Does anyone think this is a good thing?
 

At what point does the ACLU become an anti-American org? I'd love to hear some of y'alls opinion on this, but please, no knee jerk, party line rhetoric. For Heaven's sake, it's the Boy Scouts!!


BSA drops charters with thousands of public campuses to avoid lawsuits

The Boy Scouts of America is pulling the charters of thousands of scouting units from public schools in an effort to spare them from lawsuits threatened by the American Civil Liberties Union.

In a letter sent to the BSA last month, the ACLU vowed to take legal action against public schools and other taxpayer-funded governmental agencies that charter Scout groups, claiming their sponsorship amounts to religious discrimination and violates the separation of church and state.

The ACLU specifically takes issue with the Scouts' pledge of allegiance to God and country and the organization's prohibition of homosexuals as scout masters

Article here

This is nothing new, the ACLU has been facing off against BSA for some time now.
Well that certainly puts the article in perspective.

I'm not asking about the source (yes, it's biased), I'm asking about the ACLUs war against the BSA. Is that a good thing for America?

I don't agree with the ACLU in this, but I kinda support them in this just beacause a gay scoutmaster is only going to take advantage of the little boys if he is a pedafile. So, the boyscouts should not hire pedafile scoutleaders. The gay thing shouldn't be an issue. As far as the pledge, are the kids being forced to say the pledge? If thay are being forced, then it's wrong and pretty ironic. If they aren't being forced, then it wouldn't matter either way.

The problem? The boyscouts is an excelent place to teach young men about responsibility, comrodary, honor, and loyalty; all things vital to America. The serveice they provide is invaluable. All the ACLU did here was threaten to bankrupt the BSA, instead of trying to constructively remedy the situation. Suddenly they go from freedom fighters to bullys. They didn't protect anyones civili liberties in this, all they did was put those boys back into unstimulating environments.

It's not just the ACLU that's threatening the Scouts, it's the ACLU and the courts.

The courts, at least recently, have been deciding in favor of the ACLU on this issue.

For example, in Portland Oregon recently,

So it seems that if the ACLU is anti-American, then the Oregon Court of Appeals is anti-American also.

My opinion: neither are.

I would say it is neither good nor bad, it just is. But that's probably not what you wanted to hear.

Personally I could care less as I am not affiliated with either organization. Politically I wish the ACLU success if only to piss off the people at WND, who seem to be fearmongering. But I'm an ass that way sometimes.

I'm sort of with Coppertop on this. Anything that pisses off the right wing is OK in my book.'

However....

BSA discriminates against gays. Period. They have been told that they can't, but replied that they were a private institution and they could do as they damned well please. This is absolutely true. However, it seems to me tho be perfectly fair to then exclude them from schools. Certainly the state owes it to parents to prevent a group from preaching bigotry to their children in the context of education. (Unless, of course, the parents send their kid to a religious school, in which case teaching intolerance is perfectly fine. Feh.)

But it's ok to have school funded gay and lesbian club in the schools?

Well, when I was in school there was a GLB alliance (basically the same thing as a gay/lesbian club, but with "bisexual" added on), and ANYONE was allowed to be a member. Even the straight kids. No straight kids WERE members, but they were not forbidden or even discouraged from joining. So there was nothing wrong with them. Now, if the club decided that ONLY gays were allowed in it, THEN there'd be a problem.

Tophat has hit it on the head. BSA IS a private organization and as such they're allowed to discriminate against anyone they want to. However, if they choose to discriminate, they should not expect government handouts. If they want the money that bad, they should quit being assholes to the homosexuals.

Well, I'm a former Eagle Scout, so I get upset emotionally when the ACLU goes after the BSA, but intellectually, I understand that the BSA can't have it both ways. They WANT to be a private organization so they don't have to adhere to anti-discrimination law, but at the same time they WANT to be allowed access to public facilities for meeting space, even though those facilities can't be used for anti-discriminatory purposes.

Sorry, but at some point they are going to have to realize that homosexuals can be good leaders, can be good Scouts, and - omygod! - aren't automatically a pedophile.

shakran and MoonDog have this one totally, completely right. All I'll add is that the clubs in school cannot discriminate - anyone can join any club. The moment the Boy Scouts no longer discriminate against gays and no longer require members to take oaths of a particular religion and whatnot, I'd welcome them into the school grounds with open arms.

Homosexuals are prohibited from being scoutmasters, not members. Why is it that this phenomena is reality, or should be? If BSA were truly discriminating, then the gay youth of america would be excluded from joining, but they aren't. The fact of the matter is, sexuality shouldn't be an issue for members of the boy scouts. They are simply young people growing up and learning lessons **enter the flamer.

They aren't banned from being youth leaders because of their sexual preference, they are banned because there sexual preference injects itself into every nonsexual aspect of their lives. You may take some offense to that, but if it weren't true, would ones sexuality ever have become an issue here? Absolutely not. Learning about ones sexuality during the formative years (i.e. - the BSA years), is tough enough.

Shakran, were straight people allowed to be GLB masters, so to speak? If they weren't was that a problem for you? Not to mention this is a club focused on ones sexuality. If a young person decides he'd like to be a part, more power to him, but sexuality should not be forced on anyone that age. If a grown man is incapable of leading young people in a social club (which has NOTHING to do with ones sexuality), without revealing his sexual preference, then he shouldn't be leading them in the first place.

NCB,
BSA is fundamentally a Christian organization. Leaving aside the homophobia, they are one of the really good ones. But, being a Christian organization, they are a religious organization. Separation of Church and state can be an issue here if they prosthyletze. Aside from being discriminatory, and despite any BS protestations, their stand on homosexuality is a religious one. By inculcating that in their members, who, in theory, are below the age of consent and, therefore, cannot have a legally informed opinion, prosthyletization is exactly what they are doing.

Unfortunately, this gets into murky water. No one gives a good goddamn if they teach kids to be upstanding citizens because it's the Christian thing to do. Render unto Ceasar and all. No one cares that they teach kids teamwork because it's the Christian thing to do (it is). No one cares that they teach kids self reliance because it's the Christian thing to do (it's not). No one cares that they're teach kid to be "Helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, thrifty, brave, clean" and, from my days in scouts, even "reverent" was couched in a sort of an AA kind of a way - doesn't matter what you believe so long as you believe in somthing greater than yourself - so not necessarily a problem there. Sure, they're teaching those values for Christian reasons, but they are values that amount to what good parenting results in anyway.

Teaching kids to hate, though, that people care about. Even those who agree with their bigotry in the particular ought to take a step back and replace "Gay" with "Left Handed" or "Black" or "Red Haired" to pick some other biologically determined factors, and see that they would care about it in that case. (Judas was a redhead!)

So, in addition to equal protection problems, there are separation of church and state problems.

Homosexual oriented groups at schools have neither of those problems.

If you're ticked off that your tax dollar is going to fund them, pay me back my money that was used in invading Iraq and then you will have a leg to stand on.

right, matthew. A gay man or woman is solely defined by his or her sexuality. Every aspect of their lives is what? Tainted?

Gay scout leaders never wanted to discuss sexuality, homosexuality, or heterosexuality in the boy scouts any more than straight ones did. They just were gay. Believe it or not, gay people aren't like Big Gay Al. I bet you know or at least met a bunch of people that you had NO idea were gay. The reason one's sexuality is at issue here is because the BSA makes it one, NOT because the prospective gay scout members did. In fact, most of these cases had to do with scout masters who did a great job for years before others even found out that they were gay, and who were then summarily dismissed. I don't know why you seem to think that gay scout masters spend all their time with the little scouts telling them about what it is like banging guys.

The Scouts are discriminatory, which is why the ACLU and the courts have held that they cannot use public space like schools as meeting places.

Oh, and I know many straight people who are very prominent in GLBT groups or were in high school.

So Scoutmasters should be non-dating Bachelors? Certainly being married is a clear statement of the scountmaster's sexual preference.

I know that verges on reductio ad absurdum, but roll it over in your head a few times. Sexuality is biological. One has not got a choice in the matter. Oh sure, one can exercise their will and submerge their sexuality, but should they have to if they are reasonably discreet about it? And, by discreet, I mean having sex in private, not avoiding showing their partner some affection in public.

I think moondog said it best, they can't both be a private organization that discriminates and be able to set up scout groups in public schools.
simple as that.
we're not saying they are bad, but they need to make a choice.

"I bet you know or at least met a bunch of people that you had NO idea were gay." I'm sure i have too, and i'm sure these people would have no problems being scoutmasters. Unless as Tophat suggests, they are bringing their dates to scout meetings (and even if they did it'd be completly unnecessary to introduce them as "my friend that i'm fucking"). At some point your "prospective gay scoutmasters" are the ones who made it an issue. Otherwise, like i said, it never would have been one. I never suggested gay men spend all their time talking about what it's like "banging" other men, and i never argued ones sexuality is not biological.

And the answer to your question tophat ( but should they have to pay if they are reasonably discreet about it?) is , no. How difficult is it to be discreet about your sexuality? If an adult is incapable of being "reasonably discreet", is it a biological problem, or a maladjusted, incapable of coming to terms with yourself problem. There is a reality to your sterotypical "gay" adult. I'm sure you can come up with your own sterotypes. Are all these stereotypes, in your words "biological", or is the biological influence STRICTLY limited to sexual preference?

matthew, you never explained how exactly the gay scout masters are the ones making this an issue. You just assert it. They aren't - it is the BSA that makes an issue out of the sexual orientation of its scout masters.

It isn't difficult at all to be discreet about your sexuality...90% of gay men and 92% of gay women do it each and every day...Those stereotypes that you see on shows like "Will & Grace" are based on 10% of the gay population. They happen to be the loudest and the showyest, so you can see how they would end up as the stereotype. However, like many stereotypes, it's incorrect.

How does he BSA know their sexual orientation?

From an amici brief in a BSA gay discrimination case:


James never made an issue out of his homosexuality. The BSA had no idea he was gay and accepted him as a scout master for 16 months. Only when they found out - not because he brought it up at BSA meetings or with BSA members or with anything to do with the BSA - did they kick him out. The BSA was the one who "made it an issue."

Link.

"It isn't difficult at all to be discreet about your sexuality...90% of gay men and 92% of gay women do it each and every day...Those stereotypes that you see on shows like "Will & Grace" are based on 10% of the gay population. They happen to be the loudest and the showyest, so you can see how they would end up as the stereotype. However, like many stereotypes, it's incorrect."

Well then 90% of the gay population should have no trouble being scoutmasters. I live in downtown baltimore, my "gay experiences" are not limited to Will and Grace. BTW, stereotypes are never "incorrect", they aren't simply pulled out of your ass. You don't have to be afraid of them. The degree to which they are "applicable" is debatable, but in this case, like i said, i'm from downtown baltimore. I'm not naieve, and as cliche'ed as it might sound, i have friends that are.....

I think the point lindseylatch is trying to make, although I don't want to misrepresent her argument, is that the gay population DOESN'T have trouble being scoutmasters. It is only the BSA that has trouble with the fact that they are gay if they find out that creates a problem.

So it's OK to discriminate against a group, as long as you don't discriminate against all ages of that group. Gotcha.

No, they are banned because bigoted idiots THINK their sexual preference injects itself into every nonsexual aspect of their lives.

That's frankly a stupid statement that you can't possibly back up. You're acting like they eat differently, work differently, and do everything differently because of their homosexuality. That's crap. What's next, black people can't do long division without the answer being influenced by African traditions?

There's no difference between a gay and a straight guy except for his sexual preference. Plenty of gay people can be good leaders, while plenty of straight people can be bad leaders. Need I remind you that not one of the Catholic priests who molested young boys was (openly, anyway) gay?


So what you're saying is, if a bigoted idiot makes sexuality an issue, it's the fault of the person the bigoted idiot has a problem with. That really doesn't make any sense.


If you mean faculty advisors (all clubs had to have one) the guy who was the faculty advisor was married to a woman, so I'd say yes.

If you mean president of the club or whatever, yes they were, if they were members of the club, which as I said before there weren't any straight members of the club.



So lemme get this straight. If a BSA leader reveals his sexual preference, he has to be kicked out. By your logic if a straight BSA leader makes a comment about a cute woman, or shows up with his wife, therefore confirming his sexual orientation, he also must be kicked out.

What you're really saying is that you don't like gay people and you want to shove them under the rug. But to assuage your guilty conscious, you say we'll allow the gay children to be with the rest of society. Only when they grow up will they be ostracized.

Same thing used to happen before the civil rights movement. It was OK for white kids to play with "that darling little black boy" but as soon as the kid grew up he became the "filthy nigger."


As I've said before, our society congratulates itself because it now finds prejudicial behavior toward blacks to be offensive, but in reality it deserves no congratulations. It's simply shifted its discrimination from black people to gay people. Our society is every bit as bigoted and hateful as it was in the 1950's, we're just being bigoted and hateful to a less politically-incorrect group.

I am quoting the first sentence that NCB posted in the thread starter, because
I suspect that this is the issue that is the true agenda of this thread, and that the BSA is simply the "hot button" issue chosen by NCB to malign and further discredit the ACLU.

I submit my belief that the ACLU is as American as apple pie, more importantly, it is as American as the Constitution of The United States. The attorneys and other Americans who support the ACLU and it's efforts to hold government and others who act unconstitutionally, accountable, via local and federal courts that must rule within the framework of the provisions of said constitution. I deplore the politics of former Georgia congressman Bob Barr, but I laud him for the recent work he has done in support of the ACLU.

The following can happen because of work the ACLU has done to preserve all of our right to assemble and to exercise free speech. The result is messy, I object to the tactics and to the message, but without the ACLU, it might not
be allowed to happen, and that would be un-American:
NCB, if you got your wish.......and the ACLU ceased to exist, what alternative do you see doing the work of defending all of our constitutional rights, or......
do you see this work as even necessary ? Are you satisfied that our national political leaders and their appointees to sensitive oversight positions (Ashcroft and now, Gonzales) are faithfully executing the oaths that they took to "preserve and protect the consitution". Please do not paint the ACLU as "anti-American" and then paint your thread topic as a defense of the BSA, victim of an ACLU attack, because that tactic is an intended smoke screen to avoid asking the rest of us if we agree that the ACLU is a threat to "things American". I am not yet ready to sign on to the "up is down", "good is bad", "we have to bomb you to bring you democracy", "1984ish doublespeak" that populates well coordinated and oft repeated talking points that emanate from the white house and radio "talk" shows. Enough !!!!!! Already.............

:thumbsup:

In my opinion, you cannot be discriminitory in any way (unless you can prove by past actions that the person you discriminate against has a history of harming others, in this case a pedophile) if you expect government funding or use of government funded buildings.

If the BSA wants to claim they are private and therefore they can have rules that discriminate, they should not be allowed to take and government funding in any way.

The Salvation Army preaches Christianity, they recieve absolutely no government funds and have survived. So shall the BSA.

BSA isn't the only organization that teaches leadership and duty through scouting and wilderness activities. Campfire USA teaches the same basic skills and values, but without actively discriminating based on sexual orientation, religious belief, or gender. Among the core values they teach is tolerance:

If schools want a scouting organization to teach their young people leadership and teamwork, I think this is a much better choice than the BSA.

Sounds nice and chummy, but when we as a society begin focusing on children's sexual orientation, then somewhere we went astray.

Maybe you're looking at this the wrong way. We are trying to teach the kids how to be responsible adults. Is it responsible to teach them to hate and segregate people based on sexual orientation, gender, and religion? Of course not. We are not focusing on the sexual orientation of the kids (I couldn't care less), but we are focusing on how to teach the kids to accept those of a different sexual orientation, in addition to those of different religions and genders. Would you teach your child to hate gays? How could you possibily justify that to a child who asks, "Why do we hate gay's, Dad? Are they bad people?"?

1. When does the BSA teach hate?
2. Do you think it's possible to disapprove of a lifestyle without "haing" the people associated with that lifestyle?

Being homosexual is NOT A LIFESTYLE, anymore than being black or asian is.

So it's in a spirit of love that gays are publicly embarassed by being fired by the BSA? Bigotry, the root of the reasoning behind the BSA, is hate. Intolderance cannot be equated with anything but hate. Yes, the BSA teaches hate.
Like guy44 said, being gay isn't a lifestyle. Being gay is a genotype. Should people treat you with disrespect you because of your hair color or blood type?

I think being gay, like many things, is a combination or nurture and nature. But that's not really what this thread is about...
I would just like the answer the title of the thread with "YES."

Wrong. I can't quit being black. Someone CAN quit being homosexual.

Prove it.


Now, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here. I know it's pretty hard to prove that someone can stop being homosexual if you're not homosexual yourself. But you are proposing that sexuality is variable depending upon the mood of the individual. In other words, if a gay man can up and decide to turn straight, a straight man can up and decide to turn gay.

So here's my challenge to you. I want you to turn gay for the next 3 months. It's a personal choice, so if a gay guy can make it, surely you can make it too. Quit being heterosexual for just three months, then get back to us to tell us how it went.

Well done. You completely turned the point around backwards and refuted your distortion of it. That's called a straw man, by the way.

The point was that Campfire USA does not make an issue of the sexual orientation or religious beliefs of its members. It's open to people regardless of their sexuality or religious belief system. The BSA, on the other hand, does make an issue of it.

Every time the BSA throws out a scout leader in good standing for being a homosexual or a scout for refusing to take an oath to God, they are teaching intolerance.

I sure do. What's more, I'll even grant you that there is a homosexual lifestyle; there are homosexuals who go out of their way to advertise their orientation, who wear in on their sleeves, who seem to feel the need to connect everything about how they comport themselves in public to their sexuality. There are also heterosexuals who do the same thing. I find both groups annoying.

Then there are those of us who simply are homosexual, and want to be allowed to life our lives free of discrimination. How about those of us who are homosexual, but are not part of the lifestyle? Do you disaprove of us?

Hahahaha. That's an awesome idea, and it's an excelent way for people like NCB or alansmithee to prove to us fools that homosexuality is simply a choice one makes. If alansmithee can learn to find men sexually attractive and possibly have a homosexual "experience", then I'd be more than willing to consider the idea that homosexuality is not simply genetic.

I don't know I was a YMCA Indian Guide and I feel I learned more about life than friends who were in BSA. But

The Indian Guides to me were far more classier and actually because they were Father/Son they brought fathers and sons closer together.... at least in my tribe. Plus we met in each others homes and at the Y so we didn't have to depend on schools and such.

I know my short time in Weeblos we met in a church and religion was far more predominant in BSA than Indian Guides (which is funny because YMCA stands for Young Man's Christian Association).

I am sad to see this thread has denigrated into prejudices.

And I find it funny the ACLU is ok when they support the rights of Limbaugh and other right wingers..... but heaven forbid when they defend liberals.

Has Limbaugh said anything about this? Just curious if he is attacking the ACLU or is ignoring it all together.

How is it an excellent way of proving anything? It's both unscientific and illogical.

I liken homosexuality to fetishism. It's something that is learned, but can be very hard to break. And I seriously doubt anyone thinks that being turned on by leather is inborn and not learned. And as long as it's controlled and doesn't adversly affect your life, there should be no reason to break it.

Again, what many people fail to understand is that the burden of proof isn't on showing how sexual orientation is NOT biological, but the opposite. I have repeatedly asked for concrete evidence that it is, and have yet to see any. One article that was posted in another thread to supposedly show how sexual orientation was biological actually supported my view.

I'd disagree with this. They're not a christian organization, they allow people of whatever religion to belong, as long as they believe in a God. We had both muslim and jewish kids in our troop way back when, and the "God" in question wasn't relevant in any way.

Maybe you cannot, but Michael Jackson sure did.

BA-ZING! :thumbsup:

Totally off-topic, but I love a good zing.

You say this, and your next sentence is your opinion of what homosexuality is, with NO evidence to back it up, NO scientific data in your corner and absolutely NO basis in logic.



Least of all the ones who are turned on by leather. I have yet to speak to someone who's turned on by leather or any other fetish who said "Yeah, I have no choice, I was born this way, I came out of the womb needing leather in my sex life."

On the other hand, I also have yet to speak to a homosexual who has said "I'm gay because I decided one day it would be really neat."



You're just full of winners today aren't you. You seem to have a burning need to press your morality on everyone else. What the hell do you care if the leather is "controlled?" How do you control leather anyway? By the same token, who the hell are you to say that homosexuals should change, even assuming they could? Even if it IS their choice, what business is it of yours? Have you forgotten that this country is supposed to be about freedom of choice? Or do you interpret that concept as "freedom of choice as long as I like all your choices."




Wrong again. That's where YOU would like the burden of proof to lie. But the homosexuals aren't running around trying to convert the heterosexuals. It's the ignorant heterosexual bigots who are busy trying to convert the homosexuals. That places the burden on the bigots to prove that 1) homosexuality is a choice, 2) it's a bad choice and 3) it's a choice that homosexuals should not be allowed to make.



And I have yet to see you offer any evidence, other than "gee I think it should be this way, and therefore it is," that homosexuality is a choice.


If you want evidence, look at all the gay animals running around. They've found chimps, orangutans, even penguins, who have homosexual partnerships. Hell San Fran's Central Park Zoo is having a hell of a time right now because all their male penguins are gay, and won't mate with the females, which means the zoo's penguin population is not self sustaining.




But really, you shouldn't need evidence. Even if it is their choice, it has no effect on your life. They aren't going to turn you gay. They aren't going to take over the world. They aren't going to rape your children. They aren't going to harm you in any way, yet you still persist on persecuting them.

The argument that homosexuality is a conscious choice is asinine. In the first place, there's no evidence that there is. In the second place, there are plenty of homosexuals who say "that's just the way I am, I didn't choose to be gay." Are you calling all homosexuals liars?

Thirdly, it would be a pretty stupid choice wouldn't it? Why would someone make the conscious choice to be ostracized, persecuted, and harassed by people like you, who can't tolerate anyone that's too different from themselves? Sure, maybe there would be a few nuts out there that would, but why would so many of them make the choice? It simply doesn't make sense.

This is the kind of ignorance that prevents our society from growing.

So if I'm interpreting you correctly, the ACLU should come to my aid if I, as a grown man, am denied the opportunity to be a Girl Scout master?

And the parents are bigots if they don't want me going on overnight camping trips with their daughters?

Sounds absurd, right? Well guess what..it's not the same. If we were trying to equate this situation with a hypothetical situation with the girlscouts, it'd be better to say there should be lesbian girlscout leaders. BUT, if a man wanted to be a girlscout leader, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The only problem I would have is if that man happened to be a pedaphile. I am officially coming out against pedaphiles being scoutleaders, and I won't budge on that.

Again, the burden of proof isn't on me. YOu want proof? Look at any of the people who live a perfectly heterosexual life, then sometime down the road suddenly decide "yup, I'm gay". Take the former New Jersey Governor for one.

Where did I say that they should change? That's YOU putting your ideas on me. There's no basis for what you said. And I hoped you checked for polyps while you were pulling "this country is about freedom of choice" out off your ass. That's the first i've heard of that.

I've already said I don't care if people want to be gay. It has very little bearing on my life. What I do oppose is calling people bigots who might disapprove of someone else's actions. It's ridiculous to think that people shouldn't be judged by their actions. And every time the term bigot is used in that way, it lessens it's value for the TRUE bigots.


I guess if animals do it, it's ok? So the next time some mother kills her kid, we can give her a pass too.

And I haven't heard of animals having homosexual partnerships at all. Usualy animals only form partnerships while rearing kids, which it's biologically impossible for homosexual couples to produce.

Where's all the persecution? It seems the only persecution is people like you persecuting others for holding beliefs that don't fit into how you thing things should be.

Have you conducted some poll? You seem to speak with quite a certainty about how all gays feel. Maybe you should publish your results and put the debate to rest. Unless the "plenty" is just a couple you know. Cause that isn't quite a representative sample. And as for calling all homosexuals liars because of how you say some feel, I don't know if that is more humorous or sad. I'm leaning toward humorous, becasue it gave me quite a laugh.

I've already said why people might want to gain instant access to minority status that they can turn off at will. Look in the "Paul Martin on Gay Rights" thread.

It's shameful that you feel it's ignorant for other people to be judged by their actions. It's that kind of misguided thinking that diverts people's attention away from society's true ills.

There is enough "burden of proof" for both sides. If neither side has proof, then neither side can be correct. We have to rely on morality, if science isn't going to back us up. If there are two moralities going head to head, there can't be a winner as there is no "correct morality" that we can measure our moralities to.

He didn't just become gay. He was always gay. He tried to conform to a homophobic worlds view and marry a woman. It didn't work for him. He couldn't continue to hold back who he was and his choice destroyed a marriage.
He was ALWAYS Gay. There are plenty of examples of men who married women because they thought the had to to stop being gay, to try to fit in, because their family/church pressured them into it.

Homosexuality is not having gay sex. Homosexuality is an orientation from birth.

Could you feel attracted to a man? Can you imagine doing anything sexual with a man? No? Well the negative feelings you have in relation to men and the positive ones you have for women is the EXACT opposite feelings that homosexuals have.
If you can't imagine being gay, THEY can't imagine being straight

Maybe you should pay attention then. And look it up instead of "not heard of it"
In the Paul Martin thread I posted a link to a book from an author that studied homosexual relationships in animals, maybe you should check it out.
That is, if you aren't afraid to learn.

When has the natural order of humanity (the man, woman, and child family) become a bigoted, homophobic lifestyle?

No, Leb.
You were crystal clear. I didn't make a personal post. I responded to what he already said.

I see nothing wrong with my post. My comment of not being afraid to learn was a comment made to someone who made admitted to having no information to back up his position... A position that is clearly untrue. I made a challenge for him to educate himself.

When you are a gay man who marries a woman to try to fit into a world that is unaccepting to your kind.

A gay man in the Tri-State area is hardly unaccepted.

I would imagine they would, as men are allowed to be Girl Scout masters, just as women are allowed to be Boy Scout masters. In fact, the majority of BSA leaders at the younger levels are women.

I fail to see why this is even an issue. Boys and girls both need adult role models of both sexes, and what the leaders do in the privacy of their own homes has no impact whatsoever on their ability to teach young people responsibility, leadership, honor, etc.

You've switched topics in the middle of your sentence here. Yes, there are homosexual animals. The point being made here is that homosexuality exists in nature, and is therefore, by definition, natural.

Your second point is irrelevant. Homosexual couples all across the US are rearing children, in many case the biological offspring of one of the partners.

This would depend upon what actions are being disapproved of, and whether those same actions meet with the same disapproval when engaged in by heterosexuals. If the actions are objectionable regardless of who does them, then it is the actions that should be condemmed, and not the sexuality of the people. If the actions are objectionable only when performed by homosexuals, but not by heterosexuals, then those objecting on that basis are engaging in bigotry.

What specific actions do you disapprove of that are engaged in by homosexuals, but not heterosexuals? I honestly can't think of anything I do that heterosexuals don't also do.

Until there is biological proof from one side (homosexuals are born gay) or the other (no they aren't!), I don't see a simple resolution to this. Yes, there are gay couples in nature. I was at the San Francisco Zoo recently with my daughter, and my wife and I were talking about the penguins. Maybe there's something in the water in San Fran....oh well. I wondered if it was possible that homosexuality is some kind of social defence mechanism to prevent both genders from behaving too much like one another...therefore it could be natural and it could have nothing to do with morality. I dunno, it's just another theory to add to the bucket. And that's kinda the point. Until we have science backing one side or the other, we simply can't know with total certianty. I know many of my friends who are gay were always attracted to the same sex, from the time they became sexually aware at a young age. At the same time heterosexuals started to notice the opposite sex, many homosexuals started noticing the same sex. So why do a lot of them pretend to be heterosexual? Well, that's obvious. Being gay still isn't easy. When the BSA fires someone for being gay, it sends a message to other gay people that they are still going to be segegated and treated as a lower class of humans. And that’s the point. If you are going to treat a group with disrespect just because that group might be a social group...you are a bigot. The burden of proof should not fall on those who are already being treated unfairly despite the lack of proof. Even if being homosexual isn’t genetic, does that really make it okay to treat them this way?

Let’s go into one last hypothetical scenereo. Let’s say that someone is born with a totally normal genome, with no mental or physical problems of any kind. This person is set to live a happy life until a very bad uncle comes along and molests them. This very little child does not understand and is deeply hurt by this, and it stay with them or a very long time. Years later, this person developes a morbid fear of sex. They cannot have sex with anyone and they avoid it. Should you make sure that this person doesn’t teach your kid how to build a fire or widdle some wood? If this person poses NO DANGER to your child or the community and lives a totally normal life, but happens to have a private sexual disorrder, should you treat them with contempt and hatred and bigotry? There is no excuse for treating someone differently for something they can’t control. There is no excuse for treating someone differently for something they can’t control. There is no excuse for treating someone differently for something they can’t control.

In my Brain and Behavior class there was a study that examined the brains of gay men, women, and straight men. This was a couple years ago, so I don't remember the names of the parts of the brain, but one area that has been linked to sexual activiy showed interesting results. In women's brains, this area is about 1/5 the size it is in men's; the gay men's brains showed that this area was even smaller than in an average woman. So, there is something physical in being gay. I'm not saying this proves it's genetic, but it does show that it's biological, so it can't just be changed on a whim.
If anyone wants the specific, PM me, and I'll find the study.

In a link I posted, McGrevey talked about years of "sexual confusion". That doesn't sound like "I was always gay". It sounds like someone trying different things, and CHOOSING one lifestyle. And this wasn't his first marriage, but his second. Apparently he liked the hetero life enough to give it another go.

All your opinion. Not fact.


I was going to reply to this thinly veiled (and clumsy IMO) personal attack in kind, but I'll refrain. I checked on the link you provided. In the review on the site, it talks about the authors finding that there are biological AND environmental causes for homosexual behavior. And it's by no means definitive. Here's one view refuting the claims of the book:
The Animal Homosexuality Myth.

I fail to see where I supposedly switched topics. And as for homosexuality in animals, see the above link.

Again, where is the irrelevancy? I didn't say that homosexual couples couldn't raise children, i said produce. There's a large difference.

That statement makes no sense. If the action defines the group, or is exclusive to the group, then condemning the action doesn't make someone bigoted. People object to same-gender relationships. That's what defines homosexuality. If I condemn drug use, am I "bigoted" against drug users? I'm not condemning non-drug users, so apparently I must be. Does it matter that drug users are the only people using drugs? Not by the above line of thinking. Calling people who object to a certain lifestyle bigots is an odious tactic that makes the term less effective in identifying true bigots.

And honestly, what is up with the liberal thinking on the subject. Most seem to say that sex is natural, nothing special, just a physical thing. It's the conservatives/Republicans who have all these supposed hang-ups. But mention homosexual sex, and suddenly homosexual sex is the most glorious thing ever, something that rises above all other sex. It should be put on display for all to see, regardless of if people want to see it or not.

alansmithee, you just quoted an organization whose part of the "positive alternatives to homosexuality" network and is dedicated to "help people with unwanted same-sex attractions to realize their personal goals for change."

They are a psuedo-science bullshit factory, like intelligent design theorists, but with the added benefit of bigotry.

I think the minority extremists in the AClU has forced some dangerous opinions on the majority, whether we like it or not. This has not come soley from the AClU, but the twisted reasoning they have been allowed to get past a twisted Supeme Court.

Damn that group for standing up for the Constitution of the United States!

Yeah, and my 2nd Amendment rights too!!

:rolleyes:

Yeah, there crap on that one. But there's a whole other organization devoted just to #2. So no worries here.

And Superbelt referenced a book that had the goal of showing how homosexuality was supposedly natural. I could just as easily say that that book was a pseudo-science bullshit publication, but instead I posted an alternate view. That's the type of things you deal with when science gets mixed with agenda. And your use of the term bigotry is quite offensive.

This sounds remarkably like the research that shows that mtf transsexuals have physically female brains. Essentially, the bed-nucleus of the stria terminalis in men is much larger, about twice the number of neurons, than it is in women, and MTF transsexuals have brains consistent with those of normal women. But this research didn't find any physical differences between homosexual males and heterosexual males. I'd be very interested in seeing that research if you can find it.

There's real research, which may show findings such as homosexuality is biological, and then there's fake research, which happens when an organization is created with the intent of proving that homosexuality is a wrong moral choice and then goes about creating "studies" to prove things. Real research starts with questions, not answers.

And please, the ACLU takes no stance for or against the Second Amendment. They are neutral. Stop acting like they should take one side or another, that isn't what they are about.

Or there's fake research, which starts when a homosexual starts with the goal of showing how his choice is natural, and a refutation where an organization that disagrees with him points out where and how his biased interpretation can lead to a faulty conclusion.

Can I ask you a question, alansmithee? Let's say you're right about homosexuality not being biological, wich I suppose is possible. Let's say you're 100% right, and it's social. You're right, and we're wrong. It's possible. Now if you're right, and homosexuals are socially inclined to be homosexual and not biologically inclined to be homosexual, does that make it okay to fire them from jobs and treat them with disrespect? Is it okay to treat someone with less respect because they are different, even if the difference isn't biological, but social? I'm trying to get to the root of the article's implications, not argue points that no one will cave on. Does your moral code allow for you to fire someone for simply being gay, despite the fact that when you didn't know thery were gay, they were excelent workers that did not hurt or effect anyone with their sexual prefrence? Is sexual prefrence so damning in your mind?

You begin by talking about rearing offspring, then switch to producing them. Two different topics. When I responded to the reference to rearing kids, you switched back to producing them.

Homosexuals both produce offspring and rear them.

NARTH, huh? Going to start quoting Misogyny next? NARTH begins with the assumption that homosexuality is a choice, a psychological disorder, and can and should be cured. The first has yet to be established, the second untrue, and the third derived from the faulty second premise, and therefore also untrue. I don't take anything they have to say seriously.

You make a reference to rearing kids in the same sentence as being the purpose of animals forming couples. And you're wrong on the second part. Homosexual couples do produce offspring. Lesbian couples routinely have children through the artificial insemination of one of the partners.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to be seeing an objection to homosexuality based on reproduction. If a sexual relationship not based on reproduction is objectionable, then the CFBC people and people who are sterile shouldn't have sexual relationships either.

What specific actions are exclusive to homosexuals? What behaviors are exhibited by homosexuals that are not also exhibited by heterosexuals? I'm curious because I cannot think of any.

There is one specific action--vaginal intercourse--that heterosexuals engage in that homosexuals do not, but I don't know of any available exclusively to homosexuals.

No. Homosexuality is defined by being attracted exclusively or primarily to people of the same sex. It's a status, not a behavior.

This is exactly what I've been talking about. This is condeming a specific action--taking drugs.

What are the actions to which you object when engaged in by homosexuals? You haven't identified any. If these are actions that are also performed by heterosexuals, do you object to them then? If not, that is an example of discrimination based on status and not action, and that is bigotry. Please note, I am not calling any specific person a bigot here, just giving what I think is a fair general use definition of bigotry.

What lifestyle? Identify the specific actions, behaviors, and lifestyle characteristics that define the homosexual lifestyle, and show how heterosexuals don't engage in those same behaviors, and you'll have something here. Just throwing out a label without defining it makes it difficult to understand exactly what behaviors or lifestyle characteristics it is to which you object. If you can identify some specific behaviors about the homosexual lifestyle to which you object, I may well join you in condeming them.

Who, exactly, has been saying this? It sounds suspicously like a straw man to me.

It depends on if their lifestyle inteferes with the work environment or adversely effects the business as to whether someone should be fired. Ideally, you wouldn't know if someone was gay or not. But if it intruded into their work and a great deal of other employees or customers complained, then yes they should be fired.

People get treated differently due to their behavior all the time, sexual or otherwise. If you find some behavior immoral or wrong, you have no obligation to accept it. However, you shouldn't go actively seeking those you disapprove of for the express reason of harassing them, either.

I didn't reference rearing offspring, someone else did. And homosexual COUPLES don't produce offspring, which is what I said.



And I don't have to take what your biased sources say seriously either. Currently, homosexuality is not treated as a psychological disorder, but not to long ago it was. It was outside pressure that changed this, not scientific research. You could easily draw parallels between homosexuality and many sexual disorders/fetishes. But this isn't done because of a strong gay lobby, not because it's untrue. If exibitionists or NAMBLA had the same type of lobbying efforts that gays do, flashers and pedophiles might not be considered to have sexual disorders either.


Then the lesbian couple isn't producing offspring, it's the person impregnated and the sperm donor. Although I did hear on NPR a month or so again that in the future it may be possible for two women to mix there genetics and produce viable offspring, but currently that's not possible now.

My inclusion of reproduction has more to do with the marriage issue than anything else. Personally, I don't care what goes on in people's homes.



Male/Male and Female/Female sexual contact and non-platonic relationships are the exclusive domain of homosexuals.

But it's the relationships that come from that attraction that are the outward signs of homosexuality, which is a behavior. Without some form of behavior, you can't determine if someone is homosexual (or hetero, for that matter)


But if you condemn drug use, you are condemning the people who have attraction toward using drugs, which by your definition makes it bigoted, since the attraction is a "status". And to take it more extreme, condemning serial killers is condeming people with the status of enjoying killing. Again, your definition of bigot to include "status" makes it a nonsense term. If that's the case, everyone is a bigot.

[quote]What lifestyle? Identify the specific actions, behaviors, and lifestyle characteristics that define the homosexual lifestyle, and show how heterosexuals don't engage in those same behaviors, and you'll have something here. Just throwing out a label without defining it makes it difficult to understand exactly what behaviors or lifestyle characteristics it is to which you object. If you can identify some specific behaviors about the homosexual lifestyle to which you object, I may well join you in condeming them. [QUOTE]

I have pointed out behavior that is exclusive to homosexuality, because engaging in it makes you homosexual. And many people find that behavior immoral. Just like many people find alchohol consumption immoral. I don't personally care if people live homosexual lifestyles, but I do care when they want to elevate the behaviors associated with that above other behavior types.

How is gay marriage elevating homosexual behavior ABOVE other, comparable, behavior types such as that of the heterosexual?

That would be equality, not superiority.


And let's note, your analogies to drug users, flashers, pedophiles and serial killers are purely illogical. Homosexuals do not harm other people due to being homosexual, the others to which you attempt a comparison expressly do that (though in the case of drug users, not really - which is a good portion of why you see such a strong movement for the legalization of drugs, but that's another topic). So it might be "bigotted" to be anti-serial killer, but there is an actual logic to that "bigotry". Whereas, the anti-gay marriage bigotry (which you encourage and partake in) has no similar logic. I might as well compare anything and everything that I dislike to a serial killer and claim a form of moral justification - it doesn't make any sense, but you'd like to think it does.

And I'm not sure how you've been able to deal with this glaring contradiction in your stated philosophy:
vs.
On the one hand, you're in opposition to redefining marriage and on the other, you're eagerly waiting to sign a petition of redefinition.

Sure you did: "Usualy animals only form partnerships while rearing kids, which it's biologically impossible for homosexual couples to produce."

The APA and the DSM IV are the mainstream standard for what constitutes a psychological disorder. It was a recognition that homosexuality does not constitute a disorder that resulted in it's being removed fromt the DSM. A disorder must cause harm to the individual, and homosexuality doesn't.

Nice. Flashers and child molestors actively seek to intrude upon and harm others. The same cannot be said of homosexuals as a group.

Would you say the same of a heterosexual couple with an sterile male? Being a parent is about a lot more than biology.

So the purpose of marriage is reproduction? What about CFBC couples, infertile couples, couples past child producing age? Should they not be allowed to marry?

You've defined homosexual behavior here, but I fail to see any specific behavior that homosexuals engage in that is not also engaged in by heterosexuals.

I could just as easily say, "Black / White sexual contact and non-platonic relationships are the exclusive domain of miscegenationists." It would be equally true, and equally irrelevant.

Sure you can. Ask a person, "Are you sexually attracted to men, women or both equally," and their answer will allow you to determine their sexual orientation without observing their behavior.

But it isn't the status that's being condemed, it's the action: taking drugs or killing people. Notice that you can condem the behavior without knowing the sex of the person engagine in it. With homosexuality it isn't the behavior that's being condemed, it's the sex of the person engaging in the behavior.

Examples.

Walking down the street holding hands with a woman.
Kissing a woman on the lips.
Slow dancing with a woman.
Performing oral sex on a woman.
Marrying a woman.

Are these things acceptable or not? If it is truly the behavior that is at issue, then these things are acceptable or not regardless of the sex of the person doing them.

If however, these are acceptable for men, but not for women, then it is the sex of the person being condemned, not the action itself.

Assume that the woman in the examples is white. Would it be fair to say it's acceptable for a white person to do those things, but not a black person? Of course not. We've rejected the idea that miscegenation is immoral, because it punishes people not for what they are doing, but for who they are.

No, you have yet to identify a single behavior that is exclusive to homosexuals. You've also failed to define the "homosexual lifestyle". My lifestyle consists of teaching middle school, collecting and reading comic books, eating at Denny's, playing Diablo II obsessively, and regularly having sex with a beautiful young woman. There is nothing, literally, nothing I do that heterosexuals don't also do, unless you attempt to define a behavior by the status of the person engaging in that behavior.

Well, the parts of it they like, at least. For fun, we once called up the local head of the ACLU, and asked him why they don't do more in regard to the tenth amendment.

His answer was, and I quote, "That's a strange amendment."

I don't even know what the tenth amendment is...

and :thumbsup: to Gilda

"No, they are banned because bigoted idiots THINK their sexual preference injects itself into every nonsexual aspect of their lives."

what did you think i mean when i said that? I'm not afraid of being called a bigot, i know i'm not. Please explain what you think i meant by that, and why you think i'm a bigot.

You know how some people just wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they didn't have anything to worry about? There is a large population of people that wouldn't know what to do with themselves if bigotry didn't exist.

How are my liberal friends on this board doing?

I'm not going to ask you to quote a source on that one, but you speak of something I've never personally observed: a woman Boy Scout master. And if you're referring to den mothers of cub scouts as "BSA leaders at the younger levels," that's a totally different animal.

That's fine, but what scoutmasters do or advocate on overnight camping trips and visits to the "old swimming hole" are a different matter entirely.

To use an old quote, "it wouldn't be wise to lock a starving man in a factory with 10,000 chocolate bon-bons."

You do understand that there is a very non-subtle difference between a gay man and a pedophile, yes?

You know you're not a bigot?
Were you trying to be ironic on purpous in your last post? The post in which you were intolderant by suggesting that liberal people can only keep busy by calling people bigots...I really hope you see the irony. Please tell me you see the irony.

Manx, apparently VARIETY is posting from a point of view that is misguided, and
misinformed, but unfortunately is much more widespread than I would have thought it could be in 2005. Maybe the enlightening influence of the sexual liberation movement that came into prominence in the 70's did not provide an educating effect on the majority of Americans.
On the positive side, public opinion is shifting in a more tolerant direction:

Certainly. You do understand that many teenagers have their first sexual experience around the age of 14, yes?

If you want to believe that sex between partners with a 20-year difference in ages doesn't occur, or that teenagers aren't interested in sex before the age of consent, it's not a problem for me.

This discussion...I'm reminded of the Jim Crow era. I'm reminded of when white people said that black men were inherently lustful. So lustful that they couldn't control themselves.

Anyone who believes that a minority group has uncontrollable, inappropriate sexual desires as a function of that feature which makes them a minority is no better than, and in is fact quite similar to, Jim Crow racists.

The ACLU's mission is not to abstractly defend the Bill of Rights. The ACLU takes a position on civil liberties issues and then defends them, whether or not those issues are outlined in the Bill of Rights.

Tarl, you are acting awfully smug for someone who apparantly believes that the American Civil Liberties Union should spend its time on a non-civil liberties-focused amendment like the Tenth.

Wow. I'd never looked at it that way. You're a smart cookie, guy44. While I had thought to compare this to racial bigotry, this direct comparison seems to stand up quite well. Admittedly, I had forgotten about the "all black men are inheratly lustful" opinions that were used to try and keep black men segregated and controled.

I had decided to leave this thread alone, but I had to respond to this. Homosexuals are a minority group, if you define a minority group as a group that is not in the majority. This would also make athletes, ivy league school students, athiests, vegetarians, farmers, and any other group defined by their actions into minorities. It is odious and disturbing to me that people compare the race struggles to the supposed gay rights issues. Where are gays being persecuted? What rights don't they have that everyone else has? Not everyone loves the idea of homosexual sex. And now people are trying to equate that to the Jim Crow era south? This comparison is one of the most asinine things I have seen. What next? Comparing people who don't like homosexuality to Nazi's? Yeah, just the other day I was leading a group of gays to a gas chamber :rolleyes: .

I can't believe people now have so little respect for the trials of blacks and other minorities in America that they would try to compare those struggles to "gay rights". The ability of many liberals to now trivialize the work of early civil rights pioneers is disgusting.

I'm pretty sure gay marriage is only legal in Vermont, which makes gay marriage illegal in 49 states. Also, many major churches have made it their mission to "educate" the public about how immoral and evil homosexuality is in God's eyes. Have you ever seen a gay couple walking down the street holding hands and acting even a little bit like a couple? They get dirty looks from a lot of people, and are treated with disrespect.

The fact is that we live in a different world that existed durring the time of slavery. There have been advances. Thankfully, most people understand that racial bigotry is wrong, or at least they are exposed to such morals. In the currrent social climate, there are people who are regarded as less than equal. Those people just happen to be homosexual. When guy44 made his apt comparison, he mentioned white people said that black men were inherently lustful. So lustful that they couldn't control themselves. Then he compared it directly to claims from sexual bigots that homosexuals are so lustful they can't control themselves. The comparison deals with groups that are being activly worked against by lwas and society, and the comparison can't be coincedence. It doesn't trivialize civil rights, it celebrates their one success, and predicts the success of those same civil rights groups over this newer form of bigotry against homosexuals.

I never said there was anything abstract about it. The Anti-Christian Lawyers Union studiously avoids the second, ninth, and tenth amendments.

I'd also like further clarification in regard to why you feel that the following has little to do with civil liberties:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

By the way, this does not mean rights are "granted" to the people. Research proves that, according to the framers of the Constitution, the people have always had rights; this just ensures that the people retain those rights.

It's been a few years, but a group of us had quite a running discussion with a local ACLU head a few years back. I'm sure they're around here somewhere.

(Sound of rummaging through desk.) Aaah.... here they are. :D

I'm just not sure I want to go through typing anything else. History would indicate that everyone's mind is made up by now.

i was not going to participate at all in this thread because i found the way in which it was framed from the ouset to be thoroughly repellent.

then i read through it.

frankly, i cannot believe that it devolved into a question of whether bigotry directed at people who happen to be gay can be justified or not, and whether therefore the boy scouts are in turn justified in their policies of excluding people who happen to be gay from their ranks.
every single conservative cliche about gay people has turned up here.
every single ridiculous trope that serves in conservativeland to counter critiques of conservative bigtory has been dutifully trotted out, defended etc.
worse still, from the beginning of the thread, the aclu has been characterized by these same people as "anti-american" because they, in this case, work to oppose the extension of this type of bigotry into law on the one hand (restricting the protections afforded gay people by the legal institution of marriage) and organizational policy (the bsa) on the other.

these arguments are repulsive.
they really are mirror images of earllier forms of bigotry.
every racist has felt racism justified.
every bigot here feels his bigotry justified.
every bigot seems worried that he or she will be called a bigot, so the same type of justifications for bigotry get recycled.
what the conservative arguments here come down to is simple--the slogan "god hates fags"--and nothing else.



as for the question of the bsa--in order to make this move, to discriminate against gay people, they fundamentally altered their social position, fundamentally undercut whatever good the organization might have ever accomplished (i was a boy scout as a lad--it was kinda goofy fun, in a strange, sometimes paramilitary kinda way--i liked dressing up in uniforms as many adolescents do--i liked trees--i liked being in uniforms while surrounded by trees)...at this point, i figure the organization has committed a kind of political hara kiri, made itself into a relic, emphasized its worst aspects, destroyed any illusion that its paramilitary aspects are not ideologically motivated, and that this ideological motivation is linked to the far right.

maybe this was always the case--but it seems to me that the bsa was understandable as other than that, at least by me and everyone i knew who had a useful experience passing through the organization.


obviously the problem is the aclu.

There's no such thing as "gay marriage". Gays can get married just like other people.

And for your second point, are you denying the right of a church to preach their religion? There's a lot worse being done in the name of religion than trying to alter someone's behavior.

As for the whole "dirty looks and disrespect", I've seen people with mowhawks and piercings get the same treatment? Where's the outcry for their rights? Or what about the dirty look you would get for picking your nose? The nosepickers have had their rights trampled for too long, we must defend their right to pick! Some hetero couples get dirty looks for acting like a couple-we must free the unattractive from the tyranny of inpulchritudiphobes! Give me a break :rolleyes: .



It does trivialize the entirety of the civil rights movement. There is no apt comparison. One group is defined by their actions, another by innate biological differences which they can neither control nor mitigate. There are no laws working against homosexuals. If society has anything against homosexuals, it's because they do not approve of homosexual behavior. They are treated as less than equal by people who disapprove of their behavior. Many other forms of behavior cause people to treat them as less than equal, yet only homosexuals seem to want their behavior elevated. I have no problem with homosexuals trying to make their behavior more accepted; likewise I have no problem with groups trying to make homosexual behavior less accepted. It's up to the efforts of each of these groups to contribute to the debate and determine the social acceptance of homosexual behavior. I'm just showing that one of the tools of the homosexual propaganda side is not only false, but insulting. The difference between the "gay rights" struggle and the civil rights struggle is the difference between being shot with a water pistol and being shot with a 9mm. For anyone to think otherwise just shows how far civil rights really have to go in America.

Oh. Then we should make sure all schools throughout the country provide straight women teachers to female students over the age of 13, straight male teachers to male students over the age of 13. The potential for teacher-student sexual relations at those ages is just far, far too great.

Unless you're suggesting that this inclination by an adult to have sex with 14 year olds is inherently stronger in homosexual men. Which somehow in your mind, isn't pedophilia anyway because as you said, you "understand" that homosexuals are not even remotely related to pedophiles.

If you intentionally said that as a joke: Hahahaha. :lol:

If you're serious: Do you know what the word "contradiction" means? Something that contains contradictory elements. A See synonym of opposite. You said "There is no such thing as gay marriage", then you followed with the statemet "gay can get married all the time". I sincerly hope you see the contradiction. I hope you also see that statements like these in opening your response will result in people either skipping over your post, or already having an opinion of you before they get to read what you get to say that's really important.

I'm condeming the church for acting in a bigotous manner, which does not accuratly represent the God that they worship. Just like I don't agree with the crusades and the inquisition.

People with mohawks arn't being denied the eight to a civil union last I heard, so this is different.

What a wonderful opinion that I completly disagree with because of my set of morals. The difference between you're treatment of gays and past treatment of african-americans is negligable when taking into account what is socially acceptable in both different time frames. BTW, how many gay bashings are there every year?

will -

Beyond the aspect of morals, the point alansmithee is trying to make, that biology defines black people and decision defines gay people is false. He bases this distinction on the ability to recognize a black person visually and not recognize a gay person visually. To which the obvious response is: put a black person in a closet (literally) and other than the possibility of distinguishing speech patterns borne from environment, you would never be able to determine the black persons race. The facts remain: black people are distinguished by chemical differences in their skin, gay people are distinguished by chemical differences in their brain (as has been pointed out in this thread). We can see the chemical differences in skin when we walk down the street. We can see the chemical differences in the brain when we analyze MRIs. As Gilda also pointed out, there are no actions performed by homosexuals that are unique to homosexuals, as alansmithee would like to believe. So although alansmithee would like to claim that the civil rights movement is being subverted by homosexuals and their defenders, his basis for this opinion is illogical. In actuality, it is his desire to see a difference where there is none that is the subversion of the civil rights movement.

The point I was trying to make was on his ground. Even if homosexuality was social and not biological, it is STILL wrong to treat them with intolerance. It's doubly wrong when you admit to the FACT that they are biochelically homosexual. I was shutting him down based in his reality. I know homosexuals are chemically different.

Yes of course. As soon as I wrote that, I realized that even if his statements had logic, his conclusion was still discrimination.

Good point.

I see I need to find a more intellectually honest discussion, since I keep receiving so many twisted/false "interpretations" of what I said.

There is an obvious way to intrepret those statements of yours. Put a homosexual in charge of a group of children and the homosexual will be extraodinarily tempted to induldge in them.

Maybe you meant your statements to be unobvious.

I didn't notice it at first, but I can see where it looks odd. My point was that there is only "marriage". Not "gay marriage" "student marriage" "athlete marriage" or any other way you want to categorize it. If you argue for "gay marriage", you argue for some special status for those who practice homosexuality. You elevate their behavior above that of others.



I'm glad you know how GOD thinks, you should let everyone else know cause there's been some confusion about that.

And if condemning the actions of people is bigoted, then every jury that returns a verdict of "guilty" is bigoted.



Except in one or two states, there are no civil unions allowed for anyone. It's those states that are denying everyone not homosexual the right to have civil unions.



If what you say is true, we cannot condemn any past actions that were legal. We can't condemn slavery, because it was socially acceptable. We can't condemn Jim Crow laws, because they were socially acceptable. And extending that logic, today many in society feel that homosexual sex is immoral/disgusting. So you can't condemn them either, because it's socially acceptable.

And as for gay bashings, i'm not sure how many there are. But how many nerd bashings, fatty bashings, poor bashings, sex offender bashings, christian bashings, muslim bashings, that-guy-has-better-shoes-than-me bashings, gang bashings, or any other segment of society bashings are there each year? If you want to get rid of "X" bashing, that's one thing. But you can't single out one of those forms of behavior and start trying to elevate its status above the others.

Perhapse you should explain your point instead of just retreating. If you specify enough so that people can't shut you down then you may have proven a valid point. Also, when you say twisted/false, you don't need to put interpretations in quotations as it is no longer taken out of context. :thumbsup: