How the "new left" does things
From our comments section:
Well I was posting on the website Daily Kos and just like Democratic Underground they deleted all of my posts and now I’m blocked from posting comments.
But to show how “open minded” and “nonfascist” they are, the regular libtard moonbats have started some kind of personal defamation campaign against me. They have been posting comments with nasty remarks about me and got my e-mail address from moorewatch after reading some of my posts.
One of them managed to Google me and found letters I wrote to the local newspapers and have now threatened to call my work and make trouble for me. Can you say “Harassment”?
If I had a nickel, buddy, if I had a nickel. That’s what they do. It’s all those pieces of shit know how to do. Anyone who has an opinion from the left is a hero, anyone who has an opinion on the right deserves their lives ruined by a relentless mob of scumbags with nothing better to do.
They will never understand the difference between a public figure and a private individual.
One wonders why someone who claims to be about fairness and “progressiveness” would be the vehicle for such behavior, but then again, we’re taklking about “Screw them” Kos here…
Comments
Heterosexuals, in general, don’t identify themselves as a group, minority or otherwise, by whom they sleep with. That is the sole unifying aspect of homosexuals, and is how they claim the right to protected minority status. I can think of no other group that has claimed such a status based on a behavior.
This is a very good point, or maybe just another good roadblock.
I see the difference you are pointing out here. Heterosexuals dont generally think of themselves primarily as a heterosexual. Its basically taken for granted. Maybe their most important factor they identify themselves with could be something like their profession, or as a parent, or something like that.
I dont think it makes homosexuals identifying themselves primarily as just that, makes it any less significant. Thats just the way it goes. I would think, in general, the smaller the group you belong to, factoring in how much importance it has in your life is what you identify yourself as.
And with all due respect, I think you are marginalizing what a homosexual is by simply saying they identify themselves by who they sleep with. Its like you are putting it on par with a guy who says he will only date brunettes.
Im not saying you are a racist or anything (just wanted to make that clear), but when I read about people saying the gay community doesnt have the right to any more than they have now, in my mind, I try to imagine someone saying the same thing about a visible minority group (skin colour). Again, Im not saying I think your are a bigot or anything. Im guessing you dont look at it that way. I just wanted to let you know how I look at it.
The thing that really puzzles me though, is that I see talk on here referring to marriage as a religous institution. Would anyone really feel comfortable with govt being involved in enforcing religous ideals for all?
Im guessing the answer is yes .... some would.
I just love the people that say stuff like “Homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as we do, so they’re not really being denied anything.” It has to be one of the single dumbest things I’ve ever heard, so anyone using it can easily be classified into the “waste of space” category and forgotten about, and quietly hoped that they’re sterile and don’t produce any other degenerate stock like themselves.
By that argument, a law forbidding one from marrying outside their race would be perfectly fine, after all. I mean, you’d have the same right to marry someone of your own race, just like everyone else. That’s not discriminatory!
Frankly, the refusal to call it marriage, or allow it in any form in some instances, is nothing but a symbolic sign to gays that you hate them. And yes, you are in fact a bigot if you want to treat them differently. If you believe that something is a right for you but a special privilige for someone different, SURPRISE! That’s bigotry!
“They don’t want to be treated equally, they want to be treated BETTER”... well, shut my mouth if that isn’t exactly what I’ve heard racists say when black people around them wanted things like, oh, being treated with the basic respect due a human being. Isn’t that a coinkydink?
Jesus, do you people know how much it shames and humiliates me that, in all of this, the person who came off best in all of this, out of all the Moorewatch regulars and several obvious newbies, is up4debate? Someone whom on several occasions I’ve wanted to kick in the face? Do you know how much you people make me sick that I’ve agreed with you on other things and supported you in debates, and now have to see your bigotry spelled out and watch someone who I honestly could not -stand- take up an honorable position and do it -well-?
If ronnie wouldn’t call you bigots, I will, because that’s what you are. I hate to be a definition-doter, but hell, let’s pull up the literal definition.
big·ot Audio pronunciation of “bigot” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
I’d say proclaiming that marriage is only for heterosexuals ("one’s own group") and saying that homosexuals ("those who differ") can’t have it, they can only have a lip-service immitation, pretty clearly falls under that heading, wouldn’t you? But, no, of course you wouldn’t. You’re tolerant, after all… you’re not hunting them down and killing them in the streets, so obviously you’re tolerating their existence, and that makes you tolerant! It’s everyone that’s not blindly agreeing with you that’s intolerant! Disagreeing with your viewpoints and thinking things should be different is trying to force their way of thinking on you, and that’s intolerant! Poor BABIES!
Ah, fuckers. It’s such a shame that the sexuality that can reproduce on its own is the one with the highest ratio of complete assholes in it.
Although this is worded much more strongly than I would have attempted Rann is essentially right. It amazes me how people wish to be the “bedroom Police”. Oh, and before anyone argues that that is not what they are doing, when you tell someone who you can and cannot marry you are essentially being the bedroom police. Again as Rann stated, there were laws against interracial marriage in the South. To me is the same thing. Also, when you have laws on the book that pertain to sodomy, oral sex etc. you are being the bedroom police.
Why would anyone care what consenting adults do behind closed doors is beyond me. And why cant consenting adults who love each other marry, regardless of their sexual orientation?
I really would like an answer to the last question if some would be so kind.
personaly if 2 dudes wanna gte married i say let em, iuts their own right, hell thats more single ladies for me. but i do get annoyed with any sort of group parading around thinkin theyre outkasts and special and misunderstood. they should just live their own lives peacefully, if they choose to live such a different lifestyle they should expect people not to see eye to eye with them.
furthermore i think people should just be understanding, the door swings both ways, both sides need to fix their judgements.
personaly wether or not gays can marry, doesnt affect me either way, i dnt base my political views on that. if i was gay perhaps id feel different, but i just dont get involved with that issue.
From posts being deleted on websites to gay marriage.. the train derailed a few miles back and nobody’s bothered to put on the brakes…
Who gives a rat’s ass if two guys or two girls want to marry? I mean really.. why would you give a fuck? What direct effect does it have on *you*? Are your rights being infringed upon? Do you stand to lose anything?
I tend to agree with people here more than disagree, but I’ve never understood the position that a lot of people here take on this issue. I do understand if their opinion is based on their religious background, but we don’t write laws based on religion. If your religion is all you have to base your opinion of this matter on, then you have nothing to offer when it comes to whether or not gay marriage should be legal.
Jesus, do you people know how much it shames and humiliates me that, in all of this, the person who came off best in all of this, out of all the Moorewatch regulars and several obvious newbies, is up4debate? Someone whom on several occasions I’ve wanted to kick in the face?
As much as I appreciate the passion and intensity of your feelings for me, in all fairness to the regulars on this site, this is one topic I dont really feel alone on. I dont really see this as a left vs right issue.
And hey, at least this site lets us go at it from both sides!
I dont really see this as a left vs right issue.
It’s not, but it gets treated as such. The way some of the maintainers of the site are reasonable and not towing the party line, I suppose I delude myself into thinking that more of the commenters on the site are going to actually think things through and consider towing the HUMAN party line rather than just spouting the typical rightist doctrine.
I don’t know, how stupid do you have to be to think that two people of the same gender marrying each other would do more damage to marriage than someone in an Elvis costume crooning “You ain’t nothin’ but a married hounddog” at a drive-through chapel. I mean, presumably some of the people claiming this are married themselves… I keep wanting to ask them if their (obviously frail) marriages were destroyed when that California judge handed out marriage licenses to gay couples. I mean, it’s supposed to destroy marriage, right?
The way some of the maintainers of the site are reasonable and not towing the party line, I suppose I delude myself into thinking that more of the commenters on the site are going to actually think things through and consider towing the HUMAN party line rather than just spouting the typical rightist doctrine.
Thats one of the great things about this site though, you get to hear from the ... uummmm .... ahhhh… from all points of view!
I don’t know, how stupid do you have to be to think that two people of the same gender marrying each other would do more damage to marriage than someone in an Elvis costume crooning “You ain’t nothin’ but a married hounddog” at a drive-through chapel.
Honestly, I think its just religion. And that is how we got onto this discussion. The most consistent argument I hear against gay marriage, basically just says it goes against what God wants. I dont think its stupid to be religous (its just not for me), but I can understand how it would be hard for some, on an issue like this, to actually seperate the church from their politics. This is a difficult issue. Certainly one that is not going to be solved on here.
Sometimes religion in politics can be humerous though! I just found this interview…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171099,00.html
Honestly, step back a second and realize, this is from a supposedly credible NEWS organization. And people wonder why I watch the Daily Show 
Posted by up4debate on 09/30 at 04:43 AM (Link to this comment)
Just because the state took it upon itself to license marriage does not give it the right to redefine itThen the state should get out of the marriage business. Civil unions for everyone.
Yup
Honestly, step back a second and realize, this is from a supposedly credible NEWS organization. And people wonder why I watch the Daily Show
Hold on a sec. Did you read the interview? Everyone constantly harps on what a right-wing news organization Fox is, yet Rich Lowry basically told the guy right up front that he thought his comments were objectionable and argued with him about his beliefs.
I guess it is only when the credible news organizations like CNN and the Daily Show attack the right that it’s considered hard-hitting news, right?
By the way, was this funny to you because Fox did it or because they all do it?
Religion is the key component of the “anti-gay marriage movement”. Like I had stated in a previous post if we can not descriminate against the gay community based upon their sexuality, then we can not discriminate against people who are religious for having their religious beliefs. I do not have any actual “evidence” but I would assume that the relgious percentage of the population vastly outnumber the homosexual percentage. If a civil union is the same thing as “marriage” I belive hands down that it should just be awarded no-vote. If the term “marriage” is to be used, I believe it should be put to a national vote on the next available ballot. What do you think the reaction would be in the religious community if you started calling taxes “tithes”? Religion and politics are the two quickest topics to start a fight. It is wrong to “trample” anyone’s religious beliefs (whether you agree with them or not), and since many religious people consider “marriage” to be “a union in the eyes of their God”, using that term would make them feel discriminated against. I understand both sides of the issue, and do not believe that the government has any right not to let two people be in a union. However, I believe that since it has become this big of a deal it should be put to a vote on an actual ballot.
wiserbud-
It would be funny to me no matter who did it. The difference is, when they do stuff like this on the Daily Show, Im laughing with them. Because its a comedy show. When they do it on Fox, or if CNN did something like that, I would be laughing at them.
Im sorry, but anytime there a conversation between a “news” host, and a state senator, that includes the line:
So it seems to me that your view on the hurricane directly flies in the face of the teachings of Jesus.
is not exactly hard-hitting news, no matter who does it. But it is funny!
As a Christian and as a father, my view is very simple:
If you’re both consenting adults, I don’t give a rat’s ass what you do! Look, if two people are adults and they love each other and want to spend their lives together, I say God Bless them!
Besides, why should gays get a free ride? You ever notice how the majority of them are super fit and tanned and have money? You know why that is? Because they don’t have someone nagging them to death and sucking their very soul out of their body! Why should only heterosexuals have to spend their lives chained to a family? Let the homos in on it too! Let them feel the obligation of having to go everywhere their spouse wants to go regardless of how mind numbingly boring it may be!
And let the gays have to deal with a 5 hour car ride with three whining and arguing kids in the back.
Hell, I say there should be a law that REQUIRES gays to get married. And then give it a few years. They’ll be wishing they never whined and complained so much in the first place!
Just as a test, I’ve created an account on the Daily Kos. I want to see how long it will take for them to ban me. So let me know of any topics that you read about that you want posted.
here here yngcelt!!! well said!
I can’t believe that we’ve become sooo polarised that you (not yngcelt, just going back to the original post) could be banned, flamed, defamed and threatened like this (and from psuedo-hippies too)... it’s disgusting and representative of what ‘the man’ has done to us ‘little guys’ in the general populous. They’ve got us so politically fired up fighting each other that they can get away with pretty much anything unchecked.
Oh, off-topic, but:
Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying:
“Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed in an accident’
“OH NO!” the President exclaims. “That’s terrible!”
His staffs’ sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the president sits, head in hands.
Finally, the President looks up and asks..........
“How many is a Brazillion?”
chuckle chuckle ;p
it’s disgusting and representative of what ‘the man’ has done to us ‘little guys’ in the general populous
Oh, and… these tossers want their privates coating in fish food and dangling in the shark infested seas off Madagascar! Suitable punishment for such reprehensibly childish behaviour.
“How many is a Brazillion?”
I’m a Bush supporter… but that was actually pretty damned funny.
Good one.
Hey man, funny jokes are just funny. That’s why The Daily Show rules.
To get us back on topic, I found the transcript of an interview Bill O’Reilly did regarding these sites:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171328,00.html
P.S.
how do I put a link in the posting now? I dont see the old “link” button anymore.
how do I put a link in the posting now? I dont see the old “link” button anymore
use the <a> button. Took me a few attempts to work it out.
funny jokes are just funny
You may need to be british to get this.
Kate Moss bumps into Jeremy Clarkson on a night out.
“So” She said “What do you do?”
Jeremy answers “I do Top Gear”
“Focking Blinding, I’ll have 4 grams!!”
tasteless joke follows if easily offended please skip to next post.
London Police are in trouble again. They have just shot a bus load of Thalidamide Iraqi’s.
They thought they were bringing small arms into the country....
If the mods think the last joke is too much please delete the post.
Posted by swagger on 10/03 at 06:05 AM (Link to this comment)
I tend to agree with people here more than disagree, but I’ve never understood the position that a lot of people here take on this issue.
I’m at it from an ‘I don’t like people using state power to force change’.
The religious see the whole thing as an attack on their views. They offer civil unions (re: equal rights) and this is rejected over the word ‘marriage’. This tends to validate their fears and mine.
There is some other agenda rather than equal rights. From reading about progressives we think we know it is just to diminish religion and increase the power of the state. When you read about the people pushing for gay marriage they tend to hate religion and want to radically change our society…
I’m at it from an ‘I don’t like people using state power to force change’.
The religious see the whole thing as an attack on their views.
See, Im at it from an ‘I dont like the state being used to enforce religous views on all’. Its hard to make our two sides meet.
At least I can go shopping on a sunday now! Unlike when I was a kid.
When you read about the people pushing for gay marriage they tend to hate religion and want to radically change our society.
Not believing in, or, more importantly, not wanting to have to live by, a religions teachings does not make me hate a religion. It takes alot more for me to hate something.
I am of the school of thought that marriage is just a word. Both sides are being absolutely petty about the issue. If a civil union has all of the same legal benefits as a marriage, why all the adversity to calling it a marriage? It’s just a word! To call it a civil union for one group of people and not for another is just an attempt at segregation and discrimination.
My grandparents were married by the justice of the peace. Their marriage wasn’t recognized by the church until their 20th anniversary. They are an example of a legal marriage that is not recognized by any religion, so why should a gay marriage be any different? To say that keeping gay marriage as civil unions is to protect the sanctity of marriage is asinine! You want to protect the sanctity of marriage? Make both obtaining a license and granting a divorce more difficult. But to tell two loving and committed people that they are not equal to another two people is hateful. Period.
Those who would deny gays equal protections under the law and equal status in society are hateful. They have never truly gotten to know a homosexual. And to say that homosexuality is a choice or a mental disorder is ignorant. No one would choose to put themselves through the shame and confusion that comes with being gay. I used to think that way. It wasn’t until I met Joey when I was 19 that my views changed. Here was one of the kindest, gentlest souls one could ever meet. And he was one of the most tortured souls I ever knew as well. He had been married when he was young, but it didn’t work (for obvious reasons), then when he came out to his parents they disowned him. He spent two years living on the street. He was also devoutly Jewish and felt that he was going to be forever damned because of his homosexuality. This is not a choice that anyone would make…
The thing that kills me about Christians who decry homosexuality is that they forget all about Christ’s message. “Let he who is without sin…” Christ died for us sinners, and he did not discriminate, so why should we? Remember, he had a prostitute in his posse!
Sir Not Appearing In This Film
The thing that kills me about Christians who decry homosexuality is that they forget all about Christ’s message. “Let he who is without sin…” Christ died for us sinners, and he did not discriminate, so why should we? Remember, he had a prostitute in his posse!
He also told her, “go and sin no more”. We know that “there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” but we also know, “ Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?”
People who point out the adulteress story are correct to say we should not sit in judgement of others, since none of us are any better than the other, but they only seem to get half the story.
Ahhh, but we are not perfect. There is only one without sin. Does that mean that we should not strive to be without sin? Of course not. We are human, and we will sin. That is a given. If it weren’t, Christ would not have died for us. It’s not that I don’t get it, it’s that I understand that through Christ, all can be forgiven, even homosexuality. I will let God sit in judgement of others.
Sir Not Appearing In This Film
Do you support law enforcement at all? If so, then you acknowledge that humans do bear some responsibility to keep each other accountable for our actions. I’m all for live-and-let-live from a legal standpoint but if you intend to keep pressing this in the religious direction, then I’m going to have to disagree with your suggestion that God gave us a green light to do whatever we want with no input from others. “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”
originally posted by w0rf
Do you support law enforcement at all? If so, then you acknowledge that humans do bear some responsibility to keep each other accountable for our actions. I’m all for live-and-let-live from a legal standpoint but if you intend to keep pressing this in the religious direction, then I’m going to have to disagree with your suggestion that God gave us a green light to do whatever we want with no input from others. “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”
Of course I support law enforcement. I also support equal treatment under the law. Homosexuality is one point where I digress from the Catholic Church’s party line. I know mine is an unpopular standpoint, but I stand behind it. My personal belief is that religion is meant to guide our choices, that which we can control (as are laws). I have come to believe that homosexuality is not a choice as I have stated previously. I do not believe that God created homosexuals the way they are just to damn them for the way they are. The stance against homosexuality in the church, I see as contrary to Christ’s teachings. It is one of many contradictions in the Bible. My issue with the Bible is that, while divinely inspired it was written by man, who is inherently flawed. That does not mean that I don’t believe in it, quite the contrary. The fact that I have questioned and searched for my own meaning in it means, to me, that my faith has become even stronger because it is not blind faith. If that’s what God wanted, he would have left us in Eden with no free will.
Sir Not Appearing In this Film
I do not believe that God created homosexuals the way they are just to damn them for the way they are.
Is that not how we all are built? Do we not all have a compulsion to do the things we are not supposed to? Would not any one of us also be damned “just for the way we are”? So what distinction exactly are you drawing here?
Is that not how we all are built? Do we not all have a compulsion to do the things we are not supposed to? Would not any one of us also be damned “just for the way we are”? So what distinction exactly are you drawing here?
My distinction is that humans are inherently good, but our decisions are what make us evil. After all, we are created in God’s image. What it all boils down to is choice and responsibility. As I have said, I don’t believe homosexuality to be a choice any more than heterosexuality. It is a belief I have come to based on my experiences. I never chose to be straight any more than my friend Joey chose to be gay. I believe that a person’s choices can be right or wrong, but not their existence.
Sir Not Appearing In This Film
What people do not choose to have sex? Do homosexuals trip on a wayward shoe and fall naked into each other?
Or perhaps you mean the attraction rather than the action. How is that different from what anybody else deals with? You think there aren’t people that catch my eye? But I don’t engage in sex with them. There was a time when I did and I paid the price. In some ways I still am.
The reason sex is dangerous is the same reason that it is beautiful, because it carries a great deal of power. It doesn’t just form a physical bond between people, but an emotional one and a spiritual one as well. That has the capacity to forge strong relationships between people. It also can have a very destructive effect on relationships.
So it’s clear that God’s laws are not a laundry list of killjoy rules, but protection from destructive forces in our lives that come from pursuing our passions. It’s not just sex, either. Wanting something I do not own does not make it okay for me to steal. Wanting to avoid punishment does not make it okay for me to lie. The attraction is not something that can be helped (and by saying so yourself, I’m baffled that you would call it “ignorant” to refer to the phenomenon as psychological in nature), but we are not condemned for our temptations but for our actions.
Lastly, I have no idea what it is about this that you think is so much in contradiction to Christ’s teachings. It was Jesus, after all, who preached that it’s not good enough just to not commit adultery, but BEYOND THAT, just sitting around thinking about how you’d like to plow the chick two cubicles down from you is the same sin within your own heart. His teachings go beyond taking action on the temptation but also say to avoid keeping the notion in your mind and entertaining it at length. So where the contradiction between them lies is not clear to me.
What people do not choose to have sex? Do homosexuals trip on a wayward shoe and fall naked into each other?
Or perhaps you mean the attraction rather than the action. How is that different from what anybody else deals with? You think there aren’t people that catch my eye? But I don’t engage in sex with them. There was a time when I did and I paid the price. In some ways I still am.
The reason sex is dangerous is the same reason that it is beautiful, because it carries a great deal of power. It doesn’t just form a physical bond between people, but an emotional one and a spiritual one as well. That has the capacity to forge strong relationships between people. It also can have a very destructive effect on relationships.
It is the attraction that I speak of, not the action of sex. According to what you wrote above, a homosexual does not have the right to experience the emotional or spiritual bond that sex can bring because they are not attracted to the opposite sex (please correct me if I am wrong). I don’t believe that to be true. And homosexual sex is no more destructive than hetero sex. Is anal sex between members of the opposite sex a sin or destructive? How about oral sex?
So it’s clear that God’s laws are not a laundry list of killjoy rules, but protection from destructive forces in our lives that come from pursuing our passions. It’s not just sex, either. Wanting something I do not own does not make it okay for me to steal. Wanting to avoid punishment does not make it okay for me to lie. The attraction is not something that can be helped (and by saying so yourself, I’m baffled that you would call it “ignorant” to refer to the phenomenon as psychological in nature), but we are not condemned for our temptations but for our actions.
I understand that as well. Like I said, we are (and should be) responsible for our actions. But attraction is not something that we can be responsible for. How we deal with that attraction is. Once again, I don’t believe that God would wire someone a certain way and deny them the happiness of being able to share themselves completely with another and then punish them for it. It goes against that which I believe a loving, forgiving God would do.
Lastly, I have no idea what it is about this that you think is so much in contradiction to Christ’s teachings. It was Jesus, after all, who preached that it’s not good enough just to not commit adultery, but BEYOND THAT, just sitting around thinking about how you’d like to plow the chick two cubicles down from you is the same sin within your own heart. His teachings go beyond taking action on the temptation but also say to avoid keeping the notion in your mind and entertaining it at length. So where the contradiction between them lies is not clear to me.
Most of the contradictions that I have found are between The Gospels and the Old Testament (not that there aren’t any between the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, they are just less frequent). The one that springs readilly to mind is the contradiction between “An eye for an eye...” and “Turn the other cheek.” To be honest, it has been a while since I have studied the Bible intently, but my faith is just that… my faith. I base it off of what I believe God wants of me. I also believe that the greatest of all commandments came from Christ, “Love thy neighbor”. It is from Christ and his example that I try and live my life (hence, I am a Christian). And I don’t believe that Christ would turn his back or deny happiness or salvation to a person based on their sexual preference.
Oh, I want to go back to one last point…
and by saying so yourself, I’m baffled that you would call it “ignorant” to refer to the phenomenon as psychological in nature
I say that because there are examples of homosexual attraction in animals… dogs, monkeys, mice, etc, none of which we would deem sentient or capable of the psychology one would associate with homosexual “choice”. That tells me that it is attributed to something much more basic… more primal, possibly physiological. I’ll see if I can dig up some of the articles that were presented to me some 15 years ago.
Sir Not Appearing In This Film
And homosexual sex is no more destructive than hetero sex.
Excuse me, did I make that distinction?
Once again, I don’t believe that God would wire someone a certain way and deny them the happiness of being able to share themselves completely with another and then punish them for it.
Why not? Did I not already point out that we are “wired” to desire all sorts of things that we cannot have?
The one that springs readilly to mind is the contradiction between “An eye for an eye...” and “Turn the other cheek.”
It makes more sense when you consider that “eye for an eye” was actually a downgrade from “kill your whole family and take all your land if you kill my brother” towards greater social justice.
And I don’t believe that Christ would turn his back or deny happiness or salvation to a person based on their sexual preference.
He doesn’t do that to any of us based on any of our predilections. That does not mean he thinks it’s okay for us to continue doing something we’ve been told not to do. That’s the flip side of the coin I presented to you all the way back when you referred to the adulteress.
none of which we would deem sentient or capable of the psychology one would associate with homosexual “choice”
Why do you use the word “choice” when I did not? There are many forms of sexual attraction that we consider not only to be deviant but also psychological in nature. Is there a particular reason that you consider this form of attraction to be different from the others?
I say that because there are examples of homosexual attraction in animals… dogs, monkeys, mice, etc...That tells me that it is attributed to something much more basic… more primal, possibly physiological.
Does it strike you at all as odd that an example of primal behavior amongst animals in heat is the model for forward progress of a civilized society?
Excuse me, did I make that distinction?
No, it was something that I inferred. My appologies for the misunderstanding.
Why not? Did I not already point out that we are “wired” to desire all sorts of things that we cannot have?
I don’t agree. There is wanting something and going about getting it the wrong way. I can want a new car. I can use that desire to push myself to work harder and earn that new car. I can want the woman two cubes down, there is nothing wrong with that (that’s how we meet our wives), but there are still rules. All one can be responsible is for their actions (and thinking is an action).
It makes more sense when you consider that “eye for an eye” was actually a downgrade from “kill your whole family and take all your land if you kill my brother” towards greater social justice.
I understand that as well, but it is still in conflict with Christ’s message.
He doesn’t do that to any of us based on any of our predilections. That does not mean he thinks it’s okay for us to continue doing something we’ve been told not to do. That’s the flip side of the coin I presented to you all the way back when you referred to the adulteress.
Agreed, but I don’t believe that this is truly the case with homosexuality. That’s my take on it. I believe that the church’s stand against homosexuality goes against everything else that is taught. Besides there are many things that the Old testament grants and forbids that today we, even as Christians, believe to be wrong. Religion can not remain static as our understanding of the world around us grows. Look at Leviticus and Exodous. Would you say that it is Christian to own slaves? Or to perform animal sacrifices? Is eating shellfish really and abomination? Or cutting our hair? Working on the Sabbath? Why is it that with all of these things our faith has been flexible and changed, but not on the issue of homosexuality?
Why do you use the word “choice” when I did not? There are many forms of sexual attraction that we consider not only to be deviant but also psychological in nature. Is there a particular reason that you consider this form of attraction to be different from the others?
The use of the word choice was not necessarilly directed at you, but rather others who might be reading this, so please don’t take offense.
As to what differentiates homosexuality from other “deviant” behavior… depends what you define as deviant. So long as the act involves two consenting adults who are not doing any harm to themselves, each other or anyone else, I have no problem with it.
Does it strike you at all as odd that an example of primal behavior amongst animals in heat is the model for forward progress of a civilized society?
That wasn’t the point (and I think you know that). My point is that it is a natural occurance. We are, after all, still animals and share many traits with the rest of the animal kingdom (the need to eat, sleep, procreate, defend ourselves. etc...). It is not learned behavior, nor is it a choice nor a psychological disorder. The homosexual urge is much more basic than that, it’s roots much deeper.
Sir Not Appearing In This Film
I don’t agree. There is wanting something and going about getting it the wrong way.
For example, a wrong way to seek intimacy and sexual gratification.
I understand that as well, but it is still in conflict with Christ’s message.
Again, I disagree. It’s merely an extension of existing edicts. Many people took the law to mean that God wanted us to ACT good, whereas Christ corrects this misinterpretation of the law (which set up an elitist class among the Pharisees) and shows the law is meant to direct us to BE good, pure beneath the veil of our actions.
Besides there are many things that the Old testament grants and forbids that today we, even as Christians, believe to be wrong.
Do you also say that about the New Testament?
depends what you define as deviant.
That which DEVIATES from the norm. It is exactly why I chose that word and not one that more readily implies something evil or malicious.
That wasn’t the point (and I think you know that).
Actually, I don’t know that. The logical conclusion from using animals as the benchmark is that in order to become more civilized, more advanced, more “progressive”, we need to integrate behavior into our society that mirrors the behavior of dogs and mice. I may not consider the attraction to be normal but at least I’m still speaking of them as humans and not really tall nondescript mammals. That’s why I never understood the merits of the “sex in the animal kingdom” argument.
So long as the act involves two consenting adults who are not doing any harm to themselves, each other or anyone else, I have no problem with it.
Why is “two” a critical descriptor? Why is “adults” a critical descriptor? Why even is “human” a critical descriptor? If differing sexes is not consiered relevant to the formula, what reason is there to latch on to any of the others? To abandon one tenet and claim the others must be upheld is baffling at best.
The homosexual urge is much more basic than that, it’s roots much deeper.
To suggest its roots are genetic or otherwise hereditary is not only not supported by science, it’s just flat-out wrong. If we assume natural selection to be a valid model for the animal kingdom, then the homosexual animal has no inherent means of passing on such a trait. It would be a genetic dead-end. Therefore, if any such causal relationship existed in physiology, it would be an obvious deviation from the norm, something akin to a sexual handicap. And if it is not genetic, then the only remaining explanation is a mental one. How hard would it be to to contrive an associative sexual dysfunction in the mind. One needs only stimulate the proper release of chemicals, the proper combination of nerve centers in the brain, to form a sexual association with a target. And once that association is established, it’s not at all difficult to see the correlation between the mental stimulus and the corresponding physical reaction.
And for the record, animals are not spiritual creatures, but they have natural patterns of behavior which lend to themselves a basic pattern of psychology. So it is by no means out of bounds to label a behavior as psychologically contrived.
For example, a wrong way to seek intimacy and sexual gratification.
I think we have come to a point where we will simpley have to agree to disagree, as you believe it to be a wrong way and I don’t.
Again, I disagree. It’s merely an extension of existing edicts. Many people took the law to mean that God wanted us to ACT good, whereas Christ corrects this misinterpretation of the law (which set up an elitist class among the Pharisees) and shows the law is meant to direct us to BE good, pure beneath the veil of our actions.
I agree to a point. Of course Christ’s message was to be good as opposed to merely acting good, but the OT passage was about the proper way to seek retribution (justice) and Christ told us to simply forgive the sinner for their transgressions. Christ was the ultimate embodiment of that message in giving himself on the cross in order to save those who would condemn him. He did not call out to his Father to smite those who accused and punished him unjustly, as would have been his right under the passage previously stated. Instead he begged his Father to forgive them. That is a conlficting message, in my eyes.
Do you also say that about the New Testament?
Well, as I said, it’s been a while since I really studied the Bible cover to cover, so all I have at the moment are the impressions I formed at the time, and my impressions were that the New Testament was more consistant, but there were a few things that, at the time, didn’t seem to fit. Most of the inconsistancies that I remember were between the OT and the NT.
That which DEVIATES from the norm. It is exactly why I chose that word and not one that more readily implies something evil or malicious. Why is “two” a critical descriptor? Why is “adults” a critical descriptor? Why even is “human” a critical descriptor? If differing sexes is not consiered relevant to the formula, what reason is there to latch on to any of the others? To abandon one tenet and claim the others must be upheld is baffling at best.
I realized why you chose the word deviant, but that would still depend on your definition of deviant. To some, anything other than plain old sex for the sake of procreation is deviant. Is hetero anal sex deviant? Oral? B&D? Masturbation? Birth control? That’s my point. What is deviant? As to why “adults” and “human” are critical decsriptors, that is simple; combined they are the litmus test for making a decision. Animals do not decide, they rely on instinct. Children decide, but those decisions are often not rational and too easilly swayed by outside influences. As to why only two, I believe that it would be impossible to fully share yourself (or appreciate that which is shared) with more than one person. This is hard to put into words, so bear with me… Well, the analogy that comes to mind is making Kool-Aid… You have the flavor and the sugar that combine to make the Kool-Aid, and when you add more of either part to the mix, things become more diluted. It’s not the same. It might look like Kool-Aid, but it sure doesn’t taste like it. Lam analogy, I know, but’s the best I can come up with a the moment.
To suggest its roots are genetic or otherwise hereditary is not only not supported by science, it’s just flat-out wrong.
I never said genetic nor hereditary, I said bilogical and biology is influenced by any number of factors. Here are just a few articles that I found.
[url=http://drkoop.com/newsdetail/93/525660.html]
http://drkoop.com/newsdetail/93/525660.html[/url]
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
From the last source…
There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.
If we assume natural selection to be a valid model for the animal kingdom, then the homosexual animal has no inherent means of passing on such a trait. It would be a genetic dead-end.
But recessive genes can survive in a blood line for thousands of years, lying dormant, waiting for the right mate to come forward, no? That’s how I learned it.
One needs only stimulate the proper release of chemicals, the proper combination of nerve centers in the brain, to form a sexual association with a target.
That’s physiology. You are manipulating the physical to get a physical reaction.
Anyway, I don’t think we will ever agree on this. I have enjoyed the discussion though.
Respectfully,
Sir Not Appearing In This Film
Wow, I managed to royally screw up those links. Let’s try again…
SNAITF
I think we have come to a point where we will simpley have to agree to disagree, as you believe it to be a wrong way and I don’t.
But you agree that there are ways which society continues to consider “wrong”...
That is a conlficting message, in my eyes.
I think it boils down to interpretation, and I think the whole point of Christ’s presence in the first place was that we’d been interpreting the message wrong. Otherwise there wouldn’t be the need to correct us.
Most of the inconsistancies that I remember were between the OT and the NT.
But the point I think you’re missing here is that homosexuality is not spoken of any less as a sin in the New as in the Old.
As to why only two, I believe that it would be impossible to fully share yourself (or appreciate that which is shared) with more than one person.
But this goes beyond just your opinion… polygamy is outlawed in the US, and the Mormons coincidentally got a revelation from a prophet saying “no more polygamy” right about the time the US said Utah would not be permitted statehood as long as polygamy was legal in the territory.
As for “adults” versus “children”, is that any more subjective than gender preference? The age of ascension varies by state, we teach sex to our children in our public schools when they’re just barely teenagers, hand out condoms for free, allow them to have abortions without parental consent or KNOWLEDGE… we seem to be entrusting them with a lot of sexual responsibility only to turn around and say that it’s morally wrong to have sex with one of them because they’re too immature to understand and think critically.
My overall point is that it seems strange to me for people to call others ignorant for thinking that there’s a line beyond which sex between people is immoral and should not be encouraged by society, while holding no compunctions for claiming that other acts are “obviously” wrong and don’t even need to be justified with a comparison.
The original comment is terribly hypocritical. I got banned from this website for nothing more than pointing our a few glaring contradictions in the wingnut worldview and then refusing to let responders get away with threatening me. Wingnuts, Rush Limbaugh in particular, INVENTED the selective censorship approach to public discourse; surely even the clueless losers who post on this site must know that. Consider how careully George Bush’s audiences are screened to insure that no dissent is ever seen in the media. Websites like KOS and DU are just copying this (apparently successful) behavior invented by the right. And yes, I agree that this is completely lame—copying your opponents bad behavior just lowers you to their level. KOS and DU should continue to allow every wingnut with a keyboard to rant away, the same way they do on Freepers, this site, and others. It’s not useful to solving any problems, but at least it keeps them busy and out of trouble.
Anarchist - I’m not sure what you’re getting at when looking at the “median family income for ENLISTED blacks”, and while I happen to be one of those white officer types (which, I suppose, may make my input immediately suspect to you), I think it’s important to say this: one’s race in the military has absolutely no effect on one’s pay. A Black E-5 makes exactly as much as a White E-5. Of course, looking at the median “family” income may or may not make a difference, but then that has nothing to do with the military - the Air Force doesn’t get to decide where my wife works.
Finally, if it’s Moore’s point that there are more “minority” Enlisted folks than not, I say, who cares? It may mean that many of them found serving their country to be an excellent way to overcome some of the disadvantages they faced in the civilian world due to their financial or racial status. I’ve met and respected more Black E-9s and General Officers than I can shake a stick at. You don’t get to be a Chief or General without working for it. The Director of the ANG (Lt. Gen Daniel James, who, as a side note spoke at my pilot training graduation - he’s the Godfather of one of my fellow graduates, who happened to be a white kid) is a Black man. If you’re asking why I believe I have the right to think this way, it’s because as the prior-enlisted son of a poor career enlisted Marine, I’ve lived it. EVERYONE has what I believe to be an equal opportunity for advancement in my Air Force.
In order to comply with the “remain on topic” rule, I’ll say this - banning non-liberal dissenters, no matter how civilized they may be, is common practice in my experience. Check out dahrjamailiraq.com (just don’t stir anything up while you’re there - I’m happy to report that he appears to have lost his following).