In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

The Gays Are a Bigger Threat Than Terrorism

And gays are a cancer that will destroy our young people and destroy this nation.

Some random crazy? Nah. An Oklahoma State Representative:

The video is right: This is what they say when they think we aren’t listening. When they’re talking to larger audiences, they moderate the language and talk about “family values” and “protecting marriage.” But that isn’t their actual belief. Make no mistake: This is about hate and bigotry. And I’m damn tired of having to pretend that their arguments against marriage equality and basic civil rights for LGBT people have any merit. I’m damn tired of having to say that “good people can disagree about this issue.” At the end of the day, this is bigotry. It is hate. And we’re hearing it, even through the code words.


112 thoughts on The Gays Are a Bigger Threat Than Terrorism

  1. I’m listening.

    Her name is Sally Kern. Write, call, e-mail her office. Tell her you’ve listened too.

  2. I would have liked it if they’d posted some more details of who and when, so that it was clearer that they didn’t just record it in a closet with bad acoustics somewhere.

  3. I’m really excited to hear that we’re taking over the country. I’m not sure what the plan is once we take over though, I’ll have to find out at the next big meeting of Teh Gayz.

    /sarcasm.

  4. Can’t you all see that this post is part of the conspiracy theory against her that she mentions in the recording, putting her in jeopardy? The gay ninjas will be coming after her and her family any second now.

  5. Ok so I have to quote this here. The Gay Agenda:

    8:00 a.m. Wake up. Wonder where you are.
    8:01 a.m. Realize you are lying on 100 percent cotton sheets of at least a 300 count, so don’t panic; you’re not slumming.

    8:02 a.m. Realize you are actually in your own bed for a change. Wake stranger next to you and tell them you are late for work so won’t be able to cook breakfast for them. Mutter “sorry” as you help him look for his far-flung underwear. You find out that you tore his boxers while ripping them off him last night, so you “loan” him a pair of boxer-briefs, but not the new ones because you never intend to see him again.

    8:05 a.m. Tell the stranger, whose name eludes you, “It was fun. I’ll give you a call,” as you usher him out the door, avoiding his egregious morning-breath.

    8:06 a.m. Crumple and dispose of the piece of paper with his telephone number on it when you get to the kitchen.

    8:07 a.m. Make a high protein breakfast while watching the Today show. Wonder if the stories you’ve heard about Matt Lauer are true. Decide they must be.

    8:30 a.m. Italian or domestic? Decide to go with three-button Italian and the only shirt that is clean.

    8:45 a.m. Climb into red Z4 and try not to look too much like Barbie driving one of her accessories as you pull out of your underground parking. Revos or Armanis? Go with Revos.

    9:35 a.m. Stroll into office.

    9:36 a.m. Close door to office and call best friend and laugh about the guy who spent the night at your condo. Point out something annoying about best friend’s boyfriend but quickly add “It doesn’t matter what everyone else thinks, just as long as you love him.”

    10:15 a.m. Leave office, telling your secretary you are “meeting with a client.” Pretend not to notice her insubordinate roll of her eyes (or the cloying “poem” she has tacked to her cubicle wall).

    10:30 a.m. Hair appointment for lowlights and cut. Purchase of Aveda anti-humectant pomade.

    11:30 a.m. Run into personal trainer at gym. Pester him about getting you Human Growth Hormone. Spend 30 minutes talking to friends on your cell phone while using Hammer Strength machines, preparing a mental-matrix of which circuit parties everyone is going to and which are now passe.

    12:00pm Tan. Schedule back-waxing in time for Saturday party where you know you will end up shirtless.

    12:30 p.m. Pay trainer for anabolic steroids and schedule a workout. Shower, taking ten minutes to knot your tie while you check-out your best friend’s boyfriend undress with the calculation of someone used to wearing a t-back and having dollars stuffed in their crotch.

    1:00 p.m. Meet someone for whom you only know his waist, chest and penis size from AOL M4M chat for lunch at a hot, new restaurant. Because the maître d’ recognizes you from a gay bar, you are whisked past the Christian heterosexual couples who have been waiting patiently for a table since 12:30.

    2:30 p.m. “Dessert at your place.” Find out, once again, people lie on AOL.

    3:33 p.m. Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local governments (in addition to other nations’ governments); destroy all healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children; give AIDS to as many people as you can; host a pornographic “art” exhibit at your local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn forever in Hell.”

  6. Which is completely drenched in all kinds of stereotypes, but I love it for the 3:33pm Assume complete control of the U.S.

  7. holy COW – I cannot believe I just heard that!

    no “civiliazation” that embraces it has lasted more than a few decades – HELLO! heard of ROME Lady! It lasted a wee bit longer than ANY civilization in the past many centuries! LOL

    that is scary.

    that people STILL feel that way.

  8. “gay ninjas” OK, that made me laugh.

    Actually, it was the religious right that came up with the plan to infiltrate school boards and city councils. They saw it as a way to gain greater control over the local governments and to offer a springboard for leaping into state and national government positions. They’ve been rather successful at it, too. It’s how Santorum got elected and it’s why the Kansas board of school standards keeps attempting to ban the teaching of evolution in the state’s schools. Such grass roots organizing is not illegal. Indeed, it’s the very essence of democracy.

    So, if the gays are actually finding a political voice and participating more in the community, then they are merely taking a page from this bigot’s play book and using it to further democracy. She should feel proud. However, she’s not because she’s a bigot and in the market of ideas her stock is bottoming out.

  9. Heard on the news this morning that she insisted these comments didn’t make her a homophobe.

    I just wished someone would’ve asked her when was the last time a gay dude crashed a Boeing 767 into a skyscraper.

  10. selkie makes a good point about Rome. They were at their peak as a civilization when they were completely paganistic and a “free love” sort of society. Interestingly the serious problems that did lead to Rome’s decline didn’t appear until after the Christians began to make a bigger impact on the social and civil life.

  11. Sorry, hypatia, Rome was *never* a “free-love” society. Not for women – much of our Christian obsession with female purity comes right from classical pagan societal mores, both Greek and Roman, it wasn’t just the obvious one like Vestals and “Caesar’s wife”, worries about women of good family not producing enough children sound awfully familiar – and not for men, either: Roman society was just as full of anxious masculinity, fears of being emasculated by “Greek” influences meant that being a “bottom” was a matter for condemnation and punishment as well.

    People didn’t obey the laws, or the Roman conservatives wouldn’t have had anything to rule against or complain about, but that’s just like Good Old Days(TM) America, too.

  12. IOW, ancient Romans preferred to blame their national problems on women, “effeminate” men, foreign cultures and religions, and anyhing but the rampant plutocratic corruption of the government, unsustainable economic practices, expansionist policies around the Known World and habit of assassinating would-be reformers which had been the downfall of the Republic first, before the Empire eventually collapsed under its own weight – gee, nothing at all familiar there!

  13. Bellatrys – don’t forget that Octavian Caesar consolidated his power by promising to bring back “old-fashioned family values” and “good old religious piety.” For that, of course, he was awarded the title of Augustus and Father of the Country. Mind you, his family (if the scurrilous reportage is to be believed) was as corrupt as any of the Patrician elite…but “family values” sold well to the Roman plebs, who ended up getting screwed by the formative shifts away from a representative Republican government to a top-down autocracy.

    Eurgh. I think I just reinforced your last point, there.

  14. Let me be the first to assure you that the Oklahoma State Legislature has far more than its fair share of random crazies. Though I’ll grant that the Texas lege is more colorful.

    MKK–former Oklahoman

  15. What bellatrys said. I think we inherit much of our cultural baggage from Ancient Rome, including the deepseated fear of a giant gay dude, wearing women’s clothing, sculpted in the latest Greek style and hitting on us in Parthian, smashing up our Empire and squashing our cultural institutions under his beautifully sandaled foot.

    Really. Except for Greek, read French, and for Parthian…well, I dunno. I might go with French again.

  16. I’ve got no problem with you having frustration with so many people claiming “family values” are their problems with gay marriage when really it is just hate. that frustration is entirely legitimate.

    But the idea that anyone who has an issue with homosexuality is a bigot is so incredibly arrogant and intolerant. for that to be so you must have a monopoly on morality. you’ve decided what is and what is not moral. anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, hateful, and intolerant.

    the hypocrisy is nauseating.

  17. Okay, Azok, there’s a difference between “anyone who has an issue with homosexuality is a bigot” and “this elected representative is telling people that gay people are destroying our society by indoctrinating our children.”

    I don’t think she’s wrong, hateful and intolerant just because she has “issues with homosexuality.” I think she’s wrong about a whole parcel of the things she’s claiming as facts to her audience, just like I think young-earth creationists are wrong to value a three thousand year old book over scientific evidence with regards to evolution. I also happen to think she’s being intolerant because she’s advocating policies that are anything but tolerant towards gay people, and I think she might have some hate going there because generally people need a reason for that much willful ignorance, and in my experience the reasons range from “trying to fit in” to genuine frothing irrational disgust.

    Now, that’s just the words you’ve put into Jill’s mouth, and there is no reason to assume that, IF that is what she thinks, she thinks it just because she has a different opinion about gay people.

    Personally I know people who are neither hateful nor intolerant nor ignorant but have issues with homosexuality. They’re rare but they exist. Generally they either feel icky about gay sex on a visceral level, or they are fighting with some closet issues/internalized homophobia usually caused by religious indoctrination. Either way they’re capable of separating their feelings from the facts and somehow manage to avoid spreading malicious propaganda – amazing, isn’t it?

  18. The simple fact is that historicly socities that have openly embraced homosexuality have not lasted very long. Look at the Greeks and Romans. I mean why do you think it was forbidden for so long. Because it caused the fall of EMPIRES you dumbasses. in 100 years you hippys are going to try and tell us that incest is ok as long as you use birth control and you dont have any muntant babies. what in the fuck is wrong with you people. Im talking history here. Not some biblical event.

  19. But the idea that anyone who has an issue with homosexuality is a bigot is so incredibly arrogant and intolerant.

    Having issues with homosexuality doesn’t spring out of nowhere. One needs to be taught that there’s something “wrong” with it and that also doesn’t spring out of nowhere.

    That’s bigotry. Sorry if the truths hurts.

    Look at the Romans

    Funny how they were doing just fine until the Christians gained power, huh.

    Stop trying to justify your pathetic bigotry.

  20. People who have issues with homosexuality are bigots. If someone was morally opposed to blue eyes, they would be bigots too. If homosexuality were a choice, then people could choose to be against that choice all they want.

  21. Yes, Ancient Greek and Ancient Rome collapsed because of teh gayz. What a beautifully simplistic and ignorant claim.

  22. First off, “Ancient Greece” was a collection of city-states, not a unitary “Empire,” which persisted for around 600 years in various forms of independence from foreign domination – i.e. no one conquered the Greeks but the Greeks themselves – and splinter states (i.e. the successor Empires to Alexander the Great’s conquests) persisted for a couple of hundred years beyond that…and all of that time acceptance of homosexuality was a constant part of their civilization and society. That’s a lot of time to be a “failure,” considering our form of government has existed for just around 250 years, and there isn’t a nation in Europe with the exception of Britain that has the same system of governance that they had in 1815.

    Secondly, the Roman Imperium – and I use that to reflect the strict Latin construction of “power,” not Empire, existed from around 450 BC and the formation of the Republic through 400 AD – again, throughout those 850 years accepting homosexuality – and in the form of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire for a further 1000 years. So, if you’ll pardon me for being a bit dismissive, you might want to check your facts before you announce that societies which accept homosexuality “don’t last long.”

    If you don’t like homosexuality, fine. If you think it’s wrong, fine. But to attribute homosexuality to the fall of ancient societies is asinine and historically wrong.

  23. We brought down civilizations? How come no one told me? I could put that shit on my resume!

    When I first saw this I cried. Then I posed it everywhere I could. Then I cried some more.

    I will never understand why anyone cares what LEGAL CONSENTING ADULTS I am having sex with my my own home. I sure don’t give a flying fuck who that lady is sleeping with.

    Sometimes i get really tired of people telling me i’m a dirty abomination. I can only let so much roll off of me before I want to scream.

    I’m emailing this lady.

  24. Here is a copy of the email I sent her. I am not expecting a response… but I both enjoyed and loathed writing it. Bonus if you get the Colbert reference!

    Mrs. Sally Kern,

    I recently heard a very enlightening video of a speech you made to a small group of people when you thought no one else was listening. In this speech you made a variety of claims that I had been utterly unaware of. I was hoping I could get some more information from you about some of the points you made, so I can we as well educated as possible on the infestation of The Gays in America. Firstly, I was unaware they had taken over Pittsburgh, PA. I must tell my family about that, cause last time I was there they hated gays just as much as ever! You also mentioned that no civilizational that has embraced gays lasted more then a few decades. Well, I must tell my history professor he was wrong then! There was no way the Greeks which openly embraced and encouraged homosexuality could have lasted several hundred years. Lastly, you mentioned that gays are a greater threat to America then terrorists (even greater then bears!). So, I looked around online, and I was unable to find a single act of terrorism preformed by a gay organization or person with a political agenda. Though, I was able to find two examples of boys getting shot at school because they were gay. You must be proud of the children who killed these boys, they must have been listening to you when you said homosexuality was an abomination! Will you be going on the news to congratulate these killers for just standing up for America? Will you defend them in trail? Have you visited Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney, the killers of Matthew Shepard yet to thank them for their brave work?

    I know you are a very busy lady, but if there is anyway you could get back to me with some of the questions I posed, I would really appreciate it. The whole country is looking to you for your next move.

    Thank you,

    MeggyGurl

  25. they are considered empires and they accepted homosexuality openly. they colapsed. we were taught from then on that being gay was bad and it was only in the last few hundred years that homosexuality has sprang back up as a normal thing much as it did in the time of the roman empire and it started like this, a small movement then all of a sudden it was ok and they started molesting children and having incest. it all came from homosexuality. and as i said before thats history. go to the library. like i said in my previous post it starts like this then in 100 years the hippy groups are going to tell us its ok to have incest and underage sex. even homosexual sex or incest with underage children. the line must be drawn somewhere. and the real question is Are Gays Are a Bigger Threat Than Terrorism??. the answer would be yes because historicly civilizations have met a rather bad demise that have openly embraced homosexuality and I believe that was all the woman was saying. She made no refrence to any biblical event. would you rather have a terrorist attack on american soil or have the country crumble into ruins. the choice is clear. america is a religious nation though we came to america as a religion but on the other hand the country was founded on freedom. if you ask me if the gays deserve freedom then the answer would be yes but it does not have to get out of hand. there shouldnt be specific laws written to outlaw gay marriage and there shouldnt be any law at all telling you who you can marry. as a nation we should accept that even though these are progressive views the founding fathers made this country for just that reason so we could all have the freedom we deserve as human beings. and that the government and the people would not persecute people that are different in apperance and views. that is why people came here, to get away from the people that spit on them because they have two different beliefs. by now your wondering what the hell is going on with this post because i have said both that the country will crumble into ruins because of gays and at the same time that their should be no laws making it illegal. the problem is the government tampering and the anti-gay groups. if a person wants to be gay as long as being gay is not harming anybody then they should be allowed. its the argument itself that will cause us to be divided as a people and until the argument is finished it will continue to cause controversy, hate and death. People dont know what this country is all about anymore. I was watching this show on the history channel and it was showing the battles of the USS Enterprise in WW2. There was an attack where Japanese bombers dropped three bombs on the Enterprise and all of them missed. Anti aircraft fire got one of the bombers on the way by and the piolet knowing he wasnt going to make it home turned his bomber around and headed back toward the Enterprise. Without thinking this sailor on the deck ran over to a parked plane and grabbed up the machine gun while the bomber was coming right for him he managed to get a few good shots on it which made it list to the right. The bomber never hit the Enterprise as it passed over the carrier, it clipped the back end of the plane the sailor was in firing the machine gun and chopped it off. He lived. I just remember thinking about how he risked his life to save all those people. He knew what its really about to be an American. We need to look at our own nation before we start trying to clean up other peoples nations. Its time to stop the pety arguments about peoples sexual preference and put that energy towards getting homeless people off the streets and creating jobs for Americans. And by making sure that everyone here or wants to come here has their chance to live the American dream.

  26. maggie 25: and you interpret this sentence of Jill’s how?

    I’m damn tired of having to say that “good people can disagree about this issue.”

    also, maggie, see betty and bushfire who clearly, under your definition, are bigots who fail to realize how arrogant they are as to claim they alone knows what is right and wrong and what is moral and immoral.

    bushfire: as to the scientific claim that’s fine if you want to jump on and accept any scientific claim that homosexuality is no different that genetically colored eyes, but even if you are a molecular biologist (and i doubt you are) you can hardly claim there is universal scientific acceptance of this assertion so your forcing this on everyone has nothing to do with science and everything to do with your own political and moral views.

    betty and bushfire extremely intolerant. do you think otherwise maggie?

    as to the whole roman thing, let’s just be clear not to lump people together (there seems to be a tendency on this site to do that with alternative viewpoints).

  27. No, I’m not a molecular biologist, but I am a lesbian, and I did not choose that. Many aspects of human behaviour and diversity are not yet fully explainable by science, including that one. Just because we haven’t found a gene for something doesn’t mean we should hate people who exhibit that trait.

    As for me being intolerant: yes, of course, I am intolerant of hate. As in, I do not tolerate hate. I do, however, tolerate homophobes. I do not attempt to create laws banning homophobes from getting married or adopting children, and I never beat them up or harass them. They, however, do all those things to other people, and that’s not something I tolerate. People who preach “tolerance” do not need to be “tolerant” of violence against groups of people. That contradicts itself.

  28. Without scientific proof you claim homosexuality is akin to the color of one’s eyes or skin rather than a predisposition which we all have to various things (some innocuous and others not). Can’t really debate that anymore than debate someone who says the world is 6,000 years old because they say so.

    Everything else stems from your unsupportable claim that homosexuality is unquestionably no different than the color of one’s eyes or skin.

    Since that’s simply an untenable position all I can say is you can lump everyone who has a different moral outlook than you into a group with those who advocate violence or who don’t really care one lick about morales but just use it as an excuse to hate a group different from them. You can do that, but it’s wrong and it makes you just like the people you claim to deplore.

  29. It doesn’t really matter whether an emotional predisposition is biologically the same thing as eye colour. The point is, people shouldn’t hate other people because of a trait that they have and didn’t choose. Picking a fight over why or how someone has that trait is irrelevent. The field of psychology does not believe in changing a person’s sexual orientation because it cannot really be changed and is harmful to try and that’s as scientific as anyone can get at this point. People who hate homosexuals have no justification for that hate; I’m quite happy to stay on the side of the non-haters.

  30. There is a lot we don’t know about the human body and the brain. I have yet to hear a good explanation from my Bible thumping mother about where people who are Hermaphrodites fit in the grand scheme of sexuality. Hermaphrodites seem to show to me that God doesn’t fit everyone into only 2 acceptable sexual preferences. We truly don’t understand enough about what is happening in the womb and how much of that will effect life outside of it. Until we do more research and we learn a lot more, personally we should just stay out of it.

  31. bushfire (37)

    you can repeat as many times as you’d like both that you don’t hate people who disagree with you morally and that instead anyone who disagrees with your moral views of the world is filled with hate. it still won’t make either true.

    vail (38) “we should just stay out” = taking a moral position.

    it’s an underhanded way of taking a position, so much so that you may even fool yourself, but it is still a moral position one way or the other. you can’t opt out of these decisions any more than you can opt out of existence.

  32. it’s an underhanded way of taking a position, so much so that you may even fool yourself, but it is still a moral position one way or the other. you can’t opt out of these decisions any more than you can opt out of existence.

    Actually I can. It’s called minding my own business. It’s called it’s NONE of my business. I am not morally responsible to peek into your bedroom and judge your performance or your partner as long as it’s between consenting adults. I personally find people so … fascinated with what other people do in their bedroom to be disturbed. It’s like being a virtual peeping Tom. Do you want to sniff their underwear next?

  33. none of my business = a moral position. sorry, but it does.

    in any event, you’re certainly entitled to that position and i do not argue that there is no merit to it. there’s a lot to it and it’s a fine position to have. but it still involves a moral calculation.

    if you want to live in a society where anything goes morally and all that matters is that no one is forced to personally do anything that’s fine, but most of this country is not interested in allowing necrophilia (where the dead person consents in a will), bestiality (where the sex is performed in a way not to pain the animal), or any other actions we find morally reprehensible. you can have your extreme position on relative morality but it is extreme and it is a moral position.

    now, i don’t think where the line is drawn ought to be arbitrarily decided by some right-wing nut job who is president or some left-wing nut job on the bench. it should be done through the democratic process.

    you, however, do want to force your view of morality on society in general. you can try to convince yourself it is not forcing anything on society since all we’re talking about is what two people do behind closed doors, but then you’re lying to yourself (and anyone you tell that to). we’re talking about what our gov’t condones and thus supports. we’re talking about what messages get sent throughout our communities.

    now, some people (especially on the right) want that message to be one of hate and intolerance toward those who ostensibly commit an immoral act while others (especially on the left) want it to be that nothing is immoral and everyone should just do whatever they want. I don’t care for either of those messages. Sadly, I realize I’m in the minority.

    anyway, I figured I’d just write out the rest of my thoughts and call it a day. take any position you’d like, I don’t care, but do be honest with yourself and realize it involves a moral calculation.

  34. maggie, see betty and bushfire who clearly, under your definition, are bigots who fail to realize how arrogant they are as to claim they alone knows what is right and wrong and what is moral and immoral.

    Translation: they didn’t agree with me and weren’t nice to me about my bigotry, so they’re bigots!

    Why, yes, I am intolerant of hatred and ignorance.

    Also, she’s lying about anyone claiming we know what’s right for everyone. As a matter of fact, it was clearly stated that all have the right to their own opinions, just not legistlation that forces others to comply. Apparently, that’s just to fair for the likes of azok style trolls.

  35. it should be done through the democratic process.

    In other words, you think the majority should just decide what is or isn’t acceptable, even in private, even between two consenting adults, even if it doesn’t involve or affect or harm anyone else. You don’t believe that anyone has any rights in this matter, because the idea of rights inherently carries with it the idea that it doesn’t matter what the majority thinks — there are certain things that you get to decide for yourself.

    How about this: let’s say we lived in a society where 51% of the citizens believed it was a moral necessity for everyone to have homosexual intercourse on a daily basis. If you failed to submit evidence that you had done your daily duty, it would be considered immoral, reprehensible, or downright illegal. Would it be your ethical duty in this case, regardless of your own feelings on the subject (sexual, moral, disgusted) to follow the will of the majority? Or is there maybe some other ethical factor that comes into play — some areas in which the majority’s will should not compel you? Feel free to consider the converse as well — a society in which heterosexual sex is illegal or restricted, etc. but homosexual sex is considered OK, but not mandated.

    Personally, I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas that the state should not infringe on individual rights to privacy in sexual behavior. And that’s regardless of whether it’s heterosexual or homosexual behavior. I don’t think Rehnquist, Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer were “left-wing nut-jobs” for holding up that principle as a universal right… I think their moral, ethical, and legal basis is quite clear if you read the decision.

  36. You don’t believe that anyone has any rights in this matter, because the idea of rights inherently carries with it the idea that it doesn’t matter what the majority thinks — there are certain things that you get to decide for yourself.

    And yet, she accuses others of trying to decide what’s right and wrong for everyone.

  37. Ah, the old trope about “Homosexuality will lead to child molestation and bestiality and necrophilia!”

    Wonderful.

    Let’s just be clear here – the question of consent obviates those concerns. A child cannot consent (let’s set aside arguments over the age of consent for now and accept that children cannot fully understand consequences or make informed choices), a corpse cannot consent, a goat cannot consent. Two adults performing acts upon each other with each other’s agreement is not the same as the above-mentioned practices.

    Jefferson – you know, the guy who happened to be the writers of the Declaration of Independence and a signer of the Constitution and a President and all that – saw the greatest danger in American society being the tyranny of the majority. Can you seriously argue that the “Separate but Equal” laws which discriminated against blacks were just because the majority supported them?

  38. I don’t know about you Azok but an animal can’t consent to sex. Your argument would be like saying “she was drunk out of her gourd but hey I raped her softly.” Same goes for the dead person. You can’t consent when you loose any ability to say no. That’s rape. It doesn’t matter if someone writes it in a will, or you buy ’em dinner, if they at any time don’t have the right to change their minds, it’s rape. Interesting way to try to dance around the pure fact that it’s not your business what people do. I don’t care if you only like being tied up and tickled with feathers while your partner sings Celine Dion songs. I might be morally against feathers, or my religion thinks that Celine Dion is the anti-Christ, but you have the right to keep me outta your bedroom.

  39. betty (44)

    Translation: they didn’t agree with me and weren’t nice to me about my bigotry, so they’re bigots!

    Why, yes, I am intolerant of hatred and ignorance.

    you’re a bigot because you try to impose your moral outlook on others by saying if they disagree with you they’re bigots.

    betty (46)

    And yet, she accuses others of trying to decide what’s right and wrong for everyone.

    you clearly fail to understand what i’m saying. either that, or you intentionally ignore it and insert what you want to believe i’m saying. the latter appears to be a favorite of yours.

    holly (45)

    there are certain things that you get to decide for yourself

    i agree wholeheartedly. you and i disagree as to what some of those things are.

    How about this: let’s say we lived in a society where 51% of the citizens

    apparently you are unaware how the democratic process works in this country. both that a supermajority is needed for any legislation of this nature to pass (regardless of the view it takes) and that federalism could allow states to come out differently on the matter.

    and anyway i’m not really concerned with what people do behind close doors. i made that quite clear above. i care about the other affects. no one will be banging down your door for having sex in your house. the concern is the public affects of government approval.

    also, i was not referring to the majority in lawrence as left-wing nut jobs. as a matter of fact i wasn’t referring to anyone specifically.

    I think their moral, ethical, and legal basis is quite clear if you read the decision.

    ok. you can think that. four justices disagreed. but i’m at least glad you acknowledged they had moral reasoning in their opinion even if they’d like to pretend they didn’t.

    tannenburg (47)

    Ah, the old trope about “Homosexuality will lead to child molestation and bestiality and necrophilia!”

    sometimes i wonder if anyone on this board knows how to read. i never said anything about homosexuality leading to child molestation. if you think otherwise please show me.

    i used bestiality and necrophilia as illustrations of areas where people object to them purely on moral grounds.

    a corpse cannot consent

    this is wrong. a person can consent the same way they consent to their organs being used after they are dead or their estate being transferred to someone else. it’s called a will.

    a goat cannot consent.

    a goat cannot consent to being put in a zoo or petted by children. a horse cannot consent to being ridden on etc. so what? they cannot consent to things we believe (know?) they enjoy. if it was known that scientifically it did no harm to the animal or that in fact the animal enjoyed the sex with a human would you object?

    the only basis for objection is morality. same for necrophila. i would object to both. if you stick with your principles and your line of reasoning you would not object.

    again, you can take that stance, but just realize the position you’re taking (like most people, you don’t really understand your own position).

  40. vail (48)

    I don’t know about you Azok but an animal can’t consent to sex. … Same goes for the dead person.

    same logical fallacy as tannenburg.

    like i said, most of you don’t really understand the position you are taking.

    i’ll say it again: you can still take that position, but just realize the position you are taking and realize it involves moral judgments

  41. most of you don’t really understand the position you are taking.

    Oh. my. gawd. That’s a whole new low.

  42. I understand perfectly what my position is. I have a lot of positions. It’s just not any of your business which ones I take in the bedroom. Get a grip. If you need to live vicariously through someone else’s love life go rent a porno film Azok.

  43. Oh. my. gawd. That’s a whole new low.

    your comment is essentially non-responsive deflection. but i understand because the comment you’re quoting is tied into a post which you cannot see since it is still apparently awaiting moderation. so you were forced to see the comment out of context.

  44. My “moral” judgement is that azok has at best a lousy grasp of the English language and at worst is a total idiot.

    “Anything goes” does NOT equal the belief that individuals should have a right to privacy and bodily autonomy.

  45. vail (52): you can resort to childish tactics if you like, but it doesnt change the fact you did not respond to my substantive points in 49 and 50.

    tricia (54): ad-hominem attack, and a very poor one at that.

  46. Sometimes I don’t understand people.

    Guys, nothing we ever say is going to change azork’s mind. If we ignore him/her/it maybe they will go away and find another minority group to judge.

    azork’s logic is flawed and they will never see that, because they need to be right so badly.

    I know there is nothing wrong with what I do in my bedroom. And just like how I have to deal with everyone shoving their own moral views of sexuality down my throat daily, I should be able to expect heterosexuals at least not judging my own sexuality.

    But that is too much to ask.

  47. hopefully the moderators have the decency to ban 59.

    since making a substantive point about how morality is built into people’s positions I have received five posts of ad-hominem attacks and zero posts of substance.

  48. Ellen just did a thing on this on her show! She tried calling the rep. Unsuccessfully, surprise surprise.

    Has anybody else noticed that she is becoming more of a gay advocate latly? She has been more active and vocal about gay issues this season more then I have ever seen.

  49. What do ya’ll think azok’s like at a cocktail party?

    Person: These martinis are fabulous.
    azok: That’s an unsupportable claim!
    Person: I was just sayin’…
    azok: That’s a non-responsive deflection. Stop imposing your views on me, that makes you a bigot.
    Person: How does it…wait, what?
    azok: You don’t really understand the position you’re taking, do you?
    Person (points to a spot far away): I’m going over there now.

  50. Fine. Here’s a moral position. I am morally opposed to interference in people’s private lives insofar as they interact with living, adult, and consenting humans of whatever gender or inclinations. I believe it’s immoral to condemn individuals for harmless individual pursuits. I believe that private pursuits which harm none do not harm society, and have yet to see any evidence that homosexuality inevitably inflicts harm on society as a whole.

  51. #33, Jack Handy, heh heh heh heh he said Handy heh heh heh, paragraph breaks are your friend.

    Person: These martinis are fabulous.
    azok: That’s an unsupportable claim!

    If they’re made with vodka and shaken, then yes, that’s an unsupportable claim.

    Re: Kern, it looks like one of her sons is gay. In that case, she’s a scumbag hypocrite of the first rank.

  52. tannenburg (63): since you actually have something to say instead of just sling mud and make grade school level insults i’ll respond.

    as long as you actually recognize it’s a moral position (can’t tell if you do or if you’re being entirely sarcastic) that’s fine. i don’t care to raid anyone’s bedroom, but it’s disingenuous to think that’s all that’s at stake.

    look at so many of the people here. they’re filled with hate and anger against anyone who disagrees with them and believes homosexuality is immoral. for them it is not just about what they do in their private bedrooms, it’s about convincing society in a variety of ways, first and foremost through government approval, that what they do is perfectly fine and in no way immoral.

    you believe it does not harm society because you don’t find it immoral. you cannot say it does not negatively affect society unless you don’t mind promoting homosexuality. and you don’t mind promoting it because you don’t think it is immoral! again, if all people want is to do whatever they do behind close doors and it begins and ends there then i don’t care at all. but anyone who is remotely honest with themselves or others knows it’s about a lot more than that.

    again, your position assumes either that all that homosexuals care about is being able to do whatever they want in the bedroom, but they couldn’t care less about anything outside of it (not true at all) or that homosexuality is not immoral. the former belies reality and the latter is a position on morality. no better and no worse than someone who has a different view of morality. your voice should be heard, but so should those who disagree.

  53. tricia (54): ad-hominem attack, and a very poor one at that.

    No ad-hom dude — I mean, have you read your own posts? You’re apparently incapable of using proper capitalization, punctuation, or grammatical sentence structure. Your writing quite frankly sucks ass.

  54. Azok,

    So you agree that the government has no business legislating people’s private affairs — for instance, which consenting adults they have romantic and/or sexual relationships with? That seems to be what you’re saying. (And if you’re not, I ask you once again to consider what would happen if a majority — all right, a supermajority if you want to needlessly nitpick for the sake of nitpicking — felt differently than you do about what kind of romantic and/or sexual relationships are appropriate.)

    there are certain things that you get to decide for yourself

    i agree wholeheartedly. you and i disagree as to what some of those things are.

    In other words, do we really disagree as to which things you get to decide for yourself? Who you enter into romantic and/or sexual relations with either is or isn’t one of those things. If you are saying it isn’t, then I assume you’re also agreeing to submit your own relations to approval by a majority… or supermajority, if you prefer. And whatever consequences that might bring at any point in the future — you’re ceding your personal right to decide that for yourself, “society” (i.e. supermajoritY) chooses for you and you go along with what they decide?

    Alternately, we do agree that this is one of the things you get to decide for yourself.

    (Oh, and since you like nitpicking… only three of the justices dissented in Lawrence v. Texas, not four. And one of those three–Clarence Thomas–wrote an opinion that he thought the Texas anti-sodomy law was incredibly absurd and that given the choice, he’d repeal it.)

  55. Tricia(freya) (66): calling someone a “total idiot” is not an ad-hominem attack?

    if you want to be the grammar police, go ahead. but on an internet blog i just don’t care about about punctuation and capitalization. perhaps while you trash my writing style you could actually attempt to address the substance too that way it doesn’t look like you’re pathetically trying to ignore it.

    holly (67): correct. i do not care what people do behind close doors and don’t want the government forcing people to do, or not do, anything in the privacy of their own home. however, that does not mean i want the government to take any action which even tacitly approves of various behaviors and i do think that people have a right through the democratic process to ensure as much.

    i don’t think a supermajority as opposed to a majority is nitpicking. you chose 51% in your example. i think it is fair that i interpreted your choice of such a percentage to attempt to imply that why should such a slight majority be able to impose much of anything on 49% of the population. if that’s not what you meant, ok, but i think it was perfectly reasonable for me to interpret it that way.

    thus i think even you recognize that there is a radical difference between the two. at a minimum, since unlike most of the posters here you clearly are quite bright, you realize that the very fact our system is designed to require a supermajority means that others have realized the great difference between a mere majority and a supermajority.

    you nonetheless make an excellent point to attempt to impress upon me the fact that i must be willing to accept the type of restrictions i am comfortable having placed on others. i am perfectly comfortable with it (though again, yes, i do agree the actual sexual relationship in private should not be a gov’t matter), but it is perfectly reasonable for you to suspect that my comment is disingenuous since there is no realistic possibility in the near future of something like that happening. basically i’m saying i do understand and appreciate your point though i don’t necessarily expect you to believe me.

    as for lawrence v. texas, fair enough. it’s been a while since i read it and i have no doubt you have every detail of the decision on your fingertips. my only point was that i was not calling the majority left-wing nut jobs. i might disagree with them in that and some other opinions, but have a great respect for all of them.

    it very well could be you and i do not disagree. but many (most?) who have largely decided to spew venom rather than actually civilly discuss anything have seriously flawed views which i disagree with, such as:

    1. if someone views homosexuality as immoral, they are a bigot (jill implied this and other stated it explicitly). in short, i believe they are actually arrogant and bigoted for claiming to be the sole arbiters of what is and is not moral.

    2. someone who does not want the government tacitly encouraging homosexuality is attempting to impose their moral position on others (i agree), but those who do want the government tacitly encouraging homosexuality are not attempting to impose their moral position on others (i disagree and think they are in denial or do not even understand their own position).

    3. in an attempt to illustrate point 2 i explained that if you’re against necrophilia and bestiality then you’re taking a moral position. i specifically set the circumstances so that consent existed for necrophilia, and no pain (perhaps even pleasure?) existed for the animal. this point was pretty much lost on everyone and the name-calling began.

    there may be other points, but these are the three off the top of my head that i recall.

    in any event, it is nice to know someone on this blog is bright and can actually manage to forcefully but civilly express their opinion.

  56. No sarcasm here. Throughout my study of history I have constantly encountered societies where governments have begun to interfere with social relationships with the tacit or explicit consent of the majority of the public. Inevitably such power granted is abused and extended to other groups which a more and more narrowly-defined strata deems deviant.

    Yes, the United States is a representative small-r republican government. Direct democracy leads to tyranny of the majority (read any account of the machinations surrounding the practice of ostracism in ancient Athens.) Protections were put in place by the Founders to protect minorities from State action.

    I absolutely oppose State dictation of private sexual decisions between consenting adults.

    What I am unsure about is what you see as the public advocacy in which homosexuals indulge. Are you referring to simple efforts to promote what I would consider fairness – i.e. domestic partner benefits, the right to adopt and/or raise children, free participation in public activities, and so forth? What, precisely, are the activities of homosexuals outside of their private relationships do you find objectionable?

  57. So here’s Azok’s argument in a nutshell. “I think being gay is immoral. Nothing I do is immoral, there for I can point my finger at Homosexuals and tell ’em to stop it. I may be doing the dirty with my wife’s best friend, but darn it that’s different. It’s not like we should be outlawing that. I mean that would be stupid!”

    And the Homosexual Agenda Azok? Health insurance? Marriage? OMG how horrible!! I mean next they might want to pay their taxes or heavens serve in the military. The fiends!! Man I wish I had the power to deny people basic stuff like affordable health insurance. There are a lot of bible thumpers that offend my morals big time. I wish we could pass some laws against them but you know what? That would be stupid, and frankly if someone wanted to believe that the world was made in 6 days, and they weren’t forcing it down my throat, it’s none of my business.

  58. I can’t tell if you now agree on the point re: moral positions via our discussion from 47, 49, 63, and 65.

    In any event,

    I absolutely oppose State dictation of private sexual decisions between consenting adults.

    If you are talking about what goes on behind closed doors then I definitely agree on the federal level and really need to think a little more before saying i agree on the state level (can’t tell given the context what you mean by State), but I certainly wouldn’t care to vote for any law in a state outlawing what goes on behind close doors.

    i actually would want to outlaw such things only in as much as i want to make it clear as a society we disapprove of them (same goes for polygamy, bestiality etc) but i agree that the risk of the government abusing such powers far outweighs the value of such a law.

    yes, pretty much all the things you list and others which tacitly approve of homosexuality i would object to. don’t get me wrong, i think you should absolutely support them and try through the democratic process to get them through.

    but you see, the reason you call them “basic fairness” is because morally you’ve decided homosexuality is fine. as opposed to, say, bestiality, necrophilia, or polygamy. otherwise, you would advocate for similar rights for those areas as well.

    and that’s the real debate, whether or not gay rights activists want to admit it or not. They generally do not because it would mean being forced to acknowledge their opponents can have a legitimate viewpoint. they’d rather try to suppress disagreement through attacks, name-calling etc. like many on this site have done.

  59. vail (70) be careful, the grammar police are out in full force. you don’t want Tricia(freya) attacking your spelling or punctuation. (somehow i doubt s/he’ll be as upset with you).

    So here’s Azok’s argument in a nutshell. “I think being gay is immoral. Nothing I do is immoral, there for I can point my finger at Homosexuals and tell ‘em to stop it. I may be doing the dirty with my wife’s best friend, but darn it that’s different. It’s not like we should be outlawing that. I mean that would be stupid!”

    nope. not even close. read what i wrote in 68. you really don’t understand (or choose to ignore) my view.

    There are a lot of bible thumpers that offend my morals big time. I wish we could pass some laws against them

    in what way do they offend your morals beyond disagreeing with your morals?
    what laws would you like to pass against them?

  60. Azok, here’s the definition of “bigot” from the American Heritage Dictionary:

    “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”

    If we apply this definition to groups based on sexuality, or even just “what kinds of sexuality and relationships you approve on” — a distinction that also overlaps with religion, to be sure, then I think you fit this definition. To some extent, you are intolerant of those who differ in this respect — although I appreciate that your intolerance ends at the front door of people’s homes, at the point where a “private sphere” begins. After that point, you’re tolerant, I think we’ve agreed.

    Let’s talk about the public sphere. You don’t want the government “tacitly encouraging homosexuality.” Is it all right for the government to “tacitly encourage heterosexuality?” Why? Is it again, because of the majority? If the majority shifted, would you apply the same rule and insist that the government not “tacitly encourage heterosexuality?” Or is there some other basis for inequality in this respect? Alternately, you could advocate for equality — the government should not encourage any particular kind of relationship, and simply stay neutral, as we’ve already agreed it ought to in the private sphere.

    I’m glad you think I’m bright — but I’m afraid I still must regard your dwelling on things like supermajority, definitions of necrophilia that include consent, and alternate examples of nonconsensual activity with animals to be little more than pointless quibbling. Whether or not something is pointless quibbling isn’t something that can be proven, of course… but suffice it to say that you have not demonstrated any point as far as I can tell, and your rambling is only sidetracking, distracting, and obfuscating the issue. If you want to know why people are frustrated with your tactics, that’s my explanation, and it’s hard to see it as anything but a failure of communication on your part. Stick to the point, and attempt to avoid pointless digressions and quibbles–and they are quibbles, unless you can clearly demonstrate the relevance and point of arguing and belaboring. If you can’t, you’ll just annoy everyone. It’s good advice regardless of your position.

  61. if you want to be the grammar police, go ahead. but on an internet blog i just don’t care about about punctuation and capitalization. perhaps while you trash my writing style you could actually attempt to address the substance too that way it doesn’t look like you’re pathetically trying to ignore it.

    I don’t normally play the grammar Nazi on blogs (although I do it for pay at my day job). My point is that I can’t engage your arguments because your writing is so poor I’ve given up trying to figure out what you mean. I admire the other folks for trying, but I”m not sure how they haven’t fallen over from exhaustion. I keep re-reading your posts and they really are basically incomprehensible to me. I don’t think your reading comprehension is all that great either because you keep arguing about positions no one has actually taken.

    I can’t even tell if you’re actually moving the goalposts around as much as it seems or if you just aren’t capable of communicating your meaning. It’s quite surreal.

    It also appears that you don’t have any grasp of the concept that the morality handed down from authority and ethical behavior decided internally by an individual or group aren’t the same thing. (Hint: One of them should evolve with the person or group — which IMO is usually a good thing.) Or even that any type of ethical system is possible without punitive enforcement. Which is just sad.

  62. There is a named law for criticizing someone else’s punctuation that requires your own to be f*d up in your next comment, right? :-p

  63. Also azok, it’s perfectly possible to have a sound moral framework that allows for homosexuality but not for bestiality or necrophilia — and in fact, I suspect most people who believe that the first is acceptable and the latter two aren’t in fact do have a moral framework, whether they articulate it to you or not. I don’t really see the point of chiding people for not sufficiently articulating their moral framework to you, or not admitting that they’re making moral decisions. People make moral decisions constantly based on their beliefs about right or wrong — yes, even atheists. Psychologists are well aware of this fact; it’s just how the human mind works.

    Besides, you ought to be able to figure this moral framework out yourself. Yes, it is based on consent. Yes, there are edge cases involving a dead person’s will and animal rights, that people might disagree about even if they subscribe to the same basic framework — this is the nature of moral interpretation and part of what makes humans great and interesting as moral creatures.

    If you want my answers:

    a) sure, I’m fine if a dead person wants to consent to necrophilia. If someone was being prosecuted for this, I’d advocate that they not be penalized, since the person consented before death. There’s a reason this does not come up very much: probably because no arrests of this particular variety are made. Most necrophilia arrests, which are rare to begin with, do not involve any consent at all. As far as I know, there is no necrophiliac movement trying to secure this right, either. It’s simply not that relevant to our society at the moment.

    b) there are quite a few people who will tell you that riding on a horse or eating a pig are things that those animals cannot consent to, and therefore it’s wrong. They’re called animal rights activists. I tend to think that they do actually have a point — we violate consent of other species all the time. To some extent, this is necessary — even animal rights activists agree that we have to eat vegetables, and have no way of finding out whether they want to be eaten or not. Our hand is forced. To other people, there is a strong argument of necesssity for eating meat or riding on horses; animal rights activists would like us all to pursue alternatives. Bestiality, however, is not something that’s in dispute, because the argument for necessity is virtually nil when it comes to fucking a sheep, as opposed to eating a pig. Everyone agrees that there are lots of good alternatives to fucking a sheep. Prosecutions for bestiality are similarly rare and don’t come up, especially for the few cases where you could argue there are no good alternatives, like being stuck on a mountain for a month with nothing but sheep, because nobody ever finds out about those cases anyway.

  64. holly (73)

    to your first point:

    i disagree with your use of the word intolerant in the definition.

    i don’t have the slightest problem with you disagreeing. if someone wants to pass a law outlawing polygamy, are they a bigot? if someone wants to pass a law outlawing the use of god in a public school are they a bigot (atheism = a religious viewpoint)?

    basically, if you really want to use your interpretation of the definition then pretty much everyone is a bigot in one way or another. maybe that’s fair, but i think colloquially we use the term in a more restricted manner. namely, not even tolerating someone differing. that’s more in line with some of the people on this site who don’t even want me, or anyone, to have the right to disagree with their moral outlook.

    to your second point: comment 71 is still awaiting moderation, but i think it answers your question.

    to your third point: how about instead of calling it quibbling and trying to belittle it you respond to it.

    why do you think my differentiating a majority and supermajority is insignificant? why do you think my reading of your use of 51% does not make sense?

    i’m not sure what you mean by “stick to the point.” i raised certain points which others have responded to. what point is it that you think i’m supposed to be sticking to?

    i laid out these points, in brief, 1-3 in post 68. by all means, instead of just saying they are “little more than pointless quibbling” please explain how?

    as to differentiating consent and non-consent necrophilia, that was necessary because others did not read what i wrote and exclaimed that necrophilia cannot be consensual. you may not have to read what everyone else writes to respond to me, but i do in order to respond to them and so you’ll have to excuse me if i add a detail or two which, in your mind, is trivial.

    that’s fine if you want to believe i’m “annoying” people because for unexplained reasons you think what i’m saying is quibbling sidetracking. i, however, think comments such as

    By being a hateful fucking dumbshit, that’s how.

    stem from something entirely different.

    that’s it for me for now.

  65. holly (76): i posted 77 before your post 76 appeared. you addressed my points in 2 and 3 but not 1 from post 71.

    1. I never said one cannot have a moral framework where homosexuality is ok but bestiality and necrophilia are not. I used them as examples to illustrate that pro-gay rights is inherently taking a moral position. this is apparently obvious to you but not to many (most?) on this site or to many pro gay-rights activists in general.

    I don’t really see the point of chiding people for not sufficiently articulating their moral framework to you, or not admitting that they’re making moral decisions.

    It is critical that people realize they are taking a moral position. I’m not sure how you could think otherwise. People who think anyone anti-gay rights are bigots and that it is “basic fairness” to treat homosexuality the same way as heterosexuality perceive their own viewpoint as amoral and completely neutral. If they realized they were actually taking a moral position they would be forced to realize that others have a right to a different moral outlook. instead of yelling and screaming at anyone who disagrees with them, maybe they’d actually be able to have a healthy and civil discourse. you’re way way off to think this is insignificant.

    to points a) and b) from your post:

    i take it you never went to law school 🙂 (that’s definitely not a bad thing!).

    It really doesn’t matter if they have practical application (though i do predict they will have practical application in the coming decades). these hypothetical examples are used to illustrate the morality of people’s positions and they are extremely helpful tools for accomplishing what is obvious to you, but not to many others. theoretical models utilize such examples to pinpoint the underlying principle(s). in this instance, that underlying principle, is that all take a moral position.

    again, you apparently already accede this, but others don’t. as i explained above, while you find the distinction trivial, it is most certainly not. in fact, it is the crux of the debate.

  66. Yes, Ancient Greek and Ancient Rome collapsed because of teh gayz. What a beautifully simplistic and ignorant claim.

    Really? I thought the fall of the Roman Empire was mainly attributed to their being numerically challenged on the account of their use of roman numerals…..

  67. azok – May I join in with Tricia here? The whole development of grammar and punctuation served one purpose – adding clarity. The use of good grammar and appropriate punctuation is done in order to make sure people understand our points, and that they take away from our writing the meanining that we wish them to take away.

    If your writing was effectively conveying your points I wouldn’t have issues with your style, regardless of what is was. It isn’t, so I would suggest (beg & plead?) that you look into improving your written communication skills.

    As to God in the public schools – which God did you have in mind? I’ve always been rather fond of Athena, myself.

  68. I have to agree. It’s pretty clear to me at this point — and thanks to everyone who participated — that the main problem hampering discussion here has to do with clarity of communication. Not just grammar or punctuation, but the belaboring of trivial side-points, the moving of goalpoasts, bulldogging onto minor inconsistencies, needless sidetracking, etc. Very few people find that conducive to discussion or debate and very few people are willing to put up with it. I find it too tedious to really continue, and I have to say — if this continues to be a problem on future threads, it will have to either be ignored, or removed like a weed.

  69. azok: I suspect people are accusing you of quibbling and being annoying because you’re being patronizing and getting hung up on making sure that everyone knows that, yes, they’re taking moral positions. You’ve as much as accused everyone but Holly of being an idiot, and of not “really” knowing what position they actually hold. You’ve repeatedly criticized people for calling homophobes bigots by calling them bigots. You accuse them of thinking that they’ve got the sole right to determine morality by virtue of their calling homophobes bigots, but you apparently miss the irony of the fact that you are doing the same thing by calling them bigots.

    It comes across as really pedantic and annoying, and the refusal to recognize the differences between actions taking place between consenting adults and actions taking place between an adult and any other thing is really distracting. Necrophilia, beastiality or any other inclination you want to bring up aren’t the same as homosexuality, and the reasons one might support or oppose them aren’t really going to be the same. The morality of one has nothing to do with the morality of the other, just as the morality of eating veggies has nothing to do with the morality of eating meat, despite both being food consumption.

  70. holly (81)

    and I have to say — if this continues to be a problem on future threads, it will have to either be ignored, or removed like a weed.

    thought you were better than that. oh well.

    If you explain to me specifically what is unclear in post 78 and how it is unclear then i’ll be happy to clarify.

  71. You want clarity?

    People who think anyone anti-gay rights are bigots and that it is “basic fairness” to treat homosexuality the same way as heterosexuality perceive their own viewpoint as amoral and completely neutral.

    I am absolutely 100% aware that my stance on gay rights constitutes a moral position. I firmly believe that people who actively fight against gay rights, and who hold anti-gay sentiments are bigots, and that their stance is an immoral one. I recognize that others have a right to a different moral outlook- but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re bigotted jerks, or that I think that they’re wrong, or that they’re completely out of line. Nor does it have fuckall to do with this situation, wherein a person is likening homosexuals to terrorists. I have absolutely zero interest in engaging in “healthy and civil discourse” with someone like that.

    Furthermore, when you’re talking down to people like you think you’re Professor Knowsitall, you’re not engaging in healthy and civil discourse, either.

  72. roy (82)

    [you’re] getting hung up on making sure that everyone knows that, yes, they’re taking moral positions.

    see the third paragraph of post 78 for why this is important.

    also, if someone else tells me they are not making a moral decision why am i not allowed to explain to them why in fact they are making a moral decision?

    You’ve repeatedly criticized people for calling homophobes bigots by calling them bigots.

    nope. you’re putting words in my mouth. i’ve called people who refuse to let someone take a different moral view on homosexuality bigots. my use of the term fits holly’s definition in post 73.

    You accuse them of thinking that they’ve got the sole right to determine morality by virtue of their calling homophobes bigots, but you apparently miss the irony of the fact that you are doing the same thing by calling them bigots.

    They implicitly claim to have the sole right to determine morality. I do not. So yes, I fail to see your irony.

    refusal to recognize the differences between actions taking place between consenting adults and actions taking place between an adult and any other thing is really distracting.

    How is necrophilia where the person, before dying, requests someone else use his body for sex, not an action between consenting adults?

    Necrophilia, beastiality or any other inclination you want to bring up aren’t the same as homosexuality, and the reasons one might support or oppose them aren’t really going to be the same. The morality of one has nothing to do with the morality of the other,

    Again, you’re attributing something to me I never said. I never said if someone thought one was immoral they must believe all are immoral. I merely said that all involve a moral decision.

    I’ve taken to the time to respond to the points from your post. Please do respond to what I wrote in this post, as opposed to ignoring them and/or discussing something else.

  73. roy (85): it looks like you’re not at all confused by what I wrote, but instead just don’t like it. Am I wrong?

    Nor does it have fuckall to do with this situation, wherein a person is likening homosexuals to terrorists. I have absolutely zero interest in engaging in “healthy and civil discourse” with someone like that.

    I don’t get to pick the topic headings, but again you are attributing something to me I never said, and in fact specifically said I reject. see post 24.

    I am absolutely 100% aware that my stance on gay rights constitutes a moral position.

    ok. but based on the comments i quote below it looks like you believe anyone with a different moral outlook is necessarily wrong.

    I firmly believe that people who actively fight against gay rights, and who hold anti-gay sentiments are bigots, and that their stance is an immoral one.

    If you feel they are bigots, then based on the definition holly cited how can you say you realize your position is a moral one? is no one able to have a legitimate different moral viewpoint from yours?

    I recognize that others have a right to a different moral outlook- but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re bigotted jerks, or that I think that they’re wrong, or that they’re completely out of line.

    so when you say they have a right to it, you mean they’re entitled to a wrong opinion? everyone must have your moral outlook or they are wrong?

    Furthermore, when you’re talking down to people like you think you’re Professor Knowsitall, you’re not engaging in healthy and civil discourse, either.

    Please show me where I talked down to anyone before they unleashed personal attacks on me.

  74. ok. but based on the comments i quote below it looks like you believe anyone with a different moral outlook is necessarily wrong.

    On this issue? Absolutely. By virtue of holding an immoral position. How could I believe otherwise. You talk about morality as though it’s just a matter of personal taste. It’s not. I don’t like mushrooms on my food. That’s my personal taste- my opinion. My sister loves mushrooms. Neither of us is wrong. I can continue to dislike them and she can continue to like them, and we’re fine. Liking or disliking mushrooms is a morally neutral position. It harms nobody.

    This issue is very different. Bigots cause harm by denying the LGBT community the basic rights and privileges that the straight community take for granted. Bigots cause harm by normalizing violence against the LGBT community. Bigots cause harm by dehumanizing the LGBT community. That’s immoral behavior, considering that the rights and privileges sought by the LGBT community are no different from the rights straights enjoy. It’s not the same as, but every bit as immoral as racism or sexism.

    If you feel they are bigots, then based on the definition holly cited how can you say you realize your position is a moral one? is no one able to have a legitimate different moral viewpoint from yours?

    The same way that I can believe rape is immoral and think that a rapist is a dirty scumbag, regardless of whether that person believes rape is hunky-dory. That a bigot believes his/her bigotry is perfectly fine and moral does not make it so. They’re every bit as wrong and immoral as anybody else who acts to violate other people’s humanity through oppression and dehumanizing behavior.

    so when you say they have a right to it, you mean they’re entitled to a wrong opinion? everyone must have your moral outlook or they are wrong?

    Sure. I can’t control what other people think. If someone chooses to be an ignorant bigot, there’s nothing I can do about that. But, they’re acting immorally when they do so. I fail to see why that’s so confusing.

    Please show me where I talked down to anyone before they unleashed personal attacks on me.

    Well, in your first post, you did, in fact, call Jill “incredibly arrogant” and said that her “hypocrisy is nauseating.” Not exactly coming in with civility, were you?

  75. Let’s be clear here- being homosexual is neither moral nor immoral- it simply is. Hating people, denying their humanity, or denying them the rights that others enjoy because they are homosexual?

    That’s immoral and wrong.

  76. Congrats. You’ve worn me out. My response would require going around and around in a circle yet again since you’re talking past my points instead of to them.

    If you want me to respond to anything in particular then I of course will. Otherwise, I’ve gotten what I wanted out of this thread and am happy to call it a day.

    Just one point: You accused me of talking down to others and used that as an explanation why others responded with personal attacks against me.

    I responded that you’ve flipped everything on its head since I only talked down to others after they decided to personally attack me instead of responding to my substantive points.

    To this you cited the following:

    Well, in your first post, you did, in fact, call Jill “incredibly arrogant” and said that her “hypocrisy is nauseating.” Not exactly coming in with civility, were you?

    I was quite explicit there as to what I was responding to. Jill wrote in her post

    I’m damn tired of having to say that “good people can disagree about this issue.” At the end of the day, this is bigotry. It is hate.

    So even someone who does not condone hatred, let alone violence, toward gays, but believes it is immoral are bad people. That is rather offensive, arrogant, and hypocritical.

    If you have any other example where I talked down to anyone before they personally attacked me I’d love to see it.

  77. Thanks Roy, you put it so well. Azok is trying to argue that hating homosexuals is a legitimate moral position. I wonder, if I thought it was immoral to have musical talent, would that be an acceptable moral position to Azok as well?

    The field of psychology does not believe that homosexuality is a choice. Azok has not told us why the inclination to love would be immoral- he/she/it has only told us that a belief that love between two consenting adults of the same sex being immoral is an acceptable position. It’s just sickening that some people will fight to defend hate instead of love.

  78. bushfire (92): I never said I hate homosexuals or that hating homosexuals is a legitimate moral position. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I simply said considering homosexuality an immoral act is legitimate and refusal to accept that such a viewpoint is indeed legitimate leads to the disgusting display of hate shown by most everyone on this board.

    You tried the scientific argument before in the posts in the 30’s. When you produce scientific evidence which unquestionably shows that being gay is akin to eye color as opposed to numerous other predispositions we all have I’ll listen. Until then you’re just trying to misuse science to shove your own moral viewpoint down others throats.

  79. I simply said considering homosexuality an immoral act is legitimate

    No, it isn’t. It’s either lazy ignorance, religious indoctrination or sheer nosy asshattery.

    It’s not legitimate. No bigotry is legitimate.

    When you produce scientific evidence which unquestionably shows that being gay is akin to eye color as opposed to numerous other predispositions we all have I’ll listen.

    Google is your friend.

  80. I used google and found countless sites where gay rights activists claim it is a choice and resent the idea of those like you claiming otherwise. Maybe you should follow your own advice?

    There’s no definitive proof it is not a choice (and calling it not a choice, as many gays apparently point out, is quite demeaning to them). Sorry.

    Since there is a choice there is a moral question.

    But you don’t listen well even to those pro-gay rights groups who vehemently disagree with you. So there’s definitely no reason for me to even bother talking to such a hateful person like yourself who just knows how to throw out childish insults and can never actually respond to the arguments made.

    I’m done with you.

  81. This whole argument over morals was silly. There are obviously a group of morals that the majority of people in the world subscribe to, however this doesn’t mean that peoples morals can’t differ.

    Homosexuality, for instance, could be considered morally wrong (especially for people of religious backgrounds) for some people while others might find it perfectly acceptable. I’m in no way trying to insult people of religious backgrounds, but it’s very common that people raised in a church are passed a moral code by their parents and peers.

    To say that homosexuality is wrong morally is based on your opinion only and does not represent the morals of the entire world. Likewise, the argument being reciprocated is bound to the same rule.

    This is only bound to cause misunderstandings and arguments like the one that has broken out in this comment section. It is unlikely (or impossible) for you to force your own moral views onto somebody else in this way.

    Besides, why are we arguing over somebody who thinks homosexuality is a bigger threat than terrorism?

  82. used google and found countless sites where gay rights activists claim it is a choice and resent the idea of those like you claiming otherwise. Maybe you should follow your own advice?

    Sorry, I should have been more specific. Don’t type “I hate fags, how can I pretend it’s a legitimate position to take?” in the google search window.

    There’s no definitive proof it is not a choice (and calling it not a choice, as many gays apparently point out, is quite demeaning to them). Sorry.

    😆 Desperation makes you funny.

    bother talking to such a hateful person like yourself who just knows how to throw out childish insults and can never actually respond to the arguments made.

    Here we go with the pretending to have magical mind reading powers again. Didn’t get that therapy you wanted yet, huh.

    I’m done with you.

    Hey, perhaps there is a god after all. Don’t let the door dent your bigot ass on the way out.

  83. koza (96): the posts right around your post illustrate that most on this site disagree with you. some spew venom at the very statements you make.

    I’m saying people can disagree on the the morality of homosexuality and many here attack that.

    Also, I think you’d be mistaken to think those with religious backgrounds tend to be any more influenced in their outlook of morals than those from other backgrounds are influenced by their families, friends, schools, and general culture which surrounds them.

    Finally, no one is debating that the statement Jill sighted was absurd.

  84. Azok, homosexuality is an orientation, not an act. Can you please explain why any of it would be immoral?

  85. There’s no definitive proof it is not a choice (and calling it not a choice, as many gays apparently point out, is quite demeaning to them). Sorry.

    It seems to me that the many people who repeatedly say “It wasn’t a choice for me” would suggest that, at least in some cases, it’s not.

    Since there is a choice there is a moral question.

    Are you suggesting that for all things with which there is a choice involved, there is a corresponding moral value? Because, if so, that’s patently ridiculous. If not, I have no idea what you’re trying to say there.

    Koza:
    This whole argument over morals was silly.

    Indeed.

    To say that homosexuality is wrong morally is based on your opinion only and does not represent the morals of the entire world. Likewise, the argument being reciprocated is bound to the same rule.

    Are you suggesting that thinking something is right or wrong makes it right or wrong? I have no reason to believe this is so. There are most certainly people who believe that it’s morally acceptable to commit rape. Those people are wrong, though.

    Things are morally right or wrong for reasons. Not just “because I think so.”

    It is unlikely (or impossible) for you to force your own moral views onto somebody else in this way.

    Why would I bother trying? I’ve reconciled that I’m not going to convince the hardline bigots how wrong they are, and I have no desire to waste my time attempting to. Because nothing I say, no matter how much I sugarcoat it or how much I appeal to their sense of reason and right and wrong- nothing I say despite all of that will ever change someone like Sally Kern. My interest is in the people who fall in the middle- who aren’t sure yet.

    I’m saying people can disagree on the the morality of homosexuality and many here attack that.

    *shrug*
    I don’t think anyone doubts that people can do that. I think that the argument is over whether it’s right and good to do so. Or, more specifically, whether it makes one a bigot to do so. I’m sorry, but, no, I don’t believe that it’s moral to think that homosexuals should be denied the rights of straight people. And, no, I don’t see room for disagreement on that, either, because that kind of disagreement necessarily involves actual people’s lives. It’s not some hypothetical situation. It’s not like the stakes are low.

  86. bushfire (99): is that your response to my post in 93? It has been quite frustrating to have multiple people stick words in my mouth. I call them (you) on it. Then, as if it never happened, they go to something else.

    Sometimes I feel like I’m talking to missionaries (yes, I’ve dealt with them too. I though their fake smiles and insane propaganda was worse than left wingers mudslining, name-calling, and other tactics but not as sure now).

    In any event I want to make sure I understand how you are using the term orientation. I’m presuming you use it to mean the inclinations someone has. Well, we all have inclinations and the way the term is used, the orientation refers to what is beyond our control (this is, I believe, why many gay rights groups have tried to change the term from sexual preference to sexual orientation).

    Well, some people have an inclination to gossip. some to steal. some to lie etc. So if we are using orientation as this innate inclination then I’m not sure how someone could claim it is immoral when there is no choice involved. It cannot be any more immoral than being tall/short, black/white etc.

    But that’s the orientation/inclination. We all have various desires, not all of which are good. So whatever group of inclinations a person has which are bad (I imagine we can agree lying, gossiping, and cheating are bad right?) it is when the person acts on these inclinations that they commit an immoral act.

    Short version:
    orientation = inclination. that’s innate so cannot be moral or immoral.
    action = choice. not innate, even if strong desires exist, so can be moral or immoral.

  87. Azok, my two sentences should have been separate from each other. I’m still wondering why a homosexual orientation would be immoral. You’d like us to accept this view, but you don’t have any reasons for it.

    If you still don’t believe that it is not a choice, my advice would be to look in any recently published psychology or human sexuality textbook.

  88. I’m still wondering why a homosexual orientation would be immoral. You’d like us to accept this view, but you don’t have any reasons for it.

    I must have said it half a dozen times just now that I don’t claim the orientation is immoral. the action is.

    I cannot have a conversation with you if you don’t read what I write. You did this in 92 as well (perhaps other times before too) when you attributed to me something I never said. I pointed this out to you in 93 which you conveniently ignored.

    If you still don’t believe that it is not a choice, my advice would be to look in any recently published psychology or human sexuality textbook.

    Unfortunately for you it is far from generally accepted. Instead, much (though not all) of the gay community wants to believe this so they’ll accept it as fact long before science has come close to proving it as such.

    You can misuse science the same way those who want to believe the world is 6,000 years old do and just find the bits that support you and ignore its weaknesses or the studies to the contrary, but it is a misuse of science.

  89. but those who do want the government tacitly encouraging homosexuality are not attempting to impose their moral position on others

    Wait…who said they wanted this?

  90. You know, I just don’t get who the heck cares if Homosexuality is a choice or not. It’s like arguing about Viagra. Some people just need something else to get it up. We could debate all day if Viagra is a medical necessity or a recreational drug, but when it comes down to it, who the heck cares? As long as some guy isn’t using Viagra to rape people (or animals) then stay outta their business. Sheesh. It comes down to this.

    Is anyone being hurt by this?
    Shouldn’t we treat all people humanely?
    Shouldn’t things that happen in the bedroom remain private?

    Shouldn’t everyone have equal rights under the law if you agree with those three things?

  91. “I must have said it half a dozen times just now that I don’t claim the orientation is immoral. the action is. “

    I’m not at all concerned whether you don’t like the “orientation” or the “act”. I’ve been trying to get you to say why this is immoral, and you haven’t touched this question. Which action is immoral, exactly? Why is this action immoral?

    “Unfortunately for you it is far from generally accepted. Instead, much (though not all) of the gay community wants to believe this so they’ll accept it as fact long before science has come close to proving it as such.

    You can misuse science the same way those who want to believe the world is 6,000 years old do and just find the bits that support you and ignore its weaknesses or the studies to the contrary, but it is a misuse of science.”

    It’s really not that unfortunate for me that some people don’t believe in psychological research. I can still go to a psychologist and get help with issues dealing with my sexuality if I want. Maybe there are psychologists in the States who ignore current research and decide to be homophobic anyway? In Canada they generally stick to the research that shows changing one’s sexual orientation is harmful. You seem to think that it is only the gay community who wants to believe that orientation is not a choice. There are actually many straight people who realize that love between two people is something to celebrate and that people who are inclined to love others of the same sex should not have to hide their feelings from society. Just check out a PFLAG group, they exist all over the U.S. and Canada. Actually, my straight friends really helped me to accept my orientation when I was first noticing it. (Although it is much more than just PFLAG groups who support gay rights).

    You still think I am “misusing” science. Well, I’ve read several textbooks on human sexuality and I believe what they say. Is that “misusing” science? Perhaps you’re one of those people who think that psychology is not a legitimate science, and well, that is another conversation. When researchers conduct studies about sexual orientation and come to the conclusion that it is harmful to try to change one’s orientation because it never really goes away, I believe those studies. If you have evidence that those studies have been conducted with errors, please come forward with that evidence. As for people who do not believe studies that have been conducted fairly, I wonder what their reasons are?

  92. vail (105): you basically just recited the talking-points of the gay-rights movement. since i’ve responded to each of those in varying contexts throughout this thread I’m not going to go through it again.

    bushfire (106): I did not understand your question before. The action is sex between two people of the same gender (I think you knew that already).

    As to why, I think it is immoral you know that as well. For many of us, sex is not supposed to be used as a wholly selfish thing to satisfy our own animalistic cravings. Homosexuality is just that. So is adultery. It should further the bond between a husband and a wife and, when possible, be used to create a family. I’m sure you don’t find it immoral to use sex however one pleases and that’s fine.

    So as I said before, I’m not interested in the gov’t storming down your door for having any type of consensual sex at all. But I do not want the gov’t taking actions which tacitly approve of it.

    Anyone, like many on this site (maybe you?), who argue “people should be able to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes” are either idiots or liars. That’s not what the real issue is about at all.

    It’s about pushing homosexuality into the public sphere and telling anyone and everyone that there’s nothing wrong with it. Many find that extremely offensive and odious. I wouldn’t want laws encouraging affairs, polygamy, necrophila, or bestiality either.

    Saying this is about what goes on the bedroom is just taking a brain-dead approach by picking up a lobbyists talking-point. Plenty on the right and left do this, but it’s pathetic and intellectually gets you nowhere.

    Take someone like Betty. A really hateful and angry person. She doesn’t just want to be allowed to go about her business in the privacy of her own home. She wants to make sure any and everyone who disagrees with her in the public sphere is silenced and not entitled to their opinion on the morality of the matter.

    As for the rest of your post. It just says their are a bunch of psychologists who argue it is not a choice, though it sounds like they don’t really say that anyway. It sounds like they just say it’s a really tough choice as many people have a strong desire. In any event, even if some claim it is not a choice (I never said otherwise), it is still strongly disputed and many who have voiced their opinions have done so based on political leanings instead of science. The point is, you’re trying to pretend it is not highly debatable and that’s false.

    If some people are unsure of their sexuality and it is a choice, then it is critical to those of us who think homosexuality is immoral that it not be encouraged by the government. We want them, and society at large, steered away from immorality. Not by throwing people in jail for having consensual sex, but by not having the government announce that as a society we think homosexuality is fine and we’ll treat it like heterosexuality instead of acts we still, at least for now, realize are immoral such as necrophila, polygamy, and bestiality.

    Again. I don’t pretend to claim that for some the urge might be incredibly powerful. I’m disgusted by those on the right who just yell and scream and demean people personally for committing an act they, on the right, believe is immoral. I do think part of the frustration for many, including myself, comes from the nauseating (and ironic) “holier than thou” and “i’ll shove it in your face” approach of gay-rights advocates.

    It really is sad to see someone who can have an affair, beat their wife etc. stand their and say “I hate gays.” What’s worse though, is when ostensibly reasonable and intelligent people try to stereotype and cast everyone who finds homosexuality immoral just like that person. And that’s what gay-rights advocates, by and large, do.

    Now. I took a lot of time to thoughtfully answer your question. I do hope you won’t just pluck a few lines and ask some other question, but instead reciprocate and thoughtfully respond to what I wrote.

  93. As to why, I think it is immoral you know that as well. For many of us, sex is not supposed to be used as a wholly selfish thing to satisfy our own animalistic cravings. Homosexuality is just that. So is adultery. It should further the bond between a husband and a wife and, when possible, be used to create a family. I’m sure you don’t find it immoral to use sex however one pleases and that’s fine.

    Wait, wait, wait.
    How is it that homosexual sex is “just” used to “satisfy our own animalistic cravings”? What makes you think that heterosexual couples can further their bond through sex, but homosexual couples can’t?

    So as I said before, I’m not interested in the gov’t storming down your door for having any type of consensual sex at all. But I do not want the gov’t taking actions which tacitly approve of it…

    …It’s about pushing homosexuality into the public sphere and telling anyone and everyone that there’s nothing wrong with it. Many find that extremely offensive and odious. I wouldn’t want laws encouraging affairs, polygamy, necrophila, or bestiality either.

    There’s a huge difference between “encouraging” and “allowing”. Nobody is suggesting that the government should be out there “recruiting” homosexuality or something. Nobody thinks that there should be government programs designed to increase the number of homosexuals. What is being argued is that homosexuals are citizens, too, and ought to have the same rights and privileges that everyone else is entitled to. I don’t get to arbitrarily deny people their rights just because I find them odious or morally repugnant.

    And how is granting homosexuals the same rights as straight couples the same as the government endorsing something?

    Saying this is about what goes on the bedroom is just taking a brain-dead approach by picking up a lobbyists talking-point. Plenty on the right and left do this, but it’s pathetic and intellectually gets you nowhere.

    Except that you’ve as much as admitted that it’s, ultimately, about what happens in the bedroom. Your issue is that homosexuals have homosexual sex. You’ve said that it’s not the inclination, it’s the action. Oh, sure, you claim that you don’t mind if they do it and keep it behind closed doors- but the problem is that you find homosexual sex immoral, which means that, yes, it’s ultimately about what happens in the bedroom.

    Take someone like Betty. A really hateful and angry person. She doesn’t just want to be allowed to go about her business in the privacy of her own home. She wants to make sure any and everyone who disagrees with her in the public sphere is silenced and not entitled to their opinion on the morality of the matter.

    I don’t think that’s accurate. I think she just doesn’t think that bigots should be able to control the rule of law and unfairly deny entire categories of people the rights and privileges they deserve.

    Not by throwing people in jail for having consensual sex, but by not having the government announce that as a society we think homosexuality is fine and we’ll treat it like heterosexuality instead of acts we still, at least for now, realize are immoral such as necrophila, polygamy, and bestiality.

    Oh, fuck you.
    I can’t believe I missed this the first time I read your response.

    That is why people like me think that people like you are bigots. First of all, because you are. But also, because eventually, you show your true colors. Consentual sex between adults is not the same as raping an animal or violating a corpse, and using comparisons like that- attempting to dehumanize homosexuals- that’s not intellectually honest, and it just makes you look like a complete asshole.

    Oh, right, and a bigot.

    Which, I suppose, takes us back to square one.

    It really is sad to see someone who can have an affair, beat their wife etc. stand their and say “I hate gays.” What’s worse though, is when ostensibly reasonable and intelligent people try to stereotype and cast everyone who finds homosexuality immoral just like that person.

    The worst is when people who think they’re extremely smart and oh-so-reasonable hold ugly, ignorant, and offensive ideas like the idea that homosexual sex is comparable to raping an animal or violating a corpse.

  94. I don’t have time to respond to everything Roy, but I will respond to point 5. If I had said what you attributed to me then I’d agree with your response and I’d call myself a bigot if I thought consensual sex was no different from raping someone.

    But that’s not what I said. I do wish Holly saw this because she called it “quibbling” (as did others maybe?) when I tried to explain the situations I’m dealing with time and again throughout this thread.

    When I say necrophilia I’m talking about a situation where there is no consensual problem. The only issue is morality. For example, suppose a person writes in their will before dying that they give permission for their body to be used for sex.

    Do you have a problem with that?
    I do. Morality is the only reason to object.

    Same for bestiality where I’m talking about a case where it is scientifically clear that the animal is not hurt and perhaps even enjoys it. Again, the only issue can be morality. I still object to it.

    I have to say, i’ve got no problem debating people, but time and again everyone here has failed to read what i write and instead has attributed positions to me i have never taken and indeed often explicitly not taken. before you respond, especially with such hostility, make sure you actually respond to what i said.

  95. azok – The lesbian couple down the street has a perfectly adorable little boy. They are definitely a family, and a lot more stable than any number of the families of his classmate. So I assume you’re fine with them having sex?

    Or to put it another way. In what way is it conducive to the strength of families that if C were to die tomorrow, the law would likely tear their son away from his remaining mother and hand him over to C’s relatives to raise him to believe that both of his mothers would burn forever in hell?

  96. “bushfire (106): I did not understand your question before. The action is sex between two people of the same gender (I think you knew that already). “

    Of course I know that you mean sex between two people of the same sex. I asked this question because I would hope that you would think about exactly what act you find immoral. When people refer to straight sex they are usually referring to penile penetration, and this may not happen between people of the same sex. If two people of the same sex caress each other, would that be immoral? If they kiss, is that immoral? I mean, where would you draw the line? It’s kind of fascinating that you would find an expression of love between people immoral, but anyway…..

    “As to why, I think it is immoral you know that as well. For many of us, sex is not supposed to be used as a wholly selfish thing to satisfy our own animalistic cravings. Homosexuality is just that. So is adultery. It should further the bond between a husband and a wife and, when possible, be used to create a family. I’m sure you don’t find it immoral to use sex however one pleases and that’s fine.”
    Is it selfish to have sex? People do experience sexual desire and might have a difficult time without release of that desire. If its selfish to give into animalistic cravings that do not hurt anybody, then is it selfish to eat, scratch, massage, stretch, bathe, exercise… I mean sex is just rubbing a part of your body, basically… not sure why that would be immoral. It’s interesting that you say you think its fine if other people use sex for different reasons than you, because you really don’t think its fine. You’d like the government to continue actively going against homosexuality. This isn’t just neutral. Having gay marriage illegal denies a portion of the population the same rights as other people. Allowing gay marriage would be neutral, because everyone has the same rights, and the government would not be encouraging people who are heterosexual to become homosexual, only treating everyone equally. Roy already discussed this in the post above.

    “So as I said before, I’m not interested in the gov’t storming down your door for having any type of consensual sex at all. But I do not want the gov’t taking actions which tacitly approve of it. “

    So if I find heterosexual sex morally wrong, can I fight to make heterosexual marriages illegal? I mean, something that a few people find wrong, according to you, should be made illegal even for other peole who don’t find it wrong.

    “Anyone, like many on this site (maybe you?), who argue “people should be able to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes” are either idiots or liars. That’s not what the real issue is about at all.

    It’s about pushing homosexuality into the public sphere and telling anyone and everyone that there’s nothing wrong with it. Many find that extremely offensive and odious. “

    yes, I agree that if someone is doing something in privacy and its not hurting anyone, then there’s no reason for the government to interfere with it. I also think that homosexuality should be in the public sphere because there is nothing wrong with it. Young homosexuals grow up scared and confused in a climate of hate. They drop out of school more often, are bullied more often, and have a suicide rate three times that of straight youth (that statistic is from canada). It is totally wrong to actively encourage a culture of hate that encourages violence and suicide. hating peole so they want to die is much more immoral than loving someone!

    “I wouldn’t want laws encouraging affairs, polygamy, necrophila, or bestiality either. “

    Wait- are there laws against affairs? So if I get married and then I send a sexy email to an old friend, will the police come knock on my door? if so, that’s thefirst I’ve heard of it. By the way, I wouldn’t want laws that encourage polygamy, necrophila or bestiality either, but those things are totally different, and I’m not sure why you keep bringing them up.

    “As for the rest of your post. It just says their are a bunch of psychologists who argue it is not a choice, though it sounds like they don’t really say that anyway. It sounds like they just say it’s a really tough choice as many people have a strong desire. In any event, even if some claim it is not a choice (I never said otherwise), it is still strongly disputed and many who have voiced their opinions have done so based on political leanings instead of science. The point is, you’re trying to pretend it is not highly debatable and that’s false.”

    ok, ok. Psychologist are not “arguing”, they are doing research and reporting on their research, and they are treating patients clinically based on that research. They are also not making “claims”. By the way, the people who are against gay rights are against it because of “political leanings” and “claims”. i mean, come on, you think that expressions of love between peole are immoral, but actively making people’s lives worse by treating them like second class citizens is not immoral to you.

    “If some people are unsure of their sexuality and it is a choice, then it is critical to those of us who think homosexuality is immoral that it not be encouraged by the government.”

    Ok, so you are now openly admitting that if YOU think something is immoral, then it should be actively discouraged by the government, even though there is no proof that it is harmful to society. And by the way, homophobia IS harmful to society. You’ve been blasting all of us for being “bigots” but your own bigotry is highly visible in this sentence.

    “We want them, and society at large, steered away from immorality. “

    I want people steered away from immorality too, which is why I dont like homophobia.

    “Not by throwing people in jail for having consensual sex, but by not having the government announce that as a society we think homosexuality is fine and we’ll treat it like heterosexuality instead of acts we still, at least for now, realize are immoral such as necrophila, polygamy, and bestiality.”
    As a society, we do not think homosexuality is wrong. I haven’t polled Americans, but there are several countries who have legalized same-sex marriage and more than half of canadians are ok with it. Sorry I only have Canadian stats, but I live here.

    “Again. I don’t pretend to claim that for some the urge might be incredibly powerful. I’m disgusted by those on the right who just yell and scream and demean people personally for committing an act they, on the right, believe is immoral. ”

    So yelling and screaming is not ok, but demeaning people by typing is ok? Because you are demeaning people right now.

    It really is sad to see someone who can have an affair, beat their wife etc. stand their and say “I hate gays.”

    it’s really sad to see anyone hating entire groups of people, especially the ones they’ve never met. Anyone who hates something they’ve never met is hating based on assumptions and stereotypes.


    “Now. I took a lot of time to thoughtfully answer your question. I do hope you won’t just pluck a few lines and ask some other question, but instead reciprocate and thoughtfully respond to what I wrote.”

    I hope this was thoughtful enough for you.

    one more question: If sex for anything other than procreation is wrong, then I’m wondering if masterbation is also wrong, and if the government should be actively discouraging porn, motels, sex toys, sexy lingerie, massage oil, contraception, KY jelly, etc, because all these things could send the message that having sex is ok, therefore they are immoral?

Comments are currently closed.