National 'No Name-Calling' Week Irks Conservatives
 

I never knew that a strong emphasis on good manners is actually a liberal plot to brainwash my kids into becoming queer freaks. Good thing these folks were here to warn me!


http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/4122133/detail.html

Yeah, teach children civility but not tolerance. Good thinking! :thumbsup:

:rolleyes:

Damn it! No one is going to tell my kids they can't call someone a faggot...

/sarcasm off

I would love to see less popular use of these three insults:

Faggot
Nigger
Fatty

Unfortunately, there are strong influences in todays culture (especially with young people) that says they are "ok".

Hip Hop is bringing back 'nigger' strongly, with no regard or care how it has affected blacks over the years.

"Faggot" and permutations of it are popular with young kids, with "Gay" as in "That's so GAY" being particularly popular.

And of course, it is always exceptable to insult people by telling them they are "FAT", as if they hadn't noticed. "Wow, did you see the FAT ASS on that chick? What a tub of lard!"

Damn CS, I sense much resentment towards conservative America on your part, this is what like your 4th-5th post in a day going after various groups....

At Anyrate I think Robert Knight has a point, and I'm getting pretty sick of the one way diversity train. Also as far as tolerance goes, I think people here have a pretty big misconception as to what it is, and to again reiterate, many of said people seem to be pretty intolerant to conservative America.

Like Mr. Garrison once said
This was from the Lemmywinks episode, I think it's brilliant really. Mr. Garrison was trying to get fired for being gay, but everyone was tolerant of his over the top homosexual behavior, such as sticking a Gerbil up Mr. Slave's ass in the middle of class. Long story short, Mr. Garrison snaps in the above the quote and ends up getting sent to tolerance camp for being intolerant to homosexuals.

Yeah, but all that is made up nonsense - it's not real.
How old are the kids in this book? So one of them is gay right? Is that the problem? Now how many children of an age that even understands what straight or gay means watch south-park? How many conservative parents allow their children to watch people being brutally dismembered in hollywood blockbuster action movies?
And they get upset because there is a single gay-kid in a book about not being unpleasant to gay kids? Is it just me or is there a slight over-reaction here?

[edit: venting too much to notice that the poster is actually making the same point as I am....phew]

Kinda makes you wonder what exactly homophobes are afraid of.

Hmmm,....National Name-Calling Week eh. And for the other 51 weeks of the year?

I find it interesting how people here will defend people such as the KKK or defend actions of Al Qaeda and insurgents, yet they get down on homophobes and conservatives (mainly Christian ones at that). Are they not entitled to speak their minds? Or is tolerance only afforded when it fits the leftist idealogy?

theyre just mad because it mentions homosexuality and its being sponsored by those evil homosexuals. Whatever, Im just glad some schools are honestly supporting "no-name calling week" I dont care who came up with the idea, its great.

The book Im not so sure about.

While I do think there was an overreaction to no name calling week, no name calling week is a pretty stupid idea if you ask me. Kids are already tought to be tolerant in schools, but even after hearing it they still insult kids and call them names. This no name calling week will change nothing.

Who here stated homophobes and coservatives are not entitled to speak their minds or fight for what they belive in? I'm sure you'll be good enough to supply a source for such foolishness.

You definitly insinuate it in snide comments such as the ones you made above. There are definitly homophobes out there, and they are ridiculous people. But as it seems to be going people who merely disagree with homosexuality get the label of "homophobe". I don't agree with homosexuality, it doesn't make me a homophobe.

Great idea, poor implementation. Making one week of no-name calling won't do anything in the long run. Instead they could crack down on the name calling and bullying every week.

I'm sick of the religious right accusing everyone else of having an agenda. Of course they'd NEVER admit that they are the ones trying to promote an agenda.

Mojo_PeiPei:

Punishing kids for calling other kids "faggot" or "fudgepacker" is not forcing people to agree with homosexuality. I guess it would be better to leave it alone and wait for Columbine to happen all over again.

Again, please provide sources where I (hell, anyone) says you are not entitled to your opinion or to act on such opinions. Find them and I'll condemn them.

And no one accused you of being a homophobe. At least not in this thread. But maybe you'll now comment on how I insinuated it even though I didn't mention you at all. The fact that you took offense at my comment what was not even directed at you says a lot. Think about that.

So you agree then that this is all this week amounts too? And I agree kids doing such actions should be punished, but no more so then any other insult. Next thing you know we'll end up like Canada and everything said that is unfavourable to homosexuality will be considered a hate crime.

Maybe we should just say that I took what you said out of context then, and leave it at that?

Ah, shades of Deja Vu!

--------------------------

National Brotherhood Week
--Tom Lehrer

Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
And the black folks hate the white folks;
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule.

But during National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
Lena Horne** and Sheriff Clark*** are dancing cheek to cheek.
It's fun to eulogize
The people you despise
As long as you don't let 'em in your school.

Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
All of my folks hate all of your folks,
It's American as apple pie.

But during National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans 'cause it's very chic.
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can't stand,
You can tolerate him if you try!

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.

But during National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
It's National Everyone-Smile-At-One-Another-Hood Week.
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you.
It's only for a week, so have no fear;
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!

Fair enough.

It would seem that the CWACFI or whatever the group is called over reacted to this but the whole thing seems rather silly. Kids of middle school age will probably not react the way the GLSEN is intending them to. I imagine most kids will think the idea is stupid and there will be more name calling during that week than all the others.

Well I for one am not in favour of 'hate crimes' as a source to make crimes more significant for some and not others. I feel every crime should be treated equally.

But since it is in place, there's really nothing we can do about it. Is calling someone a fucking nigger, a fucking faggot, a fucking Jew, a fucking Pole, a fucking Jap,a fucking protestant, a fucking catholic a hate crime? I call it ignorance.

Agreed, kids love doing what they aren't supposed to. Kutulu is right, they should try cracking down on the insults ALL THE TIME. This will just increase the name calling for the week.

The problem is schools don't really punish people for name calling. Maybe they suspend a kid, but lots of kids love having an excuse to not go to school. Longer in school suspensions might be better, but they have to be longer punishments which kids would dread getting.

Maybe we should stop calling each other "liberal" and "conservative".

I'm sure that we don't mean good things when we say them :D

No, that's not what it amounts to but the assholes flapping their lips about it sure are trying their best to spin it that way. It's about all name calling, not just the word faggot.

Exactly. When the point is equality why should any one group be afforded more protection under the law? Besides I think it's safe to assume that most crimes are motivated by hate.

Please tell me where the orginators of this idea intended it to treat 'gay bashing' insults different then calling an overwieght girl 'lard-ass' I'd really like to know.

Just because it's based on a book by a gay author doesn't mean it was meant to treat gays differently. Of course the homophoboes against it see only that insults about sexual orientation are included in a LIST of insults and therefore, it must be about getting our young boys to think that cocks taste nice.

What are you blathering about? I was responding to a post that quoted something I had said about hate crime legislation, not merely No name calling week.

You (and the conservatives bitching about this) are the ones acting like it is set up so that we will be more accepting of gays. That's what your original hate crime reference was about. Are you retracting that?

No I am not retracting, because it's true, it probably isn't held solely for the acceptance of gays, but none the less that is definitly a motivation for this.

And my original hate crime reference was in regards to how Canada is stiffling speech that is considered unfavourable to gays and making it hate speech. I don't know what is afforded for protection of speech there, but as far as I'm concerned it's a spit in the face of free speech.

irony: mojo and kutulu calling each other names :D

I've never seen so many people get so pissed off over whether we should be nice to each other and teach our kids to be nice to each other.

Zoiks.

lol

You never cease to amaze me. If it does anything positive for gays it must be a plot by the gays trying to infiltrate the society. Be carefull, you might catch 'teh ghey'.

Say this actually raised some awareness (not likely) and kids get taunted less as a result. If in addtion to school being easier on the psyche for tons of kids, a few gay kids felt a little less bad about themselves is it a bad thing? According to what I gather from you're posts, it sure seems that way.

You know you are right. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, all those fudge packing pillow biting faggots suck at life and deserve death.

If it does something positive for gays great, I don't think the point of the week is to merely emphasize the taunting of homosexuals. But you are just being nieve in asserting that it isn't one of the goals, the program was developed by a homosexual advocacy group, you are being willfully ignorant if you don't think they aren't trying to put some attention on it. For the record I am not asserting that they have some deviant homosexual agenda.

well well, mojo: once again you manage to make me feel like i am standing behind some huge exhaust pipe when i read one of your posts....i feel that i am now covered in some kind of foul grime....

funny that you refer to god in your signature.
and that you presume to not just judge but apparently hate others based on who they choose to love.


go figure.

The problem is that the only "awareness" that is trying to be raised is about the gloriousness of gays. It seems that most liberals want all sex to be seen as normal and no big deal (if you have modesty you're obviously some repressed prude) except for gay sex which is the most wonderful thing ever since sliced bread. If a student thinks that the act of two men having sex with each other is morally wrong, there is nothing wrong with that. That person is not any less than anyone else, they are not a bigot or homophobe. Now, should they necessarily go around beating up gays? No. Just like poeple who have other qualities that might be deemed negative shouldn't be harassed. But there is no reason that certain insults should be singled out.

And personally, I think that is what this is about. It isn't about not calling people fatty or nigger or spic or retard, it's all about calling people faggots. Honestly, if anyone is called out their name it should be equally punished. What shouldn't be forced down on people is a liberal moral code where acceptance of everything (except Christianity) is the norm.

I guess i missed the part where the article said that only homophobic slurs were being discouraged. I see your post, and then i see the article, and i see that they share very few common ideas. Did you read the article, or did you just immediately overwrite it in your mind with some sort of antihomophobe rant?

I saw nothing about the "gloriousness of gays". I hope that you are able to see the difference between disdain for homosexuality and overt vocal hostility towards homosexuality/homosexuals. One is okay, if not just a tad bit sad, and the other is completely unacceptable.

Whatever, if the same idea was brought up by someone else but everything was written the exact same way they'd say nothing. It shows the true colors of the 'religous right': "Fags are bad and we need to oppose anything that might lead people to believe otherwise. In fact, we need to make sure that everyone knows they are sub-human."

If these people spent half as much time actually reading the word of their "God" as they did talking about their "God" they'd probably be a bit more tolerant about others.

"Judge not" my ass. They have no idea what it means to be tolerant.

No, it's there all right. You just need you're Dubya Decoder Ring. Then you will see the light, my Christian Warrior.

Christians have no idea what gays are asking for. All they want is to be treated like human beings. I guess that is too much to ask.

Please do not lump us all together.

Thanks.

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.

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

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

Thanks Filth, give me some credit, jeez.

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

Now this is scary. :lol:

I agree with every word of the above.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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 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?!

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 :D.

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

But I certainly agree with number 2.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Thank you and apologies myself.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 :rolleyes: .

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.

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.

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.

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

/men on film

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :thumbsup: .

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.

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!).

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.

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?

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

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.

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"...

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

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.

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.

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.