"Conservative" Freedom?

[RPKESQ]

Nathans_Dad wrote:
Yay, took only two pages to get to the racial card...

Hey Rick, I hope you were not referring to me.

Jeff Higgins wrote:
What are you, a gay black homophobic witch or something?

But let’s stop and answer you concerns, and then I know you will address how the same Christian racist diatribes are so different from the Christian anti-gay diatribes.

Please tell me who the victim is in homosexuality. Incest, man-boy sex, rape, murder, bestiality (I suppose, I’ve never asked the animals opinion), etc., all have easily identified victims. Please point out the victim in homosexuality. The only victims are the homosexuals themselves, who are victimized by self righteous, religious bigots who want their narrow-minded views to be everyone’s view.

I my book, no victim, no problem.

[kang]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Yay, took only two pages to get to the racial card...

I'll ignore the racial bait and move to the discussion at hand.

Why can I point out things like beastiality, incest, etc? Because they are all sexual deviations, like homosexuality is a sexual deviation. Once you start saying one sexual deviation is ok and should be promoted by society, where do you stop? I guarantee you that the members of NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association...yes it really exists) will tell you with a straight face that they are consenting individuals to the act and no one is hurt. How do you tell them that their sexual desire is wrong but being gay is ok?

I think some of the folks on this thread are confusing the ideas of acceptance and indoctrination. I accept that some people are gay, I accept that is their right. I just don't think that the public schools should be in the business of promoting the gay lifestyle.

Kang: When was that Texas sodomy law enacted? I'll help you. 1973. I dunno about you, but I was about one year old then.

Nostatic: I think a lot more conservatives would support my solution than you think...

Who decided that homosexuality is a sexual deviation? Your church? These are the kinds of morals that change over the years. It wasn’t that long ago that women couldn’t vote. We finally decided that was wrong and gave them the right to vote. I’m sure some people thought that women voting was immoral. Some people still do. Wake up and realize that homosexuality is no longer considered a deviation.

There is a big difference between NAMBLA and consenting adult homosexuals. With NAMBLA, you have a clear victim. With consenting adult homosexuals, there is none. You asked where do you stop. That’s easy. Look for the victim.

I don’t see the relevance as to when the Texas sodomy law was enacted? Are you saying that there are no conservatives around any more that would enact such a law if the could?

[FrayAdjacent911]

I'm just throwing this in as fodder, but

It doesn't take religion to show that a man and a man is not normal. Or that a woman and a woman is not normal. It's not the natural order of things for creatures of the same gender to engage in sexual congress.

Humans are unique tho.



Being as I identify myself as conservative, yet I am not religious, I think homosexuality is an oddity, it's an abnormality. But I don't go as far as thinking it's an abomination or that people should be punished for it.

What I don't like about it is when gay people try so hard to put their 'lifestyle' out there and make everyone else accept them. It's a sad fact of life that many MANYpeople will NEVER accept them. They should be happy that they CAN love whoever they choose, and that they are no longer being stoned to death because of it.

I think whatever two consenting adults want to do to eachother, which is not harming anyone else, is fine. Just don't shove it in my face. Don't try to make me accept it. I just flat out may not like it, and that's your burden to bear, not mine.

[RPKESQ]

So, is trying to get equal rights under the law, pushing it in your face? How else should they try to obtain acceptance under the law?

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by kang
Who decided that homosexuality is a sexual deviation? Your church? These are the kinds of morals that change over the years. Wake up and realize that homosexuality is no longer considered a deviation.

The sexual norm for anyone who can look at a set of genitalia is heterosexual sex. You don't need a church to explain that. And just because it isn't considered a sexual deviation by "society" doesn't make it not a sexual deviation anymore. What would you say 50 years from now when beastiality is considered "normal"??

Originally posted by kang
There is a big difference between NAMBLA and consenting adult homosexuals. With NAMBLA, you have a clear victim. With consenting adult homosexuals, there is none. You asked where do you stop. That’s easy. Look for the victim.

Why is there a victim? Because you say so? Have you interviewed any of the boys involved? What if they tell you that they love Big Al, their man-lover? Would it be ok with you then?

Originally posted by kang
I don’t see the relevance as to when the Texas sodomy law was enacted? Are you saying that there are no conservatives around any more that would enact such a law if the could?

No, I'm not saying there are NO conservatives around who would enact anti-sodomy laws anymore, but they are few. There are liberals who would turn our government into a communist regime if they could, but I'm not using that to paint all liberals. You are using the ideas of a few fringe people to paint an entire group...

The point here, Kang, is that you are only liberal until you run into someone who is farther left than you are. Someone who wants to make anything and everything legal in the names of "Freedom". Then you become an evil conservative in their eyes...the only difference between you and me is that my line is drawn in a different place than yours.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by RPKESQ
So, is trying to get equal rights under the law, pushing it in your face? How else should they try to obtain acceptance under the law?

No, but having textbooks in school that talk about little Billy and his two daddys is.

[Taz's Master]

Supe, are you ok with liberal legislation forcing its system of morals on the country? What is the deciding factor as to when it is ok for a law to dictate morals to the populace? Drug laws? Compulsory education?

Anti-discrimination laws enforced a moral code on a reluctant segment of the populace, good or bad? If it is good when the government does this, then enforcing a moral code on the population can be a good thing. All of America should be allowed to decide on its moral code, unless you believe that Conservatives need to be kept quiet because they're wrong. In which case Liberals are closed-minded, dictatorial, and want to surpress others (which is what's wrong with Conservatives in your mind).

Equating the Republican Party with conservativism, is a mistake. I do not believe that either party speaks for much of this nation, and saying that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party speak for Liberals and Conservatives respectively is the same as saying that the very best people our nation had to offer for the office of President were George W. Bush and John F. Kerry. My only hope for the next election is for Congress and the Presidency to be held by different parties. The less our government is able to do, the better off this nation is. Is that a Liberal or Conservative thought?

[RPKESQ]

Originally posted by RPKESQ
So, is trying to get equal rights under the law, pushing it in your face? How else should they try to obtain acceptance under the law?

Nathans_Dad wrote:
No, but having textbooks in school that talk about little Billy and his two daddys is.



So, how do you propose we teach children to be tolerant and accepting, if not by exposing them to the differences? Do you propose they are learning this from you? That certainly isn’t the tolerant position you are taking in your posts. If children are not taught to accept diversity from a young age, than we are allowing racism and bigotry to flourish. That’s part of the problem, not the solution.

Your analysis of how self evident the purpose of genitalia is very limited. Genitalia are primarily for procreation. How we use it for recreation is up to us and our imagination. That’s why many wheelchair bound paraplegics can still have sex.

Your limitations are out for all to see in this argument. Still haven’t answered the Christian racist/gay bashing propaganda question yet, I see.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by RPKESQ
Nathans_Dad wrote:
Yay, took only two pages to get to the racial card...

Hey Rick, I hope you were not referring to me.

Jeff Higgins wrote:
What are you, a gay black homophobic witch or something?

But let’s stop and answer you concerns, and then I know you will address how the same Christian racist diatribes are so different from the Christian anti-gay diatribes.

Please tell me who the victim is in homosexuality. Incest, man-boy sex, rape, murder, bestiality (I suppose, I’ve never asked the animals opinion), etc., all have easily identified victims. Please point out the victim in homosexuality. The only victims are the homosexuals themselves, who are victimized by self righteous, religious bigots who want their narrow-minded views to be everyone’s view.

I my book, no victim, no problem.

Lighten up a bit; maybe I should have put one of those silly smiley faces after that crack. Apparently, subtlety is not one of your strong points.

There are many victims of homosexuality. Just because they don't jump right out in front of you does not mean they are not there. It tears appart families, ruins lives, goes hand in hand with other risky behaviors, exposes its practitioners to increased health risk, and on and on. The gay community has expended a great deal of effort in debunking all of this as homophobic myth, but at the end of the day, they cannot hide from the raw statistics.

Your assertion that homosexuality is a natural behavior because it can be observed in animals is simply inane in the extreme. It is an all too common argument. Those that parade that tired old jutification about only succeed in demonstrating they have on the one hand swallowed the gay propoganda, and on the other have not thought it through for themselves. This argument will not hold up to even the most cursory scrutiny. There are species that commonly eat their young. Incest is rampant in the animal world. So is murder and rape. Theft of another's hard won prize (predators chasing one another off a kill). No one would ever attempt to justify these actions in the human world because they observed them in the animal world. Why homosexuality? It is a desperate reach from a population trying everything they can to justify their lifestyle to the rest of us. A lifestyle the vast majority of people recognize as aberant.

That said, I stand firmly behind my earlier statement that I could care less how others live their lives until they affect mine. Homosexuality does not affect mine. They can have at it; it is none of mine nor my government's business. There should be no laws concerning it whatsoever. It should also, on the other hand, not be pushed on our kids through public schools as a healthy alternative lifestyle. It is not. Pushing it on any public forum, schools or otherwise, is just as innappropriate as pushing religion in any of the same venues.

[RPKESQ]

Hey Jeff, my response to the race card comment was lighthearted. Maybe you need some silly smiley faces.

That being said, the argument that all types of behavior can be observed in different species only establishes that it is natural and normal. Nothing more. The fact that some of this is deemed wrong or offensive to some is strictly a matter of society’s rules. These have changed quite a bit in the last 10,000 years.

As far as the dangers to society, really! Have you thought this out at all?
Let's see:
It tears families apart. (Only for the intolerant among us)
It ruins lives. (See above and only because society has labeled it as bad)
It goes hand in hand with other risky behaviors. (Oh, like rock and roll did)
It exposes it’s practitioners to increased health risks. (Like racing, climbing, scuba, flying, etc. etc.)

As you can plainly see none of these arguments hold any validity.

You said “There are many victims of homosexuality.”


If we eliminate the homophobic and religious bigots and the hatred thy spread, show me the victims.

[Jeff Higgins]

Yes, it tears families apart. Even their own cobbled together "families" cannot seem to stay together. Homosexual relationships are notoriously more transient than heterosexual. And yes, it is very much a source of shame for the "straights" in a family.

Yes, it ruins lives, and not solely due to society's labelling. Many of its adherants find themselves in a downward spiral of lessening self-worth and other psycological problems. Far more so than the general population.

Just like rock and roll? Homosexuals have a notoriously high intravenous drug addiction rate. They are notoriously promiscuous, especially the men, with many tallying partners in the hundreds or more. And having unprotected sex with them. They die from these things at alarming rates. Not so for rock'n'roll.

Racing, climbing, scuba, flying, etc. etc. does not expose anyone to any health risks. There are physical dangers involved, but that is far different. Broken bones are not communicable disseases.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by RPKESQ
Originally posted by RPKESQ
So, how do you propose we teach children to be tolerant and accepting, if not by exposing them to the differences?

Gee, here's a thought, how about parenting? Why do you think the government has to mandate teaching your viewpoint?

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Gee, here's a thought, how about parenting? Why do you think the government has to mandate teaching your viewpoint?

here's some parenting for you. I'm on vacation at Big Bear Lake. Turns out the license plate was stolen off a boat trailer parked in the motel parking lot. The kid of the family pipes up with, "I saw some Mexicans down the road, they took it."

Yeah, how about parenting...

[fastpat]

Originally posted by IROC
People get married in courthouses everyday with no "religious" ceremony at all...

Mike

There used to be a commonly used term for "justice of the peace" marriages, and it wasn't flattering. My mother used to use it all the time, but I forget what it was. I'll ask her. It was only after about 1960 that civil ceremony marriages became widely accepted as the "equal" of the religious sacrament of marriage.

More's the pity.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by nostatic
here's some parenting for you. I'm on vacation at Big Bear Lake. Turns out the license plate was stolen off a boat trailer parked in the motel parking lot. The kid of the family pipes up with, "I saw some Mexicans down the road, they took it."

Yeah, how about parenting...

What the hell does that have to do with the discussion? Maybe the kid did see some Mexicans down the road who took it...

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Yes, it tears families apart. Even their own cobbled together "families" cannot seem to stay together. Homosexual relationships are notoriously more transient than heterosexual. And yes, it is very much a source of shame for the "straights" in a family.

Yes, it ruins lives, and not solely due to society's labelling. Many of its adherants find themselves in a downward spiral of lessening self-worth and other psycological problems. Far more so than the general population.

Just like rock and roll? Homosexuals have a notoriously high intravenous drug addiction rate. They are notoriously promiscuous, especially the men, with many tallying partners in the hundreds or more. And having unprotected sex with them. They die from these things at alarming rates. Not so for rock'n'roll.

You got numbers for that? I agree with the promiscuity, but the IV drug addiction? Never seen that one. And if they are having sex with each other, and they are knowledgable and consenting, how does that affect you other than making you uncomfortable?

I know plenty of stable same sex relationships. And maybe if there weren't so many homophobes in society, they wouldn't be so screwed up. It is a self fufilling prophecy.

Actually post partum depression if probably one of the most destructive things for women's psychological health. Maybe we should eliminate pregnancy and birth...then they'll feel better about themselves.

And how about Catholic guilt? I think that makes people become alcoholics. Maybe we should ban Catholicism because it sends people into a shame spiral...

This is the same argument over and over again. And just like abortion. A bunch of people not directly involved telling others what they can and can't do.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
What the hell does that have to do with the discussion? Maybe the kid did see some Mexicans down the road who took it...

r i g h t

Kids learn discrimination at home. You can bet the kid piped up because he's heard dad pissing and moaning about, "those damn Mexicans..."

You brought up parenting and indicated that it should be responsible for teaching tolerance. My example illustrates that maybe we need some other sources...

[nota]

to me the whole race and civilrights thing
is the major factor in picking a side
when I was a teen in the 60's in the south

I watched the demo racist neo-con's swap partys to the GOP
along with their bigoted thumper preachers who hated rock
the buzz words changed but the basic hate stayed
now they talk in code wellfare replaced race
they still fear sex, hate birth contol and sex ed
lead the war on drugs, and will never give peace a chance
talk about freedom but when theys see a real free person
it scares them to the core
want to censor books or burn them
along with music movies tv ect
they blindly support the CORPs, church and party
hate unions, the enviromentilists, public schools and public health

are strangely loyal to the goverment they hate
while disbeliving the media is fair or balanced
because it doesnot support their warped out look
talk about paying their way but see taxes as robbery
scream about poor people getting funds from taxes
but see no problems with CORPs bigger wellfare

[Jeff Higgins]

It is endemic of homosexuals that they label those who dissaprove of them as as "homophobes" or worse. They equate dissaproval with hatred and fear. That is unfortunate. While I am sure they are out there, I don't personally know anyone who dissaproves of homosexuality that either hates or fears them. They simply dissaprove. I suppose it veils your cause in some faux cloak of rightousness if if you can convince others you are hated and feared. That transfers the onus to the other side, removing it from you and the behavior of which they dissaprove.

Todd, go back and read my other posts concerning this. I very clearly state that this does not affect me. It does not make me even mildly uncomfortable. I could really care less what they do, but I will stop short of giving it my seal of approval. I think it is wrong, and no amount of brow-beating and name calling will change my mind. I will never treat anyone any differently because they are gay. I do have, and have had gay friends. They know how I feel about it. I know how they feel about my religious beliefs. Neither gets in the way. Why is it so hard to understand that just because I dissaprove of their choices, it does not mean that I hate or fear them? Why do gays feel they have to hide behind that accusation?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by nostatic
You got numbers for that? I agree with the promiscuity, but the IV drug addiction? Never seen that one.

http://www.soulforce.org/article/646

http://gaylife.about.com/cs/sexdrugaddiction/index.htm

http://www.rainbowrecovery.com/

Pretty darn easy information to find. I cannot believe you have "never seen that one". The above are just three; three from their own resources, lest you say it is some kind of homophobic fabrication. This is an acknowledged problem in the gay community and has been for a very, very long time.