn or mistreatment. For one (something that happens with many minorities) if you fail at a task, you have a instant excuse-bigotry. And for the same scorn recieved, there are many people who have great sympathy for gays. You also gain special status, you are instantly outside the norm which people often find apealling. You instantly gain your own subculture and support network. Honestly, there's numerous reasons why people do inflict suffering on themselves; many times they have some psychological makeup which doesn't translate it to the same suffering others see it as.

And also, it's still debated if homosexual couples do raise children as well as regular couples. Again, i find it hard to believe that the best home for a child doesn't contain a mother and father, but that's still being debated. And those children don't come from a union of the couple, they are from outside marriage or a lab.

alansmithee

I saw firsthand knowledge of something like this. My sister went to my same grade school for awhile. When I was there, there was generally 3 marks-exceptional, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. When my sister went there there were still 3, but they had changed to exceptional, satisfactory, and chooses not to perform up to ability.

Children are too coddled today. It's a fact that some are smarter, some more athletic, some more charismatic, etc. It seems instead of finding a place for the average or below average students, they want to make everyone the same, which comes as a big shock when these people can't compete because they aren't used to dealing with situations where they are bettered.

filtherton

What i'm asking you is how you personally feel. Do you think your sexual orientation is a choice? If so, when did you make that choice? What if your boss fired you for not liking lima beans?

If you saw conclusive proof that homosexual couples were as good as hetero couples in terms of child rearing would you favor financial benefits for homosexual couples?

wnker85

Not at all, It was and indirect statement for all the bashing peopel for certian veiws. Sorry I wasn't meaning it that way. It was all general. I think I came off stronger than I would have liked. But, my room mate is someone who is antagonistic to Christians, and has the audacity to try and make me feel bad for my faith and make it seem (and says it directly as well) like he is better than Christians for "blindly following" as he has put it. When he han't the slightest idea on what the theroy of Evolution is about and how it works. (very hypocritcal and rude can't wait till next year)


My apologies, if i was taken the wrong way. All I wanted to say that some people wish not to have their children exposed to sexuality at a young age. None of these words should ever be used. But in the spirt of the week, those who are bashing anti-gay (lets say) should step back and see that they are just imposing their veiws on others in the name of equality which is very hypocritcal. I think that civility is the better choice to teach, becuase if we all treat poeple with respect then everyone is happy. IF KKK guy can act nice to a gay person or black, I have no problem with him going to his Klan meeting. (as long as it stays within the meeting/group and doesn't lead to outwards acts)

BUt back on track

Homosexuals can be just as loving, but I think the problem is that people are afraid that the over the top "Mr Slave" will have children and turn his children into over the top people as well. The issue here is the perception of the gay community, that they are all orgy going people who sleep around. If a true mature couple couldn't raise the children any better than a straight couple, and and vise versa; my political veiws would have no problem with it.

alansmithee

I personally feel it is a choice. It might be somewhat subconscious, but I believe it's a choice. I think many things go into sexual orientation, it's mainly a social construct in my opinion. And there would be no way for my boss to know if I like lima beans, unless I parade it around. If for some reason it was found out and I got fired, it would bother me, but it would be in my employers right (unless I had a contract saying otherwise). But any smart employer wouldn't do that, unless my dislike of lima beans was distracting alot of other employees or was affecting my work.

And if there was conclusive proof that homosexual couples were as good at raisning kids, I would favor benefits for the couples who have children. My gut instinct says no, but if they are as good as hetero couples at childrearing then they should be commended for adopting a kid who would be otherwise stuck in a forster system, and I would have no problem allowing them all benefits of marriage.

filtherton

Fair enough.

Dwayne

Back to the original topic at hand. I find it horrible that SOME conservative christians acuse everything a homesexual does as a plot to spread homosexuality. So hypothetically, if a homosexual where to bring peace on Earth, then its a plot to turn all our kids gay. Homosexuals don't want to turn everyone gay, they just want to be treated like regular people. I wish everyone would just let people live and let live, just because you would never want to have sex with another person of your sex doesnt mean you should ban others from doing it. They arnt hurting anyone with their beliefs, so leave them alone!!!

Also No Name Calling week would cause kids to call other kids names more than if they didnt have the week. Kids are like that.