Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Deep in the Closet

By circletimessquare in Op-Ed
Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 09:27:53 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

I am proud to be an American. Having said that, there is a lot about my country I am also ashamed of. Perhaps a shining example of that shame would be one Senator Rick Santorum. That a shitstain like this could ever hold public office as high as he does is a travesty that does not reflect well on my country.

Now, before you object to me calling the eminent gentleman a shitstain, well, I must inform you that I am being completely accurate in my choice of words according to the very serious, very scholarly, very staid American Dialect Society. I am, of course, referring to the literal definition of the word santorum. The ADS announced that this new word and its definition was one of its 2004 Words of the Year.

Now, how this word came to be derived from the self-stated beliefs and political actions of the Senator himself segues nicely into a psychological point I want to make about flamingly homophobic men like Senator Rick Santorum. I firmly believe that some of the most ardent anti-homosexual proponents in this world are actually deeply closeted homosexuals themselves.

So, plug your nose and let us toss the psychosexual and psychopolitical Santorum salad.


First, let me qualify my antipathy to Senator Santorum. I will simply let his words speak for themselves:

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that.

It was Santorum's remarks that linked his name to a new definition for shitstain through the efforts of one angry sex advice columnist, Dan Savage.

Savage reacted strongly to United States Senator Rick Santorum's statements about homosexuality in an interview with the Associated Press published April 20, 2003. (See Santorum controversy for the details.) In the interview, Santorum describes homosexual acts as part of a class of deviant sexual behavior, including incest, polygamy, and zoophilia, which he said threaten society and the family. Furthermore Santorum stated that he believed consenting adults do not have a Constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts.

Savage was outraged by these statements. At the suggestion of a reader, Savage challenged his audience to come up with a sex-related definition for the word santorum as a satirical form of political protest, a smear campaign for the express purpose of "memorializ[ing] the Santorum scandal [...] by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head".

After Savage published several definitions suggested by readers, a vote was taken among the readers of his column. The winning definition "the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" was announced in the June 12, 2003 column.

Fans of Savage (among others) have made a concerted effort to make the newly coined term a part of the English language, setting up a web site for the purpose and employing Google bombing to drive that site to the first result slot for a Google search on "santorum". At its annual meeting in January 2005, the American Dialect Society selected "santorum" as the "Most Outrageous" word of the year.

There is a rather simple observation that cuts through much of conservative anti-homosexual politics. And that is: to consider homosexuality a threat to the family, heterosexuality, or marriage, one must first start with the assumption that the family, heterosexuality, or marriage are weak institutions/ impulses. Now, I don't know about you, but when I see the naked female form, I feel urges that aren't really influenced by what Jack and Mark are doing next door. To put it another away, sexuality is never simple, but this observation is: as a heterosexual, I don't care what homosexuals do, they simply don't matter to me. What sort of person is very interested in what homosexuals do?

In what way can homosexuals be considered a threat to my peace of mind? Or rather, what kind of person finds expressions of homosexuality interesting? For people of what psychological makeup is the instution of heterosexual marriage or the impulses of heterosexuality weak?

The answer to all of these questions is: homosexuals.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. However, if your childhood was deeply religious or conservative, then if you begin to have feelings for members of your own sex as you enter into puberty then one can imagine that the internal conflict between expectations and reality that unavoidably arises could be quite powerful. How does a child react and how does their reaction drive their character later in life? In their teenaged and young adult years, homosexuals fall into one of two camps: the ones who summon their courage and go through the often difficult process of coming out, and the other ones. The ones who cannot face the chasm between their upbringing and their organic feelings. The ones who respond by digging in their heels and driving themselves deeper into the closet. The ones whose adult future is one defined by this internal psychosexual conflict.

I'm not the only one who will tell you that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Senator Santorum will tell you the same:

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.

Without getting too deeply into the philosophical questions of privacy versus society, and completely sidestepping the whole red herring slippery slope argument Senator Santorum suggests (just because those issues are outside the scope of this story), let us instead examine the words of a man who would like to regulate your bedroom behaviors (remember, you might laugh at this man, but he's not funny: this is a US Senator speaking here, he wields real power over your life, even if, as recent history suggests, you do not live in the United States). Beyond all of the practical impossibilities involved with regulating bedroom behavior, to what kind of mind does such an impulse make sense?

Think about the motivations here behind the idea of regulating bedroom behavior. How and why does the "solution" Senator Santorum presents us make sense in his mind?

When I am in the bedroom, I'm not thinking about regulating my behavior, I'm not thinking about any higher superego mental faculties at all. For me, and most other people I believe, when I am in the bedroom it's about satisfying lower pleasures. Healthy, normal pleasures, but pleasures NOT related to higher mental faculties. And I couldn't imagine why I would want to or have to regulate those baser pleasures when I am in my bedroom with a willing partner. I'm not doing anything wrong. What kind of mind would cast suspicion on whether or not I am doing something wrong in expressing my normal organic sexual self?

What kind of mind indeed.

Maybe it makes sense to a mind who has spent his entire adult life regulating his baser instincts? Maybe regulating everyone's bedroom activities makes practical sense to a mind that has spent decades honing and exercising the police state mentality over their sexuality within their own mind, so that it is like a well-exercised muscle. Only to such a mind does it seem possible to exercise a police state mentality over sexuality, in terms of governmental policy.

Again, we're not talking about a stupid man, we're not talking about a man who cannot express his ideas and words. He is no simpleton. In fact, he is a very, very complex individual, perhaps more psychologically complex than the vast majority of people.

He is not a funny fringe character, he is very dangerous. He seeks power because seeking power is all he has ever known in his adult life: seeking power over his sexuality. Seeking power in life is a personal strength of his, because he has honed the skillset psychologically over his own sexuality like a powerful, well-exercised muscle, for a longer period of time and to a much stronger degree than any normal person. And of course, what I mean by a normal person is not to mean a heterosexual person, a normal person is a homosexual or heterosexual person who has made peace with their sexuality. It is not normal to not to have made peace with one's sexuality.

So this is a man with a very deep psychological issue. How deep?

Some straight men can recall friends from junior high school who had an interesting problem: they were a constant fount of unsolicited homophobic remarks. Perhaps these homophobic remarks reached a fever pitch in the locker room. Perhaps these homophobic remarks got louder when a good male friend showed an interest in a girl. But even at that young age, even if the other men were homophobic themselves for the more usual reasons- simple ignorance and bigotry, most non-homosexual teenagers could still perceive of a difference in motivations between them and their (somewhat) secretly homosexual peers: why was this person's mind constantly stuck on the issue homosexuality?

In other words, most neutral parties could see that for some of their loudly homophobic peers, the issue was not that they were homophobic (again, considering the psychology, they were also most probably the most overtly aggressively homophobic), the issue was that the homosexual issue constantly reasserted itself.

For your average heterosexual, even the garden variety homophobic ones, homosexuality is never really thought about. In fact, among heterosexual men who are not homophobic, you can say that they can even view homosexual pornography to no great effect: they won't like it, but they won't hate it. Their reaction? They just won't care. It simply is not a threat to them. For them, what makes their penises hard is female anatomy. The expression of homosexuality simply does not threaten them in any way. (In fact, this observation is key to the entire national debate over homosexuality.)

You can see then how the conflict going on within the teenaged homosexual in denial plays itself out in public: the deeply rooted desires versus the expectations of their upbringing in traditional male roles. It is a very powerful conflict. Now, draw the analogy between:

  1. the teenaged homosexual in denial and his deeply rooted aversion to homosexuality and his seemingly incongruent obsession with homosexuality, and
  2. contemporary conservative American politics.
Exactly what is motivating some conservative leaders to be concerned with homosexuality so much?

Some of you must be thinking that I am going way out on the limb here. "OK," you might say, "maybe you can find one or two rare birds for whom this psychosexual conflict drives their anti-homosexual politics... but the vast majority of anti-homosexual people have at the root of their beliefs simple, traditional values."

And I would agree with you on that when you are talking about your average joe on the street. But what of the most highly anti-homosexual, the ones who would move to the forefront of the anti-homosexual efforts? The ones most highly motivated to achieve political power to pursue their anti-homosexual agenda? Wouldn't you find a concentration of these people in higher echelons of conservative American politics?

Furthermore, if some homophobic conservative leaders are indeed closeted homosexuals, is this a psychological debilitating position? If you think I am going out on a limb, let me take you dangling off the tree branch: maybe the opposite is true. Maybe, the closeted conservative homosexual's psychology is in fact the prime motivator behind their chosen profession and their chosen point of view, and even, therefore, their concomitant success.

Some of you might know of The Drudge Report, but if you don't, it is a wildly successful right wing muckraking and gossip blog, run by Matt Drudge, an outed homosexual. Consider the following scene from last year's presidential campaign:

Indeed, right now Bush and the Congressional Republicans are trying to exploit "class value" wedge issues by promoting an anti-gay marriage Constitutional Amendment, one that they know will never be affirmed by enough states to become law. It is political opportunism at its most base.

Yet, how does Drudge, who has been outed by a variety of people -- including David Brock -- since we first wrote our June, 2000, editorials justify his anti-gay innuendo?

Last week, he headlined a series of photos (PDF of page from July 8) -- along with an extended commentary -- that insidiously tries to imply that Kerry and Edwards aren't "real men" because of photos Drudge highlights showing them patting each other on the back and so forth. In this strange cover story, Drudge breathlessly fanned the flames of gay-effeminate prejudices:

"Hugs, kisses to the cheek, affectionate touching of the face, caressing of the back, grabbing of the arm, fingers to the neck, rubbing of the knees...

John Kerry and John Edwards can't keep their hands off each other!

In the past 48 hours, 'candidate handling' has become the top buzz on the trail."

Of course, the photos of Kerry and Edwards are just your standard political glad handing, arm-in-arm, patting-the-back stock-in-trade. Every politician engages in such gestures. If you assemble photos of Bush with other male politicians, he's a regular "touchy-feely" kind of guy. Just take a look at this group of photos a reader sent BuzzFlash ("Matt Drudge is a Douchebag," AngryFinger.org).

So how can Drudge, an outed gay, post a totally slimy gay exploitative piece that doesn't even make any sense, in the context of run-of-the-mill male political body contact?

How indeed? What is the driving force in this man? Drudge was at it again last month, all over an "extremely controversial" remark by an edgy comedian involving gays. Thank the almighty we have Matt Drudge protecting us from Chris Rock jokes involving gays. That is: making a big deal about an issue of gayness that isn't an issue at all... except in the mind of homosexuals in denial.

I just never understood organizations like the Log Cabin Republicans. That's like being a pro-slavery African American in 1850, or an anti-suffrage American woman in 1880. What are the psychological roots of the politics of self-hatred and self-denial?

Now consider the political scandal last month involving a right wing muckraker posing as a journalist at a presidential news conference, Jeff Gannon aka James Guckert:

The initial controversy started at President George W. Bush's January 26, 2005 press conference, at which Gannon asked the president the following question:

Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid was talking about soup lines. And Senator Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work - you've said you are going to reach out to these people - how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?

...

Guckert was soon discovered by bloggers to have registered several domain names of a sexual nature, including Hotmilitarystud.com and Militaryescorts4m.com. Guckert said that he had registered the domain names for a client who ended up not using them. Further inspection showed that many sexually explicit photos of Guckert existed online, with accompanying ads appearing to offer himself as a gay prostitute for clients seeking a military type. Gannon commented that these activities were in his "past," however some noted that many of his online gay profiles were still active after he had resigned from Talon News [4] (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/if-this-is-your-past-then-why-are.html) .

These findings had some critics questioning Guckert's sexual orientation. Supporters denounce this speculation as irrelevant, but others say that it reveals hypocrisy on the part of Guckert, his employers, the White House and/or the Republican Party. Opponents note, for instance, that Guckert had made statements in articles that could be perceived as anti-gay or homophobic. During the 2004 election, he wrote that John Kerry "might someday be known as `the first gay president,'" and that Kerry had supported "the pro-gay agenda." [5] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36733-2005Feb18.html)

And for the final blow to anyone who thinks that a deeply closeted homosexual cannot find great success in politics, consider recently resigned New Jersey Governor James McGreevey. While not a conservative politician, no one can consider his career, and then conclude that deeply closeted and immensely successful politicians are mutually exclusive ideas or even a strange concept.

Dropping a political bombshell, New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey announced his resignation Thursday after revealing that he is gay and that he had an adulterous affair with a man.

With his wife standing by his side, McGreevey -- a father of two -- spoke in calm tones as he described his struggle with his sexuality, "a certain sense that separated me from others." It was something that he said began as a child.

"At a point in every person's life, one has to look deeply into the mirror of one's soul and decide one's unique truth in the world, not as we may want to see it or hope to see it, but as it is," McGreevey said.

"And so, my truth is that I am a gay American," the Democrat said.

McGreevey's surprise resignation came as Golan Cipel, a former security aide to the governor, had readied a sexual harassment lawsuit against the governor, two Democratic sources told CNN. Cipel resigned his post in 2002.

Again, let me reassert the basic premise of the idea of conservative anti-gay politics being derived from the psychology of closeted conservative homosexuals so as not to appear hypocritical in my attacks: there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Period. End of story.

The wrong that is going on here is that what is driving conservative anti-homosexual politics, perhaps in all societies, perhaps throughout all time, is that closeted homosexuals are living out their psychosexual conflict on the political stage. And they are doing it in such a way that the vast quantities of psychological energy derived from their desperate struggle to deny their true selves is being used to deny the rights of psychologically well-adjusted homosexuals. And for us heterosexuals, the spill-over effect is to drive forward the politics of other conservative interests that are rooted in the desire to control our personal lives.

In any other forum than national politics, the deeply closeted homosexual is a sad figure deserving of empathy. But when their cowardice to face their true selves, their denial, their hypocrisy threatens our rights, we are talking about a different issue.

So again: there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. But there is a lot wrong with denying your true self in such a way that you would rather see the rights of everyone else changed so you can continue your personal psychological charade. And drive yourself to positions of political power in order to achieve the effect.

As an analogy of the concept, let me introduce you to the Napoleon Complex. This is a very politically incorrect construct: that some short men are driven to do great things due to a feeling of inferiority simply because they are of short stature. So while their taller peers are out trying to woo women, they instead are building great careers in business or politics or, as with the case with the original Napoleon, in the military.

In reality it does not matter if you are short in order to tap into the skills you need in order to become successful. The obvious point here is that you have to WORK in order to be successful. Talent is not enough. Work and talent together define success.

And so, if you perceive yourself as being inferior even though you are not, you probably wind up working for your success to a measure probably much greater than your equally talented, but less motivated peers enjoy. You drive yourself to greater heights of accomplishment. The point is that here, with the Napoleon Complex, a psychological issue acts like a personal dynamo, a machine in someone's character that drives them to great success.

So psychological vulnerabilities that can be viewed in one light as an impediment, can actually be seen in another light as a driving force of success. Therefore, if you are a gregarious, intelligent man with charisma and the ability to build respect and trust, natural qualities of true leadership, then politics is a logical field for you to enter, and you should prove at least moderately successful in your endeavours.

Now for the twist: if you are of a conservative upbringing but you have homosexual feelings, then you might think that you are inferior as opposed to your "pure" conservative brethren. And so we have introduced a psychosexual dynamic in your character that can serve as a great driving force for your success, similar in conception to how the Napoleon Complex works.

Yes, I really am saying this: I think that the conservative political leadership, not only in the US, but throughout the world in all societies, and throughout all political history of mankind, is dominated by homosexuals who are in the closet. Because of one simple fact: homosexuality is not threatening to heterosexuals. They just don't care about it. But the expression of homosexuality IS threatening to one particluar group of people: homosexuals who were raised in conservative households and are still in the closet and who have not come to grips with their organic desires yet. And this aversion to their sexual identity drives not only their politics, but even their choice to enter the field of conservative politics in the first place, and their strong desire to see the snuffing out of homosexual expression, that which threatens their precarious hold on their psychologically difficult position.

So maybe you think this story of mine about the possible psychosexual roots of people like Rick Santorum's political beliefs is nothing but a politically motivated smear campaign of mine.

To which I can only reply: please don't mention smear and santorum in the same sentence, you don't want to thrust too deeply into the good Senator's delicate psychology.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Senator Rick Santorum is a deeply closeted homosexual.
o Yes, closeted homosexuals drive conservative politics. 33%
o No, traditional values drive conservative politics and your smear campaign is laughable. 8%
o Maybe, but nothing can be done about it and it can't be proven. 10%
o Who cares, it's none of our business, debate the issues, not the personalities. 29%
o This idea is teh ghey, and I think you are teh ghey, because you're just as obsessed. 5%
o Yes, and I can prove it. I am in Santorum's closet. Literally. I'm his gimp, locked in a trunk. Send help. 12%

Votes: 87
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Google
o Senator Rick Santorum
o American Dialect Society
o santorum
o 2004 Words of the Year
o his words speak for themselves
o Dan Savage
o The Drudge Report
o the following scene
o at it again last month
o Log Cabin Republicans
o Jeff Gannon aka James Guckert
o James McGreevey
o Napoleon Complex
o Also by circletimessquare


Display: Sort:
Deep in the Closet | 434 comments (387 topical, 47 editorial, 0 hidden)
Bizarrely (2.85 / 7) (#4)
by citizen lame on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 09:46:56 AM EST

American people have somehow associated with themselves ideas of rebelliousness, lack of inhibition, and the importance of personal liberty, yet the ideal cherished most fondly by US citizens is complacency, clearly evinced by widespread conservativism.

We like to have our cake and eat it too (none / 1) (#104)
by LilDebbie on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 10:37:23 AM EST

America, where you're free to say anything, but no one does because that would be impolite.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
yes (none / 1) (#207)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:45:06 AM EST

people unfortunately prefer quiet lies over rude truths

and conservatives know that all too well


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

*smerk* (none / 1) (#241)
by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:26:22 AM EST

nt

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Give me convenience or give me death n/t (none / 1) (#211)
by brain in a jar on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 03:56:05 AM EST


Life is too important, to be taken entirely seriously.
[ Parent ]

Selfish hedonism (3.00 / 17) (#17)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 11:40:52 AM EST

It is interesting to note that many conservative politicians and preachers refer to homosexuality as "selfish hedonism."  This betrays the fact that they would view a homosexual tryst as an intensely pleasurable activity.  Indeed, it requires every once of their will to resist this overwhelming temptation.

As you might be aware, Alan Keyes's 19 year old daughter recently came out of the closet.  Keyes kicked his daughter out of his house.  She is presently homeless.  So much for family values.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour

big sexxy joe, you rock (none / 0) (#205)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:43:37 AM EST

and you rock in the run dmc while they were still in hollis queens way man - original, fresh, strong

;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

To circletimessquare: (2.25 / 12) (#18)
by JChen on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 11:50:13 AM EST

I completely disagree with your statements. I believe them to be a personal reflection of your own poor character, a petty satisfaction of your own cynical whims, to smear Sen. Santorum in this disgusting way.

Let me address this in answer to your points: Firstly, if Americans indeed choose to vote for Santorum for President, why do you have a problem with that? If America sees Santorum as the best leader for the nation, whose own moral values reflect that of their own, then would not that be the ultimate excercise of these democratic values? Democracy is not something that is static- it necessarily changes with the times, because otherwise, it would not be democracy anymore, would it? For people like to you uphold it as such is almost like a theocracy, prosletyzing the very abstract and ironically dismissing the opinions of others should they contradict with your own. Yes, that would be democracy- a democracy for just yourself and the people like you.

Also, despite the outcry from the small but quite vocal homosexual community, you must respect Sen. Santorum for being so direct with his views. One might not personally agree with his opinions, but one must respect him for having the fortitude to let his constituents know exactly where he stands on the issue. I personally believe this to be a hallmark of an excellent Senator, of which he upholds the trust and respect between him and his constituents that he tells them exactly as he sees it so they know how he is doing. There's no sugarcoating, because he knows that Pennsylvanians deserve the absolute truth.

I took a lot of calls about the Marriage Amendment when it was up for vote, and just as many called to denounce it as to support it. Just because the voices we are more likely to hear are often left leaning does not mean that there are not many others who still hold traditional values dear to their hearts. These people believe that the homosexual movement is a representation of the decay of traditional moral values, and believe that Santorum was right in portraying homosexual acts as a lewd sign of an increasingly nihilistic society. Will you then vilify these supporters of Santorum as closet homosexuals as well?

I am a Pennsylvanian, and have personally worked with him as an intern in person. I must say that as Sen. Santorum has been elected, reelected, and again reelected, it does not necessarily mean that Pennsylvanians agree with his personal opinions. Rather, it means that Pennsylvanians trust in him to do what is best for Pennsylvania. The job of a Senator boils down to "Do I do what Pennsylvanians tell me to do, or do I do what's best for them?", and "Do I do what the majority tells me to do, or do I also compromise with the minority?" When's the last time you had to balance these objectives? When's the last time you did it every single day of your life for more than a decade?

It takes an extraordinary man of enormous fortitude to consistently stand for what he believes in, especially in a political arena. Sen. Santorum is also incredibly hardworking, and has brought many benefits to Pennsylvania. You see, circletimessquare, it is not about how much you can denounce something. Anybody can be a cynic like you, gleefully poking at whatever fancies you on a certain day, but at the day's end, how many entries are written in our history books about cynics? How many entries are written about those who have served his people to the utmost of his abilities? Do you know why Sen. Santorum has been so popular in Pennsylvania? It is not because we are all rednecks, nor is it because we are all closet homosexuals. People who disagreed with his statements of opinion have casted their vote for him regardless. It is because people respect him for his work, for what he has done for us, for how he is clear in his stances and yet never turned his back to his constituents. That is the true mark of a great Senator. For what it is worth, I wish that you can one day meet him in person, so that instead of smugly reading Savage Love, you may find out for yourself the Senator Santorum you never knew.

Let us do as we say.

holy shit (2.00 / 5) (#19)
by circletimessquare on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:06:59 PM EST

"I wish that you can one day meet him in person, so that instead of smugly reading Savage Love, you may find out for yourself the Senator Santorum you never knew."

are you his gay lover or something? i mean you clearly have your head firmly planted in his ass

quote:

"AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that."

any man who would say those words is an enemy of the values you declare above as dear to you and your fellow Pennsylvanians

so you're simply deluded about who you are talking about

can you put the words Senator Santorum said above in ANY sort of context where it does not conflict with your values?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry that the world is so (none / 1) (#20)
by JChen on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:22:34 PM EST

black and white for you. I don't see a problem in the conflict of values that you are declaring; I would rather vote for someone who I do not necessarily agree with but is clear on his stances, than someone who may declare himself to be in line with my views, but whom I do not trust. Santorum has never done a thing that has broken the trust between him and his constituents; he has always been forthcoming with his opinions.

Ultimately, I see you as nothing more than the scores of hysterical street preachers who have talked a lot of talk, but has never walked the walk.

Let us do as we say.
[ Parent ]

it IS very simple: (2.25 / 4) (#21)
by circletimessquare on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:34:43 PM EST

no, really:

to view a homosexual as a threat to family values or heterosexual marriage CARRIES WITH IT THE ASSUMPTION THAT FAMILY VALUES AND HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE ARE WEAK INSTITUTIONS

so my question to you then is also very simple:

why do you have so little faith in family values and heterosexual marriage?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Don't know about jChin but.... (2.50 / 6) (#24)
by mcgrew on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 01:21:23 PM EST

When the married CEO of a huge corporation is ousted because of an extramarital affair with a subordinate, and the newspapers and MBC and CBS and CNN and ABC all talk of the consequenses of "office romances" without ONCE mentioning his adultery, as if the fact that someone's marriage doesn't matter at all, that a married man has the RIGHT to sleep around, I'd say the institution of marriage is in some very VERY deep shit and may not survive another two generations.

Now take your meds, you're making the horses nervous.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

this is a common fallacy (2.00 / 3) (#58)
by circletimessquare on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 10:38:20 PM EST

if you went back 2000 years, you'd find an equal proportion of people who respect the institution of marriage and those who don't respect it

if you go forward 2000 years, you'd find an equal proportion of people who will respect the institution of marriage and those who won't respect it

the more things change, the more they stay the same

welcome to the human condition, make peace with it

we are not falling apart as a society, civilization is not decaying

the only thing failing is your ability to perceive reality: you have historical myopia


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

If you went back 2000 years, (none / 0) (#106)
by LilDebbie on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:07:21 AM EST

the institution of marriage as we know it did not exist. Romans weren't exactly well known for their marital fidelity.

If you go back 1000 years, you'll discover a time when homosexuals were burned at the stake.

Things sure are the same, eh?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
actually, your assertions support mine ;-) (none / 1) (#122)
by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:00:14 PM EST

"the institution of marriage as we know it did not exist. Romans weren't exactly well known for their marital fidelity."

and you are saying that is different today somehow? divorce rates, infidelity rates... it's exactly the same

"If you go back 1000 years, you'll discover a time when homosexuals were burned at the stake."

and you are saying that is different today somehow? remember that kid in wyoming? been to the muslim world lately?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I hardly consider isolated attacks (none / 0) (#126)
by LilDebbie on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:15:51 PM EST

equal to the institutional burning of homosexuals in the Middle Ages, but I suppose I have this perspective thing that keeps getting in the way of True Understanding.

Oddly enough, the Roman reference supports my assertation as well. Things were not always as such in Rome, but the orgies and general decadence were one of many preludes to the fall of what once was a mighty empire.

I'm not suggesting marital infedility was the cause of the Roman collapse, rather a symptom of its impending doom. Ergo, if we apply this to present day, fixing the marriage problem is certainly not going to fix things in general for the West, but encouraging greater decadence isn't going to help anything. In fact, it is my belief that it will contribute to the downfall.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
heh (none / 1) (#147)
by bradasch on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:10:41 PM EST

"I'm not suggesting marital infedility was the cause of the Roman collapse, rather a symptom of its impending doom. Ergo, if we apply this to present day, fixing the marriage problem is certainly not going to fix things in general for the West, but encouraging greater decadence isn't going to help anything. In fact, it is my belief that it will contribute to the downfall."

I'm going to repeat cts. I fail to see how some gay guys can affect my marriage, or my vision of marriage. What exactly "fixing marriage" means to you?

[ Parent ]

It's not so much about marriage (none / 1) (#165)
by LilDebbie on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 04:21:29 PM EST

than family. The ideal here is a two-parent, heterosexual household; mom, dad, the kids, and maybe a grandparent or two if you don't want to put them into a nursing home. Currently, and I think this is safe to say, much of the West has moved away from this ideal, especially with the rise of single parents. We consider anything outside of this ideal to be destructive to society.

Now, the GBLT movement has shown itself to be very determined to spread the idea of homosexual parenting as normal. This in turn normalizes single parent households and other undesireable family arrangements. Allowing gay marriage would no doubt encourage them to continue to integrate the idea of a homosexual family, much like the civil rights movement of the 60s to destroy social race barriers once the legal ones were gone (not that I'm saying the latter was a bad thing, simply to illustrate what I think would likely happen in the event gay marriage is legalized in America).

The percieved result of such events is homosexuality and homosexual family models being taught to our kids in school as normal under the auspices of fostering tolerance. A few dominos later and you get kids growing up with a greater tendency to both homosexual and single parent households, this leading in our eyes to greater degeneracy and delinquancy in the next generation.

In short, it's a "won't someone please think of the children" argument, and there a lot of holes you can poke through it, but there it is.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
man you are fucked up (none / 1) (#179)
by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:20:33 PM EST

take a child raised in your "ideal" household

take a child raised in your degenerate one parent or homosexual household

which one has it better?

do you know the answer?

the one who is getting the most love

considering how badly your "ideal" one father one mother family can treat its children, the case oculd be made, not from any radical gay agenda pov, but form a cold clinic psychological pov, it can be PROVEN as FACT that some children raised in a one parent or homosexual household can wind up BETTER ADJUSTED than many children raised on your "ideal" one mother one father household

what the FUCK does one mother one father offer a child that can not be found in a single parent or homosexual household?

it's not about ANY OTHER FACTOR except one:

IT

IS

ABOUT

THE

LOVE

THE

CHILD

GETS

PERIOD!

END OF STORY!

no other fucking factor can determine how good or bad a child has it in ANY hypothetical family you could eve rpossibly devise!

you're arugment about the "ideal" family is UTTER BULLSHIT

not from some radical gay agenda pov

BUT PURELY FORM A COLD CLINICAL PSYCHOLGICAL POV

THE IDEAL FAMILY IS THE LOVING FAMILY

i would support legislation taking children from a one mother one father family and putting it into a homosexual family if it could be proven that the one mother one father family is composed of toxic unloving individuals and the homosexual family were giving nurturing people

if a woman is married to a toxic asshole, she is better off divorcing him and raising her children alone, and if she stays with the toxic asshole, she will hate herself and do you know what kind of kids she will raise? MALADJUSTED LOSERS

what the FUCK is wrong with you????????

IT IS ONLY ABOUT THE LOVE, AND NO OTHER FACTOR BARELY COMES INTO RELEVANCE IN TERMS OF THE BEST SCENARIO FOR RAISING HEALTHY HAPPY CHILDREN


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

heh, again (3.00 / 2) (#222)
by bradasch on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:27:54 AM EST

Your ideal of family, as you described, can be as degenerate as it gets. A lot of "degeneracy and delinquancy" we see today comes from "heterosexual families". So, I don't see why homosexuality could make this worst, considering that homosexuals are a *very small* part of society today.

The west moved to a model where you worry much more about yourself than about your offspring. You can see that in the large amount of people that say "I won't have kids because it'll save me money, and they would just interfere with my career". The problem is, some of this people still have kids, and treat them as an annoyance. I've seen this in real life, and it's awful.

Actually, I really don't care if gay guys adopt children, as long as they provide good care and love for them. Actually, I think about that for anyone adopting children.

Also, I know some gay couples that are much, much more stable than "traditional" couples, which in my opinion, would make than better parents.

You seem to have a preconceived vision of gay guys as "Mr. Slave" from South Park. You'd be amazed at the amount of homosexuals that are quite normal, regular, actually.

[ Parent ]

and gay couples can be abusive (none / 0) (#252)
by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:21:34 PM EST

what's your point? I wasn't questioning the stability of gay relationships.

Your second paragraph, however, illustrates an important point. Today, marriage is something people do because they love each other, not to start a family. This is an error. Marriage is about family, that is, children, and only involves love because it's generally a bad idea to have kids with someone you don't like.

for the most part (as far as I can tell), the GLBT movement wants rights married couples enjoy with regards to their partners (hospital visitation, inheritence, etc). they don't need to further dilute the family ideal to achieve this. it's called a civil union. the GLBT could have them in a month if only they'd drop the marriage thing, but no, we've got ourselves this shit storm.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
superior: a child raised by a single parent (none / 0) (#271)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 03:23:26 PM EST

it is superior that a child is raised by a single parent, if staying with someone you don't love because of arbitrary societal standards means you turn into a self-loathing person who raises a psychologically maladjusted child

i'm glad you think forcing people to stay together who don't love each other anymore somehow is supposed to create better adjusted children

unfortunately, you're flat out wrong


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'm not, but you wouldn't believe me (none / 0) (#276)
by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 03:50:02 PM EST

What do you think divorce does to a child? What do you think custody battles do to a child? What do you think having to live in two homes because dad's got you on the weekends does to a child? Answer me motherfucker.

/me is getting a little testy. This is fun!

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
it does awful things (none / 0) (#279)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 04:17:58 PM EST

what does living with an alcoholic do to a child?

what does living with an unresponsive unemotional self-loathing person do to a child?

what does living with someone who sleeps around all the time and never comes home do to a child?

measurably more than the divorce


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

the problem with generalizations (none / 0) (#291)
by bradasch on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:34:00 PM EST

"What do you think divorce does to a child?"

If you have only one answer to that question, you have a big problem.

Not all divorces are litigious. Some happen to be a nice arrangement between the couple involved, and result in a much better environment for the children. I've seen this happen in real life.

I've also seen divorces doing nasty things to a kid too, but I believe it's mainly because the parents decide to put the kid as a bargain merchandise. THAT does bad things to a child.

Dude, this is a huge topic, and no generalization can explain it decently. Again, this applies to gay couples.

[ Parent ]

Have you noticed? (none / 0) (#293)
by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:36:11 PM EST

This is a huge thread.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
What do you think? (none / 1) (#319)
by Have A Nice Day on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:54:35 AM EST

What the hell do you think spending the formative years of ones life in a house with two parents who don't speak except to shout at each other and have an abusive and loveless relationship does to a child?

I lived that life and I would have absolutely loved it had my parents had got divorced and made themselves happy, rather than live in a tense and cold house through my late childhood and teens.

Sure two homes and parents dating other people is something of a mess, but it's better than out and out psychological warfare every day. And that's just from two people who were staying together for the children. If they were somehow locked together legally I think there would probably have been murder.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Or perhaps (none / 0) (#332)
by LilDebbie on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:36:45 AM EST

if they were locked together legally, there would not be any obligation to 'love' one another, which, oddly enough, causes much of the fighting (not the only cause of course, I imagine financial matters could easily cause friction). You may consider such a loveless setup to also be harmful to children, but what is at question is what is most effective. There are exceptions to every rule.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Perhaps (none / 1) (#337)
by Have A Nice Day on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:57:53 AM EST

But there exists a societal obligation to do so. Also, the idea of a sterile reproductive business relationship makes me shiver. People want to pursue happiness, for most of them this means a relationship, if the one they are in fails then I firmly believe that it is best "for the children" for everyone to continue making themselves happy. I don't think this is putting themselves in front of the children, I think it is directly in the child's interest to grow up around happy adults who live and love as fully as they wish. Whilst I don't think promiscuous behaviour necessarily sets a good example, I don't define divorce and remarriage a sensible number of times to be promiscuity.

Legal loveles marriages make me think of royalty and arranged betrothals. These things generally do not produce happy well adjusted people...

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
I don't get it (none / 1) (#288)
by bradasch on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:26:28 PM EST

What's the difference between a civil union and marriage? One has children involved and the other doesn't?

Is this discussion down to semantics now? Or is it about religious definitions?

Marriage is what it always has been: an union between two people who want to share and enjoy each other's life, and sometimes it produces children. Sometimes it's about fear of loneliness too, and that can create relationships not based in love, which are potentially dangerous.

Notice that my definition above doesn't exclude gays or lesbians. When I realized that, I understood that, logically, I can't oppose gay marriage. It's very simple.

The "shit storm" is not one-sided, as you imply. It comes from both directions, and to me it seems you are part of it.

[ Parent ]

Your definition is wrong (none / 0) (#292)
by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:34:43 PM EST

at least in the sense "it always has been." Marriage has been, for millenia, about procreation. That's why they were often arranged. Love rarely had anything to do with a marriage until after the children were born and the hormones took over.

Then came the women's movement and it's been downhill ever since (this sentence is a troll).

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
you're mistaken (3.00 / 2) (#306)
by bradasch on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:07:04 PM EST

"Marriage has been, for millenia, about procreation."

You are confusing "marriage" and "sex". For millenia, procreation was done through acts of sex. Fixed marriages were done mostly for political/economical reasons. Procreation occurs, very often, without marriage at all.

You have absolutely no idea what marriage is about.

[ Parent ]

Fortunately, it isn't up to you... (3.00 / 2) (#300)
by MrMikey on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 06:35:47 PM EST

Today, marriage is something people do because they love each other, not to start a family. This is an error. Marriage is about family, that is, children, and only involves love because it's generally a bad idea to have kids with someone you don't like.
Marriage has been and is "about" many things... the forging of clan or family ties, the exchange of property, the propagation of the genetic material of the husband (both were propagated, of course, but the male's reproductive control was empasized), the production of male heirs, companionship, love, and, yes, the production of offspring. A "family" (which, throughout almost all of history, and in much of the world today, certainly wasn't a "nuclear family", btw) is about more than children.

So, tell me, would you bar marriage from couples who couldn't or didn't want to procreate? You do realize that we aren't running out of children (or instances of your parochial conception of the "ideal family", either), right?

Am I concerned about the well-being of our society, and the raising of our children? Of course! Healthy families come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, however, and I've yet to see a rational basis for excluding certain sorts of families just because some don't find them to be "ideal".

As for same-sex couples, they want to marry for all of the reasons that mixed-sex couples want to marry, including the raising of children (and, in the case of lesbian couples, the bearing and raising of children). Why have two institutions just because some people find same-sex relationships "icky", or others have a quaint notion of "marriage purity" that they somehow think will be "diluted" because alternatives exist? Our society has more important things to do than waste time and energy pandering to bigotry and ignorance.

That "shit storm" you refer to is the fight for equality... and I've no doubt that most of the fights for equality through the ages were regarded as unnecessary "shit storms" by those who already had it.

[ Parent ]

Argh. I'd urge you to listen yourself (3.00 / 2) (#224)
by slaida1 on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:00:45 AM EST

..but I fear you already do and it isn't helping:

"A few dominos later and you get kids growing up with a greater tendency to both homosexual and single parent households, this leading in our eyes to greater degeneracy and delinquancy in the next generation."

You talk like there's so many supporters behind these views that you feel you don't need to explain how or why degeneracy and delinquancy are connected with homosexuality or single parenting. You talk like there's an established level of "normal" that everybody is aware of, some just choose to ignore it.

Let me tell you, there isn't "normal" and there shall not be any normals no matter how much you or other supporters kick and scream about it. And there is a chance that this difference might escalate to a situtation where you literally find yourself kicking and screaming for your views.

Interfering other peoples privacy is a serious matter and some don't seem to understand how serious until they go too far to a point where there's no turning back.

[ Parent ]

Degeneracy and Delinquacy (none / 0) (#238)
by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:15:00 AM EST

I should've listened to that little voice in the back of my head that said these were a poor choice of terms, but alas.

To explain: first, there is a clear link between children raised by single parents and how likely they will end up in a juvenile detention center. I do not know if there is any similar link with children raised by homosexual couples, but since the latter encourages the former (according to gay marriage opponents at least), there is an indirect relation.

Secondly, although I haven't seen data on it I would be amazed if this is not true, children raised by homosexual couples are more likely to become homosexual. Now, you're probably thinking, "so?", but remember that much of the right considers homosexuality bad in and of itself, and anything that might cause more homosexuality is therefore a bad thing. Note, only the far right opinion is to ban homosexual behavior (that freedom thing kind of gets in the way), but that doesn't mean the rest of the right likes or even condones homosexuality.

Hope that clarifies the issue.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Bloodpressure rising (2.50 / 2) (#247)
by slaida1 on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:55:35 AM EST

To explain: first, there is a clear link between children raised by single parents and how likely they will end up in a juvenile detention center.

Lies, damn lies and statistics. There isn't a clear link without statistics and with statistics, there are links everywhere, poverty, bad neighbourhood, alcohol, drug abuse, peer pressure, community taboos, etc.

As for that second point... Do I need to even say anything? You'd be amazed, and then rest of the post built on top if that.

I can't help but feel that this whole gay-issue wouldn't exist without belief into that invisible imaginary friend in the sky that just... Wont.Fade.Away. Arrrrgh! I definitely was born at least 1000 years too soon, I don't want this religion crap and it's consequences!

[ Parent ]

A quick googling (none / 0) (#248)
by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 12:35:05 PM EST

I know you probably hate the Heritage Foundation, but this isn't their research, they're just posting others':

Startling data available from Wisconsin--the one state that has identified some of the family background of its delinquents--indicate that the probability of incarceration for juveniles in families headed by never-married single mothers might be at least as much as 22 times higher than for juveniles in the two-parent family. - link

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Oh, and regarding the imaginary friend in the sky (none / 1) (#249)
by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 12:41:56 PM EST

While God may be imaginary, His covenant is not. The prophets weren't just arbitrarily making up rules and regulations for shits and giggles; they were trying to impose order on a people and they used the imaginary friend in the sky to get people to do what they were told. His imaginary status does not invalidate His law.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
"Imaginary" means "not real." (none / 1) (#265)
by MrMikey on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 02:20:05 PM EST

"While God may be imaginary, His covenant is not."
If your God is imaginary, then there is no "He", and the "convenant" is an invention of Man, pure and simple, no matter what authority is claimed by the men doing the writing.
"The prophets weren't just arbitrarily making up rules and regulations for shits and giggles; they were trying to impose order on a people and they used the imaginary friend in the sky to get people to do what they were told."
Oh, dear... social order based on lies and authoritarianism as a social good? I could see this position as having some validity in extreme cases, but we don't think Thor makes lighting and thunder, and we don't think we need to beat drums to drive away the monster eating the Moon during lunar eclipses, so I hope you won't be disappointed if I take a dim view of social order founded on untruths. We can do better than that now.
"His imaginary status does not invalidate His law."
The law may have value, but it's claimed basis can still be as fake as a three dollar bill.

[ Parent ]
What is the basis of law then? (none / 0) (#275)
by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 03:48:01 PM EST

Make me a rational argument stating why I shouldn't kill people. Remember, you can't say "because it's wrong" because that falls back on the laws set down by bearded guy in the sky.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Reasons not to kill... (none / 0) (#301)
by MrMikey on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 06:55:31 PM EST

Make me a rational argument stating why I shouldn't kill people. Remember, you can't say "because it's wrong" because that falls back on the laws set down by bearded guy in the sky.
You need to be precise about what you're asking:
  1. Why shouldn't I kill this particular person for this particular reason?
  2. Why shouldn't I kill people when I feel the desire to do so?
  3. Why shouldn't people, in general, kill when they wish to?
I sense that you're asking (3), so that's what I'll answer.

A reason you, in general, shouldn't kill is that the general activity of killing as desired lessens the stability and community that makes long-term planning possible, and fosters co-operation, which leads, in general, to a safer, more productive society.

Another reason you could have for not killing is that you feel empathy for other human beings, and understand that your killing of another would cause pain for many, including yourself. By extension, general killing will lead to an increase in suffering.

Yet another reason you could have for not killing is that you value creativity, and the killing of a person would mean the loss of their current and future creativity. By extension, general killing will lead to a general loss of creativity.

Other reasons are possible... no "bearded guy in the sky" needed. And, like other societies (even those with "The Bearded One Says So!" as their moral basis), you can find instances in which the killing of another is justified, or even a more moral act than not killing them.

I sense (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe we need an imaginary "Ultimate Alpha Male" as the basis for our morality. If so, it saddens me that you'd be willing to sell your reason so cheaply.

[ Parent ]

We do not require an Ultimate Alpha Male (none / 0) (#333)
by LilDebbie on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:42:02 AM EST

but we do require an absolute law, taken as granted. For many centuries that has been the Ten Commandments (at least in the West). It's worked well thus far, I don't see why we must change it.

As regarding your rationalizations against murder, they all rely on presuppositions that you are not allowed to make when forming a rational argument. Saying "don't do A because it reduces B" only flies if you accept B as valid.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Have you actually ever... (3.00 / 3) (#346)
by MrMikey on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:52:34 AM EST

read the Ten Commandments (any of the three different versions)? Here, check this out...
  1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
  2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
  3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
  4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
  5. Thou shalt not kill.
  6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
  7. Thou shalt not steal.
  8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
  9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
  10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
Now, let's see how this "absolute law" matches up with our law...
  1. Multiple religions with multiple Deities? Check.
  2. Saying "Godamnit" legal? Check.
  3. Working on Sunday legal? Check.
  4. Can tell parents to go to hell? Check.
  5. Killing legal? No... but that idea is pretty universal among humans.
  6. Adultery legal? More or less, but grounds for divorce.
  7. Stealing legal? No... but that idea is pretty universal, too.
  8. Lying legal? Yes, except in some circumstances (contracts, legal proceedings, slander, libel, etc.)
  9. Coveting wife legal? You betcha'
  10. Coveting goods legal? Hell, our entire economic system's foundation is coveting.
but we do require an absolute law, taken as granted. For many centuries that has been the Ten Commandments (at least in the West). It's worked well thus far, I don't see why we must change it.
<chortle> See above...

As regarding your rationalizations against murder, they all rely on presuppositions that you are not allowed to make when forming a rational argument. Saying "don't do A because it reduces B" only flies if you accept B as valid.
You asked for a rational argument, and I gave you three of them. Of course they rely on some conceptual starting points... any argument does. And, yes, if those conceptual starting points are shown to be false, the resulting arguments will no longer be reliable. What of it?

[ Parent ]
We have a winner. <nt> (none / 1) (#410)
by GenerationY on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 06:22:26 AM EST



[ Parent ]
common fucking sense you fucking moron (none / 0) (#307)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:07:16 PM EST

morality is mostly what we learn in kindergarten, without any fucking dusty old book

100% of everything you derive as law from your stupid fucking dusty book can be understood as simple common sense

you have no rationale for coopting common sense and saying some fucking book is the source of it

and i'm sorry you need a dusty old book to understand what the rest of us can understand as well-meaning human beings

stupid retard


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

because kindergarten is eternal (none / 0) (#334)
by LilDebbie on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:48:30 AM EST

hey you stupid fucking retard, kindergarten is a man-made social construct intended to teach children the law and common sense that comes from that stupid fucking dusty book.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
teehee (none / 1) (#340)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:09:47 AM EST

you're not getting upset are you?

you don't want to lose that veneer of smug condescension, it's served you so well

heaven forbid any of us should actually make you upset, right?

listen up fucktwit:

judeochristian morality has taken us very far actually: it taught against classism, against racism, etc.

because its driving force was one of tolerance

however, we've reached the ceiling of that which this span of human history can teach us in the judeochristian vein: the point at which instead of preaching tolerance, now religion is preaching intolerance: against homosexuals, against women

so the tipping point has been reached: where previously the old texts expanded the mind, now it provides support for the narrow minded

thus, the sun sets on your dusty books

watch history unfold friend

watch and learn

the era is closing on the judeochristian legacy

when organizations founded on the teachings of christ, whose greatest gift of the world was to teach tolerance and forgiveness in the face of moral corruption and callousness, is to now serve as mouthpieces of the same spirit of moral corruption and callousness that christ fought

the sun sets, the vital force has left the old religions

now, tolerance and empathy are forces which act against the old corrupt institutions instead

the tide has changed, and so islam, christianity and judaism will shrivel and die

they are now places that support intolerance, instead of tolerance

and that is their kiss of death


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I have seen the writing on the wall (none / 0) (#359)
by LilDebbie on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 02:37:39 PM EST

Have you? I know the view from New York is pretty limited, but in the rest of the country, evangelical Christianity is booming. New churches are sprouting up everywhere, and one of the most hated incumbent Presidents ever was reelected in the face of strong opposition in major part by the efforts of the Religious Right. Fundamentalist Islam is literally burning through the Mideast, and Israel is standing strong amidst enemies and has done so for 60 years now.

Oh wait, but Nietzche said God is dead. You're right. Nevermind.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
ah, blind as well as dumb ;-) (none / 1) (#361)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 03:04:21 PM EST

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm

The first area of inquiry in ARIS 2001 concerns the response of American adults to the question: "What is your religion, if any?" This question generated more than a hundred different categories of response, which we classified into the sixty-five categories shown in Exhibit 1 below.

In 1990, ninety percent of the adult population identified with one or another religion group. In 2001, such identification has dropped to eighty-one percent.

Where possible, every effort was made to re-create the categories respondents offered to the nearly identical question as in the NSRI 1990 survey.

As is readily apparent from the first Exhibit below, the major changes between the results of the 1990 survey and the current survey are:

a. the proportion of the population that can be classified as Christian has declined from eighty-six in 1990 to seventy-seven percent in 2001;
b. although the number of adults who classify themselves in non-Christian religious groups has increased from about 5.8 million to about 7.7 million, the proportion of non-Christians has increased only by a very small amount - from 3.3 % to about 3.7 %;
c. the greatest increase in absolute as well as in percentage terms has been among those adults who do not subscribe to any religious identification; their number has more than doubled from 14.3 million in 1990 to 29.4 million in 2001; their proportion has grown from just eight percent of the total in 1990 to over fourteen percent in 2001 [note 5];
d. there has also been a substantial increase in the number of adults who refused to reply to the question about their religious preference, from about four million or two percent in 1990 to more than eleven million or over five percent in 2001.

Exhibit 1 provides the most comprehensive profile of religious identification among the U.S. adult population today and compares the current pattern of identification with what the pattern was in 1990 [note 6].

look at the rest of the world:

how is the catholic church faring in europe friend?

spoken to any young adults in tehran recently about islam?

it would be interesting to watch you over the next few decades as history unfolds and deals mighty blows to things you are so certain about, but are so false in reality


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No, it isn't. (none / 1) (#342)
by MrMikey on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:22:25 AM EST

Kindergarten isn't eternal. Humans aren't eternal. This planet, the star it orbits, and the galaxy of which it is a part is not eternal.

Kindergarten is indeed a man-made social construct intended to socialize and educate children. Humans came up with this because human offspring need extensive development after they're born. "Common sense" is too vague a phrase to be useful... it covers "if you go out in the rain, you'll probably catch a cold", and "black people are clearly inferior, and meant to be slaves." just as well. Common? yes. Sense? Sometimes.

Oh, and "that stupid fucking dusty book" is but one of many religous texts, isn't the first or only place that morality, ethics or philosophy come from, and is filled with much nonsense along with the sense, common or otherwise.

[ Parent ]

Laws/morals EVOLVED because they're USEFUL... (3.00 / 4) (#309)
by taiwanjohn on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:33:09 PM EST

Make me a rational argument stating why I shouldn't kill people.

Why? Is that something you'd be likely to do if there were no law against it?

Remember, you can't say "because it's wrong" because that falls back on the laws set down by bearded guy in the sky.

Then how do you explain the fact that the taboo against murder is universal in all cultures on earth, throughout history, despite the fact that only a fraction the people in that scope ever even heard of your "bearded guy in the sky?" Or are the Buddhists, Hindus, Rastafarians, Zoroastrians, Shintoists, Muslims, etc. actually taking their legal and moral cues from the same bearded dude, but they just don't know it?

Anthropologists explain this universality of basic ethical values by way of evolution. That is, the tendency toward good must be an integral part of our genetic constitution for it to be so widespread. Furthermore, over the long term, cooperation among humans is a more efficient system BY FAR than the sort of dog-eat-dog brute-force society you seem to think we'd fall to without the help of your bearded pal. In short, it just plain works out better for the species' survival if we evolve brains which tend more toward cooperation and compassion than coercion and conflict. It's less wasteful of resources.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Read the experts:

  • The Moral Animal by Robert Wright
  • The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley
  • Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer
  • The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker
  • Enjoy... ;-)

    --jrd



    [ Parent ]
    Have some enlightenment, on the house... (3.00 / 3) (#263)
    by MrMikey on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 02:10:40 PM EST

    "To explain: first, there is a clear link between children raised by single parents and how likely they will end up in a juvenile detention center. I do not know if there is any similar link with children raised by homosexual couples, but since the latter encourages the former (according to gay marriage opponents at least), there is an indirect relation." ... Secondly, although I haven't seen data on it I would be amazed if this is not true, children raised by homosexual couples are more likely to become homosexual.
    Q. Will Children Raised in Homosexual Households Become Gay?
    The bulk of evidence to date indicates that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. As one researcher put it. "If heterosexual parenting is insufficient to ensure that children will also be heterosexual, then there is no reason to conclude that children of homosexuals also will be gay."
    While you have shown a correlation between single parenthood and juvenile crime, you have not established the chain of causation... and that causative chain is key. Is the problem that single-parent homes have less income? Is it a matter of less available childcare? Less parental supervision? The details matter...

    All in all, the "Homosexuality is bad because it encourages homosexual parenting (which is bad because it isn't the two-parent ideal), which encourages single-parent parenting (which is bad for society)." argument doesn't stand up to rational inquiry. In short, it's a lot of nonsense designed to buttress irrational prejudices.

    [ Parent ]

    On evidence (none / 0) (#274)
    by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 03:46:14 PM EST

    Thanks for linking to about.com. I feel so enlightened. I particularly like the observation that since children of heterosexual couples aren't ALWAYS heterosexual, then obviously there's no trend.

    If you actually bothered to look into the studies done on homosexual parenting (which I just did in order to properly reproach you), you will discover that their methodology is crap. When your study group is less than 100 individuals, your results are going to be random, allowing a jackass like me to find studies that assert the exact opposite conclusion.

    And while you're correct that correlation is not causation, it certainly shows that something is wrong and I think the absence of a father figure (the vast majority of single parents are women) easily explains the correlation. If you check out the British survery I linked to somewhere down this thread, you'll see the income gap argument undone by two parent divorcee and dating households.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    fall of rome (none / 0) (#163)
    by caca phony on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 04:00:54 PM EST

    christianity also led to the fall of rome

    [ Parent ]
    only in that it revolutionized mainstream religion (none / 0) (#167)
    by LilDebbie on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 04:57:12 PM EST

    in a time when Rome could not handle a revolution.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    no.... (none / 0) (#420)
    by ckaminski on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 07:24:32 AM EST

    the orgies and rampant sexual escapades were a prelude to the failure of the Romans to defend themselves, and  the fall of the Roman empire to constant outside aggression...

    [ Parent ]
    The Two Pillars of Republicans (3.00 / 2) (#266)
    by Mason on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 02:20:14 PM EST

    If candidate takes an odious stance on a social issue, or a ridiculously regressive stance on an economic issue:  "I might not agree with him totally, but I still trust his judgment to do what is right."

    If candidate is caught in ethics violations, scandal, or corruption:  "Okay, he might not be a perfect guy, but I agree with his politics so I'll still support him."

    Apply as necessary.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm. Odd. (none / 0) (#158)
    by Mr.Surly on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 03:07:58 PM EST

    You certainly appear to be defending your argument, but that can't be true.  

    Someone once told me "if you defend yourself on the internet, you've lost."

    [ Parent ]

    dude (none / 0) (#204)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:41:17 AM EST

    you're kissing my ass

    you realize that by following around someone's comments, and reminding them of things they used to say, you are only annoucing to everyone else around you that you are some sort of obsessed fan of mine, right?

    because when someone sees a comment of yours like this one, they don't think "hmm, mr. surly has a point"

    they think first: "hmm, circletimessquare seems to have made quite an impact on this fellow, i guess there is something to circletimessquare and what he is saying"

    first rule of public relations: there is no such thing as bad pr

    so please, keep following me around dear sycophant, and keep obsessing over my words dear stalker

    you only add to my fame in the end ;-)

    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    there are those of us (none / 0) (#215)
    by WetherMan on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:23:17 AM EST

    who slow down to watch the bodies smolder at a wreck.
    ---
    fluorescent lights make me look like old hot dogs
    [ Parent ]
    like i said (none / 0) (#218)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:46:35 AM EST

    there is no such thing as bad pr

    morbid curiosity works for me just fine


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    YHL. Give it up. (nt) (none / 1) (#235)
    by Mr.Surly on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 10:34:13 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Personally, I object... (2.71 / 7) (#23)
    by mcgrew on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 01:15:58 PM EST

    to any legislator that is so wholly ignorant of the Constitution (specifically the 4th and 9th amendmants) that he thinks "We The People" don't have a right to privacy, or that government has any rights not specifically granted by the Constitution.

    I also object to his being called a "conservative." A conservative would first, before anything else, conserve the Constitution, not wipe his ass on it.

    "The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
    [ Parent ]

    I think you're reversing the situation (none / 0) (#189)
    by chunkstyle on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 09:46:53 PM EST

    The objection is an over-reaching government action in the form of court rulings making de facto law of the land and removing the capability of individual states and localities from deciding issues at those levels.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course you object (1.00 / 5) (#30)
    by omegadan on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:18:33 PM EST

    You're a troll.

    Religion is a gateway psychosis. - Dave Foley
    [ Parent ]

    God- on and on! (2.71 / 7) (#70)
    by BottleRocket on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:09:14 AM EST

    If you have such a hard-on for the guy, why didn't you tell him when you worked for him? He might have enjoyed an office tryst.

    Do you know why Sen. Santorum has been so popular in Pennsylvania? It is not because we are all rednecks, nor is it because we are all closet homosexuals.
    Of course not. It's because enough of you are rednecks and closet homosexuals to lionize the guy and make his candidacy possible. I used to live in Philadelphia, and I've been across the state. I've even had my car break down outside of State College. Now, a bit of trivia. Do you know who first proposed the concept of offering full disclosure with an ideology in order to for the idea to gain traction?

    I'll give you a hint: Hitler.

    $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $
    . ₩ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . *
    $ . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
    Yes I do download [child pornography], but I don't keep it any longer than I need to, so it can yield insight as to how to find more. --MDC
    $ . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
    . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . *
    . ₩ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $
    $B R Σ III$

    [ Parent ]

    Cynics in history (none / 1) (#72)
    by Russell Dovey on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:55:28 AM EST

    "...how many entries are written in our history books about cynics?"

    Quite a few.

    "Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
    [ Parent ]

    They contributed to society at the same time; (2.00 / 2) (#76)
    by JChen on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:13:46 AM EST

    I define these people as skeptics, people who think for themselves.

    Cynics, on the other hand, do little to better society; instead, their only claim is to banter as loudly as possible but with very little substance.

    Let us do as we say.
    [ Parent ]

    i am not a cynic (none / 1) (#82)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:00:48 AM EST

    i regularly rail against cynics here

    i believe in mankind's basic goodness

    that belief leads me to be a full supporter of the invasion of iraq, and smash many a cynic here who think, cynically, that iraqis aren't ready for democracy

    but my belief in mankind's basic goodness causes me also to despise people like rick santorum, who wants to regulate our personal lives because of his psychosexual problems

    isn't rick santorum's position- that people need their sex lives regulated by the government for their own good, the more cynical one than mine?

    so: you call me a cynic

    nice label to shout out

    but i'd like you to qualify it

    because i sincerely believe that if you analyze your logic for calling me a cynic, you will find instead that i am the hopeful one, and in reality, your hero santorum is the cynical one


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    cynics suck (none / 1) (#83)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:02:46 AM EST

    and i am not a cynic

    jchen is just hurling epitets without realizing that the defition of cynicism and my stated beliefs and rick santorum's stated beliefs casts his hero santorum to be the cynic in reality, and me to be the hopeful one about the human condition


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Lord... (2.50 / 4) (#73)
    by anthroporraistes on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:55:37 AM EST

    IF the masses vote for him, I DO NOT have to respect him, nor do I have to respect the president we have now, nor any other body of authority, elected or not.  The masses are easily swayed, and for the most part ignorant of actual issues.  Gay marrige and other morality issues rank rather low in import to me.  

    Actually I am sick of government dictating morals, that is NOT their job.  Morality is the communities' job (i.e. an informal process), and not government, which has no reason/right to pass laws against homosexuality.  No, this is not a slippery slop leading to legalized incest/beastiality.  Homosexuality is victemless, and furthermore none of anyones buisness.  Statements against it are not logically defensable unless one leaps into religiosity, which is not valid as a basis of policy.  (Your religious choices should only effect you, being that others do not share your pov, and you have no right to inflict that upon others.)

    Please, to those in the peanut galley, give me one logically valid reason that gays should not get married, or that sodomy, or any other gay sex, is wrong.

    ---
    biology is destiny
    [ Parent ]

    When I say respect, (none / 1) (#77)
    by JChen on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:16:53 AM EST

    I didn't mean bow down to him or even go out of your way for anything.

    Rather, it was because CTS did not even have a capacity for basic human decency; if we disagree with each other, I will not personally attack you in such a crude manner. This is common respect, this is what I'm calling for. On the other hand, CTS intentionally attacked Santorum the only way he found satisfying to his own ego.

    Let us do as we say.
    [ Parent ]

    if santorum will not respect my right ot privacy.. (2.00 / 3) (#84)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:06:01 AM EST

    why shoul di respect his?

    he started it: he said he has a right to see what i do in the bedroom, right?

    so how can you speak of respect when your hero is the one who is disrespecting me and the american populace?

    welcome to reality my friend:

    one of the greatest tragedies of the human condition is that so many people prefer someone to tell them a quiet lie rather than tell them the rude truth

    in politics

    and the bedroom

    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    You are gay! (none / 1) (#172)
    by schrotie on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 06:27:46 PM EST

    Lol. Ok, is the subject an offense? Looks like you think so. I did not feel that the article was all that insulting. Well, the puns on the "word" Santorum, are offensive, but they are so childish in nature that I can't find them particularly evil. Harsher things are said in our parliament (which I must happily assert is no American parliament) every day.

    If you find the article so extremely insulting, you are probably homophobic. No problem with that. But it might impair your judgement on the issue.

    All this is really interesting to me, because I was completely unaware of it: you USians seem to have a major homophobism issue. Just like the female hysteria syndrom in 19th century Europe. I know exactly one homophobic man and he is kind of cute with it. I (being hetero) and my friends (being hetero) and colleagues (being hetero) frequently greet each other with "Hi sugar" or "How are you honey". If we are lucky, we get some laughs for it and that's it. No big deal, nobody thinks any of it. This actually seems psychologically very healthy to me.

    One thing: When you get so upset because of this outragously offensive article, you are actually insulting many men. They'll probably not care, because they are used to such abuse, but that does not make your insults any better.

    [ Parent ]

    Democracy my ass. (none / 1) (#231)
    by slaida1 on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:59:09 AM EST

    Where you live, there isn't democracy. There's stupid masses that think as they're told. There are illiterate people who can't read what they're told. There's people so poor they cannot see what they're told because they can't afford a tv.

    Now, that out of the way (again), would you vote for Hitler, "an extraordinary man of enormous fortitude to consistently stand for what he believes in. ...is also incredibly hardworking, and has brought many benefits to..." etc. etc. yadda yadda? (To hell with you Godwin I'm saying this no matter what.)

    It's called populism, learn to detect and avoid it.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not circletimessquare, but... (3.00 / 5) (#258)
    by MrMikey on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:50:12 PM EST

    "Firstly, if Americans indeed choose to vote for Santorum for President, why do you have a problem with that?"
    Since I, and my family are citizens of said America, I'd have a problem with a President who seems to have such a dim view of privacy rights and the rights of citizens to be free of unwarranted restrictions. The majority does not have the right to vote away the rights and freedoms of the minority... their majority status does not give them that right. The Founding Fathers were aware of the dangers of the "tyranny of the majority", and so am I.
    "If America sees Santorum as the best leader for the nation, whose own moral values reflect that of their own, then would not that be the ultimate excercise of these democratic values?"
    The curtailment of the rights of a minority are un-democratic, especially when those rights are voted away by the majority.
    "Also, despite the outcry from the small but quite vocal homosexual community, you must respect Sen. Santorum for being so direct with his views."
    What about the quite vocal segment (which I'm proud to say I'm a member) of the heterosexual community who is opposed to Sen. Santorum's views? And, as for respecting his directness, my respect is considerably dimmed given the rationale behind his oh so directly stated position. Being direct is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the earning of respect.
    "Just because the voices we are more likely to hear are often left leaning does not mean that there are not many others who still hold traditional values dear to their hearts."
    Once upon a time, an opposition to women's suffrage, misegnation, and slavery were "traditional values." Being old and being right or desirable are two different things.

    [ Parent ]
    i AM circletimessquare (none / 0) (#270)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 03:18:13 PM EST

    and i endorse these words wholeheartedly


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Got a little crush on Rick have we? (nt) (none / 1) (#264)
    by Mason on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 02:13:43 PM EST

    .

    [ Parent ]
    It sure does (none / 1) (#396)
    by PrinceSausage on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 12:48:53 PM EST

    "It takes an extraordinary man of enormous fortitude to consistently stand for what he believes in"

    Yeah, it sure does. It takes a populist, someone who is willing to stir up the masses. Someone like... ummm... Rick Santorum raging against gays. Or... you know. Adolf Hitler.

    [ Parent ]

    I can't believe you forgot to mention (2.33 / 6) (#32)
    by Kasreyn on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:32:00 PM EST

    how Senator Frothy Lube started his political career wearing a sandwich board proclaiming his candidacy on a street corner.

    What a dork. Which means that if the Republicans are looking for someone even stupider and more out of touch than Bush for '08, he must be it.


    "Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
    We never asked to be born in the first place."

    R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
    Would you have the guts (2.33 / 3) (#33)
    by JChen on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:36:06 PM EST

    to do something like that? You can post another smart comment to this, but truly, does your ego permit such a display of humility?

    Let us do as we say.
    [ Parent ]
    Actually (2.20 / 5) (#35)
    by minerboy on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:44:23 PM EST

    Santorums' family was big in Pittsburgh politics. Because of the union tradition in the area, nepotism(or family loyalty, depending on your point of view) is rampant. He is a weenie, and is one of the few conservatives I don't vote for.



    [ Parent ]
    I'll gladly wear a sandwich board in public (2.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Kasreyn on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:34:32 PM EST

    proclaiming what an idiot Rick Santorum is.

    Happy?


    "Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
    We never asked to be born in the first place."

    R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
    [ Parent ]
    Go on then (none / 1) (#99)
    by Anonymous Howards End on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 09:13:20 AM EST

    Get back to us when you have pictures.
    --
    CodeWright, you are one cowardly hypocritical motherfucker.
    [ Parent ]
    +FP (2.62 / 8) (#34)
    by Benny Cemoli on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:45:48 PM EST

    To my mind, a lot of the social problems in the US boil down to the lack of an explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. We need an amendment to clear that up.

    This article brings to mind a thing I read awhile back about the early founders of the Nazi movement all being gay (in that creepy blue-eyed blond-haired Dolph Lundgren riding-crop-and-jodhpurs kind of way). Apparently both very gay and very much into authoritarianism.


    "the fabric of space quivers at the touch of even a microbe."

    Gay's are like the masons (1.00 / 13) (#37)
    by minerboy on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:05:16 PM EST

    Gay's are perhaps the single most succesful of the protected classes. I never quite figured it out until I read your article. There's a cadre of closeted helpers moving them up the ladder. A simple flex of the wrist, or a casual mention of peach daiquiris, and your in. In politics, I'd imagine that some stereotypically gay traits would be an advantage, too - things like obsessions with the way you look, narcisism and being two faced. So its not suprising that a large number of gays are in politics.



    almost as good as: (none / 0) (#203)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:37:14 AM EST

    0h n0es! t3h j00s!!!!


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    +1 I hate santorum too. (1.00 / 7) (#38)
    by The Amazing Idiot on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:11:14 PM EST



    Wow. (1.85 / 14) (#39)
    by cdguru on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:17:05 PM EST

    I applaud Sen. Santorum's willingness to take a stand on some important issues.

    I would offer that first and foremost, a significant part of the "gay community" is seriously twisted. Bug chasing, gift giving and how the "community" relates to AIDS indicates some serious problems. And, this isn't a couple of wackos out of millions. Do some searching and you will see it is quite common. Everyone knows about it, at least if they are in "the community". So please, let's start with the idea that a lot of these people are deeply troubled with who they are and what they are doing.

    This by itself poses some serious risks to society in general.

    I also believe that there are significant attractions to the idea of homosexuality. In an atmosphere where homosexuality is actively discouraged and hidden, this suppresses homosexuality in general. Of course, it is not suppressed completely - there are those that will behave in this way no matter what. The difference today is that there is far less stigma attached to homosexual behavior - even outward, public behavior. What kind of effect does this have?

    I believe there are significant numbers of males that are uncomfortable with interactions with the opposite sex. Having been one of those, I can fully understand the discomfort. When I was in uncomfortable situations, I realized there was no other way. Today, there is a clear alternative that offers a great deal more comfort - other males. While in what I have observed there is often a significant power disparity in such couples, it is a whole lot easier than dealing with members of the opposite sex.

    This isn't a secret from people like Sen. Santorum or other leaders, and it isn't just homophobia. Their positions come from taking a realistic look at where society in general will be if teenage boys "discover" it is simpler and more comfortable to just work off their hormones with someone of the same sex than to deal with the issues and complexities of the opposite sex. This is indeed the sort of world we might be looking at down the road.

    While it is not exclusive to homosexual relationships, power disparity seems to be almost a rule in them. Power disparity in sexual relationships is always bad. We've just spent a long time dealing with sexual harrassment in the workplace, which is a form of power disparity. Introducing this as acceptable - with an older man and a willing, young, subordinate partner - is extremely bad. I go further and say that anytime there is a significant power disparity in a sexual relationship that this is bad. Bad for the people in the relationship and potentially bad for society in general. This is almost completely ignored today in a homosexual context.Ignored as much as sexual harrassment or wife beating was in the past.

    These factors pretty much eliminate the myth of evangelical homosexuals, although this does exist as well - but nowhere near the level feared by some. It is just that there is no need for evangelism - it is far, far too attractive as it is. If biology were the only factor, there would be a small percentage of people that would actively be involved with this. This isn't the case at all. Ask your parents if they knew someone that was openly gay in the 1950s. Compare that to today. We have moved from perhaps 3% to closer to 10% in the last 50 years. Today, everyone knows someone that is openly gay, and this isn't just due to them "coming out of the closet". Is this something we would be happy with reaching 25% (of total population) with a majority of those participating out of choice? How about 25% with 10% (of total population) being HIV positive and/or with AIDS? These are things to think about with respect to the future of human society.

    If you have gotten this far, you can certainly try to dismiss me as a right-wing, bible-thumping nutjob. You would be very wrong in many ways. Look around and see if you like any reasonable extrapolation of where we are today. If you don't like what you find, maybe it is time to discuss it. I don't like the idea of the government asserting an interest in sexual behavior, but I'm not sure this is something that society in general can live with drifting down the easiest, comfortable path.

    Haven't come out of the closet yet, have you? (3.00 / 12) (#44)
    by GreyGhost on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:08:37 PM EST

    I believe there are significant numbers of males that are uncomfortable with interactions with the opposite sex. Having been one of those, I can fully understand the discomfort. When I was in uncomfortable situations, I realized there was no other way. Today, there is a clear alternative that offers a great deal more comfort - other males.

    WTF?

    Look dude, just move to California, get a boyfriend, and start being comfortable with who you are, because there isn't a damn thing wrong with it. If you think you're speaking for other straight males around you - you're mistaken.

    Hot gay sex is not going to bring about the downfall of Western civilization. In fact - there was plenty of hot gay sex action happening at it's inception (the ancient Greeks).



    [ Parent ]

    Look Here, Mister Man: (2.75 / 8) (#66)
    by Peahippo on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 11:12:03 PM EST

    I believe there are significant numbers of males that are uncomfortable with interactions with the opposite sex. Having been one of those, I can fully understand the discomfort. When I was in uncomfortable situations, I realized there was no other way. Today, there is a clear alternative that offers a great deal more comfort - other males.

    You are a fucking nutjob. It's entirely possible to be uncomfortable with the opposite sex yet still have no desire to indulge in gay sex. In fact, it's not just entirely possible -- it's entirely PROBABLE.

    If a person thinks that he was driven to being gay, I've got some fucking news for him, Charlie: "YOU'RE GAY. Deal with it."

    Sane people who reflect upon their sexuality will realize that they have an overriding preference. But no one is driven into a sexual orientation. We all had basic feelings in our teenage years which revealed our preferences. The question is: Who supressed those feelings if they crossed socially acceptable behavior?

    If a person spends many years walled up in their own denial, then that's their cross to bear.


    [ Parent ]
    Wow. (2.71 / 7) (#95)
    by eschatron on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:09:09 AM EST

    I know two people just told you this but let's be extra clear: for most heterosexuals there's nothing "comfortable" about having gay sex. I can hardly imagine where you got that idea.

    You begin with a some average homophobia and then veer off into this utter absurdity that has very few possible interpretations other than you being a closet homosexual. What more could CTS want?



    [ Parent ]
    exactly, *sniff* (none / 1) (#201)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:33:05 AM EST

    it makes a troll cry with pride

    hook, line, and sinker


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    You're a donkey. (2.62 / 8) (#100)
    by daani on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 09:15:51 AM EST

    a significant part of the "gay community" is seriously twisted

    Nope, you're seriously twisted. You're the one who makes out that two consenting adults expressing their affection physically is some kind of a community issue. It's NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!

    ...less stigma attached to homosexual behavior ... What kind of effect does this have?

    It means wankers like you will have to find someone else to pick on. You know, the way you had to move on from lynching black people? Other peoples relationships are NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

    where society in general will be if teenage boys "discover" it is simpler and more comfortable to just work off their hormones with someone of the same sex...

    So you live in some kind of barbarian world where men want to fuck every woman in sight and the primary goal of the female is to protect their virtue until they can get married? Get a grip buddy, it's the 21st century. But while you can't conceive of equal roles in a heterosexual relationships, you follow up with this little gem:

    power disparity seems to be almost a rule in them ... always bad

    (A) you just made that up and (B) it's NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS

    Look around and see if you like any reasonable extrapolation of where we are today

    If you mean where jerks like you and this redneck senator have any influence then, yep we're in trouble. If you mean a world where people are free to be who they want to be and do what they want to do, then it sounds just grand to me. Try to remember this: Other peoples lifestyles are NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.



    [ Parent ]
    Could not have said it better myself (3.00 / 2) (#136)
    by vryl on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:53:00 PM EST

    nice work.

    [ Parent ]
    Good post (3.00 / 7) (#109)
    by davidmb on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:15:51 AM EST

    I like the balance you struck between "Right-Wing Homophobe" and "Gayest Man in America". I especially like the bits about heterosexual men turning to boy-action "because it's easier". That nearly made me fall off my chair, bravo.
    ־‮־
    [ Parent ]
    Power disparity in heterosexual relationships? (3.00 / 2) (#139)
    by hatshepsut on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:59:31 PM EST

    How many, and what kind of women do you hang around with? Not many, and either Machiavellian or downtrodden, would be my guesses.

    No one needs to enter into a heterosexual relationship with inherent power disparity any more, the expectations and realities have changed. You can't even count on the traditional "breadwinner and homemaker" relationship as having a power disparity (I dare you to delve into some of those relationships and find out who actually controls what).

    You are either a brilliant troll or totally deluded.

    [ Parent ]

    Power disparity (3.00 / 2) (#144)
    by vera on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:24:31 PM EST

    is often an illusion in relationships.  The truth is that, outside of those two (or more) individuals involved, the finer aspects of the relationship's interworkings are very difficult to ascertain.

    Usually the most obvious of these are the least significant, and the seemingly weaker person's strengths are more of the psychological sort, and therefore far more complex.

    You'd know this if you were ever in a normal homosexual relationship. Until you have been, please keep your ignorance to yourself.

    [ Parent ]

    hmm.... (none / 1) (#174)
    by WetherMan on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 07:17:56 PM EST

    you, dare i say it, have some sort of hangup on this issue.
    ---
    fluorescent lights make me look like old hot dogs
    [ Parent ]
    Are you fucking insane? (none / 1) (#187)
    by DavidTC on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:52:59 PM EST

    I'm going to ignore your complete looness that's already been addressed and just go after this:

    Power disparity in sexual relationships is always bad. We've just spent a long time dealing with sexual harrassment in the workplace, which is a form of power disparity.

    For thousands of years, we managed to live with the most powerful power disparity imaginable: men and women in a relationship with each other. And there is still a power disparity. (Men are stronger, for one thing.)

    (And I'm ignoring the obvious thing here, pointing out that a lot of the anti-homosexual camp is the 'women should obey their husbands' camp. OTOH, a 'power disparity' is a good term to be against interracial relationships, if you actually believe it has anything to do with anything, and are looking for an reason.)

    And all the social conventions with dating, where men hold a certain set of cards and women the other. And let's not get into the 'rich old men sleeping with 22 year old women' thing, which does happen.

    I want to know what kind of goofy-ass universe you live in where homosexual relationships are the unbalanced ones. Yes, some homosexual relationships are 'rich older man keeps a boy to give him blowjobs', but are you honestly asserting that doesn't happen with hetrosexual relationships also? (In fact, it's a hell of a lot more acceptable with hetrosexuality.)

    By removing gender differences between the two partners, you remove a lot of the inbalance in relationships. It doesn't add any. Unless you can come up with a reason that it would add some, go away.

    And, incidentally, have you ever noticed how often the 'powerful men keeping a young man for sex' theme reoccurs during anti-homosexual rants by powerful men? I thought the theory of this article was crack, but, seriously, every single anti-homosexual crusader seems to come up with a scenerio that results in someone who closely resembles them being seduced into gayitude.

    -David T. C.
    Yes, my email address is real.
    [ Parent ]

    dude (none / 0) (#202)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:36:06 AM EST

    you realize that what you are saying only supports everything i am saying in the end

    you realize that, right?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    I got that far and guess what? (none / 1) (#232)
    by slaida1 on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 10:22:50 AM EST

    If you have gotten this far, you can certainly try to dismiss me as a right-wing, bible-thumping nutjob.

    Heh, you got dismissed alright but not as you imagined. Mwahahaha!

    I'm sorry if you feel uncomfortable being with opposite sex, do you feel more comfortable being with teenage boys who are just about to "discover" it is simpler and more comfortable to just work off their hormones with someone of the same sex?

    Please, my stomach hurts from all the laughing. Stop it.

    [ Parent ]

    re (1.37 / 8) (#47)
    by Cat Huggles on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:53:18 PM EST

    I don't hate homosexuality, I just hate the homosexuals.

    promiscuous sex (1.40 / 5) (#49)
    by minerboy on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:23:03 PM EST

    Whether homosexual, or heterosexual is a health issue. It results in the spread of disease, crime, violence, and psychological problems that cost society a great deal, and society has a right to regulate this behavior, since it is government social programs that help mitigate the impact. Sadly, Santorum is a lousy spokesman for this fact, being almost a straw man by himself.



    that argument always makes me laugh (2.80 / 5) (#56)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 10:23:12 PM EST

    so does that mean that when we defeat ADS, hepatitis, herpes, etc. (you don't think we can't?) does that mean you'd be all for roman orgies in the street?

    come now, your public argument against promiscuous sex is shown wanting

    show your true feelings


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    disease is just part (1.33 / 3) (#63)
    by minerboy on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 11:01:52 PM EST

    of the problem with promiscuity. psychological issues, like sex addiction, exploitation, emotional attachments, and the violence associated with these issues. I think you're over optimistic about eliminating infectious diseases, but say we did, there are still significant societal problems caused by promiscuity. Maybe in a perfect world, where everyone is well balanced, your orgies wouldn't harm anyone else, but in the real world things you do have consequences and repercussions for everyone else.



    [ Parent ]
    sex addicts exist (2.60 / 5) (#79)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:48:40 AM EST

    however, i believe that many people, when they speak of "sex addiction" they are speaking about normal sexual appetites

    look around you, there are over 6 billion of us

    that did not happen because of our proven track record at controlling our sexuality with our minds

    what you do is you let people have sex as much as they want, but you encourage prophylactic use and birth control and safe behavior

    but people like you seem to think that NO behavior is the better approach

    good luck with that

    i don't think you understand human nature


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    eh (2.66 / 3) (#123)
    by lostincali on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:04:22 PM EST

    CTS , you're overlooking something here:

    You say he doesn't understand human nature, but what about the human tendency to harmful excess???

    When something is pleasurable, it's very easy to go too far. A lot of people have trouble dealing with such things. For them, learning to exercise some degree of self-control is a good thing.

    If the sex example isn't clear enough, look at the desire to eat. It's a good example of a similar desire where it's very easy to indulge too much, and it generally is a good idea to practice self control.

    People should satisfy their desires, but expressing a healthy restraint over your desires is also desirable.

    "The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
    [ Parent ]

    that's what i said dorothy (none / 1) (#180)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:24:54 PM EST

    i said "sex addicts exist... however, i believe that many people, when they speak of "sex addiction" they are speaking about normal sexual appetites"

    before you attack me on the premise that i encourage unhealthy excess

    keep in mind that there are plenty of conservative assholes out there who think that a HEALTHY sexual appetite is unhealthy

    which of us is more dangerous?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    ok, well I see what you're saying. (none / 1) (#183)
    by lostincali on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:38:37 PM EST

    a little context always helps make things clearer.


    "The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
    [ Parent ]

    You need a good bj. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Nosf3ratu on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:55:36 PM EST




    Woo!
    [ Parent ]
    Who doesn't? (n/t) (none / 1) (#186)
    by 3waygeek on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:47:44 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    These are the same people (3.00 / 2) (#262)
    by Mason on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 02:08:30 PM EST

    who are reducing sexual education and access to free condoms.

    If you really wanted to help with disease and other sexual issues, sex ed is the only way that works.

    SomethingAwful (yeah I know) occasionally posts fun clips off of teen web forums in which kids ask questions demonstrating that they lack knowledge of the basic mechanics of sex, much less how to protect themselves.

    And in a nation where, IIRC, one in six people over the age of 14 has genital herpes, we're apparently doing something wrong, and I really doubt it is due to too much education or too many free condoms.

    [ Parent ]

    Repost: Bush's trap (2.12 / 8) (#51)
    by michaelmalak on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 09:04:21 PM EST

    Didn't we have a front-page article devoted to Santorum a couple of years ago?

    Fine, it looks like this is FP'ing, so I'll comment. Again. Most of the homosexual issue -- especially the homosexual marriage issue -- is just about distracting the public from the important issues.

    Lawrence v. Texas was slightly interesting, not from the sodomy aspect alone, but because it best exemplified the flowing in the breeze nature of the Supreme Court, willing to reverse decisions in just 15 years to accommodate a change in public opinion.

    Now perhaps the most interesting aspect of the homosexual issue -- whether it is taught as right, wrong, or neutral in the public schools -- is largely being ignored. Like all controversies surrounding public schools -- prayer, Creationism, dumbed-down curriculum full of lies -- I simply advocate abolition of public education. But no one's talking about that possible solution.

    Oh, one other mildly interesting aspect of homosexuality is free speech when it comes to quoting the Bible. It's illegal in Sweden, and it's working it's way through the courts in Canada. Despite my overall pessimism, I don't believe it will be an issue in the U.S. for at least the next 20 years.

    Does having a homosexual couple next door influence children to become homosexual? Yes, I believe there is such an effect. But the effect is miniscule compared to the issues I continually harp on: public schools and the magazines at the supermarket checkouts.

    In conclusion, here are the players as I see them in the homosexual issue:

    • The politicians. It's a soundbite way to a) embolden the voting base and b) distract them from important issues. It doesn't matter whether the politicians are homosexual or heterosexual, or what they really believe other people should be. Only reelection matters.
    • The preachers. Similar to the politicians. It's a great way to get the congregation to nod in agreement. Something more applicable to the typical congregant's life, such as the immorality of using birth control, would only serve to reduce the collection plate.
    • The congregants. Whether truly heterosexual or just pretending to themselves to be, as mentioned above, they are easily fooled and easily emboldened. Knowing that they're not homosexual (let's just ignore their lust for the woman at the office) makes them feel good about themselves.
    • The homophobes. Yes, as you mentioned, there are people out there with homosexual tendencies who hate themselves for it and live a heterosexual life. There are a lot of them, but I don't believe they comprise the majority of the anti-homosexual movement. I believe the majority are the "congregants" above.


    --
    BergamoAcademy.com  Authentic Montessori in Denver
    Is Sexuality Fixed? (none / 1) (#148)
    by gidds on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:19:48 PM EST

    Does having a homosexual couple next door influence children to become homosexual? Yes, I believe there is such an effect.

    I wonder if this isn't the real issue underlying a lot of the homophobia, hysteria, and prejudice.

    I don't believe there's any definitive research on this, but from all the evidence I've seen, my impression is that sexual preference, while not completely fixed at birth, is largely fixed at a fairly early age, well before adolescence. Certainly, the numbers of people who fight unsuccessfully against their homosexuality would seem to suggest that it becomes quite strongly fixed; and the numbers of people who report having felt 'different' from other people at a very early age, well before they could articulate or identify it with sexuality, makes it seem that the roots are laid in the first few years of life.

    I believe there's also research showing that children growing up in a homosexual household (male or female) show no greater predisposition to homosexuality than normal. Which is also strongly suggestive that whatever 'fixes' sexual preference, it's not awareness or experience of any particular sexuality.

    Now, if you accept the premise that sexual preference is pretty much fixed well before adolescence, then there's really no reason for most of the fuss about teaching, lifestyle flaunting or promotion, and so on. Homosexuality in any form would not directly threaten heterosexuals, and the only genuine issues of contention would be side issues (such as tax breaks, &c).

    However, if you don't accept that, if you think that people's sexuality is malleable -- especially if you're insecure about your own sexuality -- then you may well see any form of homosexuality as a threat. You may well worry about public displays of homosexual affection 'luring' people to that way of life, or the open existence of homosexuals as a dangerous to the existence of (heterosexual) marriage, or whatever.

    So the fact that much of the public hysteria seems to centre (openly or not) on such things, suggests strongly to me that a) many people don't accept the premise, and b) quite a few are worried about their own sexuality...

    What do folks here think? How many suspect that sexuality can usually be changed after adolescence, and how many think it's usually fairly fixed?

    (Actually, having said that, there is one reason why even if sexuality is fixed, culture would still have a strong influence, and that is on openness. A sufficiently strong cultural censure on homosexuality might not 'turn' everyone into heterosexuals, but it would certainly prevent many homosexuals from living openly as such. And it would encourage bisexuals to admit and explore only their heterosexual side. Maybe what the homophobics are afraid of isn't so much that many heterosexuals will be turned, but that they'll find out just how many homosexuals and bisexuals there already are?)

    Andy/
    [ Parent ]

    Everyone seems like to omit "miniscule" (none / 0) (#169)
    by michaelmalak on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 05:19:44 PM EST

    You admit that a heterosexual society might "turn" someone with natural homosexual tendencies, but deny that a homosexual-soaked society can "turn" someone with natural heterosexual tendencies. Which is it -- can someone be turned or not?

    The most important negative message sent by open homosexuals and public school sex ed classes that teach homosexuality as an "option" is that sex outside marriage is OK. Homosexuals never get married, yet they have sex. More importantly, most homosexuals are not monogamous. The message is "sex on demand".

    Now, there are a lot of other vectors that send this message besides the open homosexuals and the public school curricula -- namely, television, commercials, movies, supermarket checkouts, and clothing the wearing of which would have been arrestable as "indecent exposure" as recently as the 1980's. As I said (the word you dropped from my quote), the effect of homosexuals living next door is "miniscule" toward general sexual immorality compared to these other causes and sources of temptation.

    --
    BergamoAcademy.com  Authentic Montessori in Denver
    [ Parent ]

    The promiscuity argument seems a red herring (none / 1) (#185)
    by gidds on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:46:22 PM EST

    You admit that a heterosexual society might "turn" someone with natural homosexual tendencies,

    No, that's not what I meant. A rigidly homosexual society might cause homosexuals to feign heterosexuality, through sham marriages, bachelorhood, or whatever. And it might cause bisexuals (of whom it's claimed there are more than any other category) to express or admit only their straight side. But that's not changing innate sexual preference, merely changing its disguise.

    I also think that the promiscuity aspect is a red herring. There are many promiscuous and unfaithful heterosexuals; sometimes it's hidden (e.g. where infidelity is involved), sometimes it's seen as normal (e.g. certain youth cultures). And there are many long-term, faithful homosexual partnerships. I can't quote you any figures, but I strongly suspect the link between homosexuality and promiscuity may well be overstated. (Not that I have any personal experience of either...)

    Now, I quite agree that fidelity in a long-term, committed relationship should be encouraged and promoted. Unfaithfulness and promiscuity tend to be harmful, whether gay or straight. But condemning all homosexuality because some homosexuals are unfaithful and/or promiscuous seems rather unfair.

    And while I'm also uncomfortable about the sexualisation of the media, advertising, retail and other sectors, I don't necessarily include types of clothing in that. It's a slippery slope from there to forcing womenfolk to wear veils...

    (BTW, sorry for omitting your 'minuscule'. It's hard to know how much to quote, or whether it's okay to paraphrase!)

    Andy/
    [ Parent ]

    What is "indecent" about exposure? (none / 0) (#255)
    by MrMikey on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:30:36 PM EST

    "... and clothing the wearing of which would have been arrestable as "indecent exposure" as recently as the 1980's."
    I find the very concept of "indecent exposure" to be beyond stupid. The only danger with going unclad is that of an increased incidence of skin cancer.

    Skin =/= (Sex || Indecency).

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Mr.Surly on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:52:29 PM EST

    Does having a homosexual couple next door influence children to become homosexual? Yes, I believe there is such an effect. But the effect is miniscule compared to the issues I continually harp on: public schools and the magazines at the supermarket checkouts.

    Does living in a predominantly heterosexual society influence homosexuals to be straight?

    [ Parent ]

    Abolish Public Schools? (none / 0) (#253)
    by MrMikey on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:23:47 PM EST

    "I simply advocate abolition of public education. But no one's talking about that possible solution."
    There's a reason no one is talking about it... it is akin to advocating the amputation of one's hand as a suitable treatment for a splinter in one's thumb. Ours is a highly technological, rapidly changing society which relies on its citizens being able to make informed decisions in the voting booth. All of this requires that we have an well-educated populace. What mechanism do you propose to substitute for our public school system in order to achieve that goal?
    "Does having a homosexual couple next door influence children to become homosexual? Yes, I believe there is such an effect."
    What is the effect, and what evidence do you have to support your assertion? Or, do you mean something on the order of the level of effect any neighbor would have on a child?

    [ Parent ]
    The mentally ill live in closets too. (2.66 / 9) (#52)
    by MichaelCrawford on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 09:31:46 PM EST

    It is my distinct impression that the most damaging effect of the widespread stigma against mental illness is the hatred that many mentally ill have of themselves, just for being mentally ill.

    I have often observed that the first thing I ever thought upon entering the ward of a psychiatric hospital, and something I have often observed of other psychiatric patients, is the shameful observation that "I am one of these people".

    And so it was that I worked hard to conceal my illness for almost a decade after my diagnosis.

    It is not uncommon for the mentally ill to kill themselves simply because of their shame at being mentally ill.

    What set me free? What ended my self-hatred? It was publishing my first web page about my condition. My final, fateful decision to post it - and publicize it - was one of the most liberating moments of my entire life.

    And so it is that I publicize my schizoaffective disorder as much as I do (and, I'm well aware, much to the annoyance of many kurons and slashbots), not simply to demonstrate to the normal folks that being mentally ill is OK, but to demonstrate that fact to other mentally ill folks, so that someday, they too might live in the light.


    --

    Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


    the annoyance of many kurons and slashbots (2.25 / 4) (#55)
    by circletimessquare on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 10:18:31 PM EST

    you should give "the annoyance of many kurons and slashbots" the proper respect that it deserves:

    none

    kuro5hin is your playground, slashdot is your playground

    fuck the sycophants who inhabit it, they are your food

    says the closet sadist ;-)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    You go, girl! (1.20 / 5) (#98)
    by Anonymous Howards End on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 09:12:28 AM EST

    Seriously, please go.
    --
    CodeWright, you are one cowardly hypocritical motherfucker.
    [ Parent ]
    Hey don't blame me. (2.75 / 4) (#53)
    by /dev/trash on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 09:39:14 PM EST

    I voted against Santorum and I'm a Republican.  PA has two jackasses for Senators.

    ---
    Updated 02/20/2004
    New Site
    Oh, c'mon (2.66 / 3) (#54)
    by marksetzer on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 09:53:04 PM EST

    ...Specter's not bad. I mean, it's kind of a shame he's in poor health now (i believe hodgkins lymphoma?) but he has been quite moderate throughout his career and recently railed against the idea of Bush nominating a SCOTUS justice who would strike down Roe v. Wade - an outcome I find very unlikely, but his remarks were refreshing all the same.

    Santorum, I'll bash unapologetically, but he's the senator for the transplanted southerners and local hicks living in the hills in the center of the state. Not all the conservatives I know from this area sing his virtues, and some think he's quite the jackass, as do I. The sad truth is there are plenty of voters here that echo his bigotry.

    If a smoking ban will actually cause Houston to fold up and disappear, then I'm all for it. -rusty
    [ Parent ]

    Arlen. (none / 0) (#178)
    by /dev/trash on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:03:44 PM EST

    The problem with Arlen is that he runs his campaign as a liberal to get the Philly and Pittsburgh votes, and then tries to be a Conservative when he's in office.

    ---
    Updated 02/20/2004
    New Site
    [ Parent ]
    Two remarks: (2.66 / 9) (#74)
    by fyngyrz on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:56:50 AM EST

    First, as a devoted and enthusiastic heterosexual male, let me say that I am a fan of male homosexuality in general. The primary reason for this is simple; it results in fewer males competing for a resource I am interested in, specifically, heterosexual females. There are certainly other reasons, including a genuine interest in the complex subculture they've built and a "root for the underdog" instinct that I carry about -- but lowering the competition level in the room is the main one. I've always appreciated smart, well turned out, funny guys recusing themselves from competing with me for the ladies. Thanks again, in fact, for any homosexuals who might be reading this.

    Second, the point in the story that it is difficult to regulate what is done in one's bedroom is a simple technical issue that is well on the way to being solved. Various technologies allow seeing through walls at this time. I mean right now. Should the wackos that the idiots that comprise the majority of the American public continue to elect to public office manage to legislate various sexual behaviors out of your set of legal choices, I think it is a given that they will indeed be able to enforce such decisions. Case in point: Our local (and rural -- a very small town in Montana, about 3k people) cops are currently driving around with FLEER devices attached to the top of the patrol cars, devices that provide 360 degree-pointable and about 35 degree tiltable detailed infrared vision controlled by joystick for the officer operating the device in the car. They can see in your windows, even though all your lights are out. Right now. Today.

    Now, consider that microwave technologies that resolve detail through walls are currently expensive, but available. As FLEER was five years ago.

    You figure it out.


    Blog, Photos.

    Um... (none / 0) (#141)
    by kzinti on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:10:06 PM EST

    Case in point: Our local (and rural -- a very small town in Montana, about 3k people) cops are currently driving around with FLEER devices attached to the top of the patrol cars...

    The acronym is FLIR, which stands for "Forward Looking InfraRed". Most people pronounce it "fleer", though you may hear some people pronounce it "flur". Pronunciation was a raging debate back when I worked on a FLIR-related project in the F-16 program nearly 20 years ago. Sounds like the "fleer" camp won.

    [ Parent ]

    FLIR it is (none / 0) (#159)
    by fyngyrz on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 03:23:36 PM EST

    Also, it isn't "really" FLIR, because it isn't "forward looking" it's pannable and tiltable. But that's what the cops called it when I asked what the "device with the baby windshield wiper on it" was, so I followed suit. Thanks for the correction on the acronym.

    Wasn't it called FLIR when it was on missle warheads and the like? Forward being the most important direction in such a case?

    Blog, Photos.
    [ Parent ]

    OK... now explain your infatuation with lesbians. (none / 0) (#143)
    by skyknight on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:24:22 PM EST



    It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
    [ Parent ]
    To (vaguely) quote Chasing Amy... (3.00 / 2) (#161)
    by fyngyrz on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 03:34:42 PM EST

    We have a diagram. On the diagram, we put a cookie in the center of a cross of the plus-sign variety. At the four extremes of the cross, we place:

    Santa
    A fun-loving, hop-in-the-bed-with-guys Lesbian
    A lesbian who wouldn't share sex with a male on a bet
    The Easter Bunny.

    Now, if they're all let loose at the same time, who gets to the cookie first?

    ...

    The non-betting lesbian.

    Why? because the others are all imaginary.

    On a more direct note, bisexual chicks are fun to chase. Lesbians are a waste of time. It behooves one to determine what one is thinking of chasing, before you get too involved. :-)

    Blog, Photos.
    [ Parent ]

    you fail (1.66 / 9) (#85)
    by insomnyuk on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:14:02 AM EST

    The accusation of secret or 'closeted' homosexuality implies that homosexuality is bad, yet you crit Santorum for being anti-gay while calling his cronies secretly gay?  You talk like a closet anti-gay.

    So you are a hypocrite or an idiot, if I were you I'd pick the latter and pull for the sympathy vote.

    Rather than just starting out your 'story' (a term I will use as liberally of possible) with a profanity that demonstrates your utter lack of creativity and vocabulary, you could have done some work on it.

    While it is ironic that this arrogant neo-logism has entire websites devoted to it, you don't need to shill for the goddamn thing, anybody can type the senator's name into Google and get it as the top result.

    Speaking of which, if you weren't so fucking lazy, about 30 seconds on Google would have revealed this:
    SANTORI, SANTORIO, SANTORELLI, SANTORIELLI, SANTORINI, SANTORUM
    From the medieval first name Santoro, derived from the Latin word Sanctus = Saint, the genitive plural form is "Sanctorum", used also to indicate the All Saints feast. Possibly connected to someone acting as a saint, or who has connection with religious things (a sacristan)

    You talk dialect and then don't even do a little research? WEAK.

    You could have at least been educational while you were busy being mediocre and unfunny.

    Why don't you just take your poorly reasoned bullshit to dailykos.com and shut the fuck up. They'll appreciate you more.  Oh sorry, you're behind the times, dude. Go stand in the corner.

    you're prejudice is showing (none / 1) (#86)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:21:09 AM EST

    you don't have to read everything, but if you are going to attack me vehemently, you should at least make sure that i haven't covered already the same premise you have for attacking me:

    Seeking power in life is a personal strength of his, because he has honed the skillset psychologically over his own sexuality like a powerful, well-exercised muscle, for a longer period of time and to a much stronger degree than any normal person. And of course, what I mean by a normal person is not to mean a heterosexual person, a normal person is a homosexual or heterosexual person who has made peace with their sexuality. It is not normal to not to have made peace with one's sexuality.

    ...

    Again, let me reassert the basic premise of the idea of conservative anti-gay politics being derived from the psychology of closeted conservative homosexuals so as not to appear hypocritical in my attacks: there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Period. End of story.

    The wrong that is going on here is that what is driving conservative anti-homosexual politics, perhaps in all societies, perhaps throughout all time, is that closeted homosexuals are living out their psychosexual conflict on the political stage. And they are doing it in such a way that the vast quantities of psychological energy derived from their desperate struggle to deny their true selves is being used to deny the rights of psychologically well-adjusted homosexuals. And for us heterosexuals, the spill-over effect is to drive forward the politics of other conservative interests that are rooted in the desire to control our personal lives.

    In any other forum than national politics, the deeply closeted homosexual is a sad figure deserving of empathy. But when their cowardice to face their true selves, their denial, their hypocrisy threatens our rights, we are talking about a different issue.



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Insert witty subject here (none / 0) (#239)
    by slaida1 on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:24:44 AM EST

    The accusation of secret or 'closeted' homosexuality implies that homosexuality is bad

    No it doesn't, santorum.

    Speaking of which, if you weren't so fucking lazy, about 30 seconds on Google would have revealed this:

    About 30 seconds on google revealed these. Google is like a bible, people find what they want, wouldn't you say? But I bet you know your "revelations" well enough already, having read the book and all?

    All Saints santorum feast... Hehheh, what a sight that would be.

    [ Parent ]

    All Saints? (none / 0) (#297)
    by iLurk on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:50:33 PM EST

    The All Saints have their own feast day now?

    [ Parent ]
    Soooo.... (2.50 / 6) (#89)
    by IceTitan on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 03:12:21 AM EST

    So how are we non-gay, non-dog fucking, non-daughter-raping, non-multi-wife-having people suppose to undermine the fabric of society?
    Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
    FFFRRREEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOMMMMM (1.50 / 2) (#90)
    by Cat Huggles on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 04:34:40 AM EST

    FREEDOM IS GREAT. YOU SHOULD TRY IT!

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, yes, freedom, great. (2.40 / 5) (#93)
    by IceTitan on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 05:50:01 AM EST

    But how am I supposed to undermine the fabric of society in a non-fucked-up way? Could I wear mismatched socks or something?
    Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
    [ Parent ]
    You could try posting.. (1.50 / 2) (#111)
    by tonyenkiducx on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:33:22 AM EST

    ...an informative and none sarcastic article to a web-based meme-generator... Like Slashdot.

    Tony.
    I see a planet where love is foremost, where war is none existant. A planet of peace, and a planet of understanding. I see a planet called
    [ Parent ]
    accuse the biggest anti-homosexuals (none / 1) (#120)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:56:53 AM EST

    of being closeted homosexuals


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    nahhh (3.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Sgt York on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:03:49 PM EST

    that won't work. Too obvious.

    There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
    [ Parent ]

    with the Internet, D&D, and Quake /nt (none / 0) (#142)
    by skyknight on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:21:36 PM EST



    It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
    [ Parent ]
    Terrorism! (nt) (none / 0) (#196)
    by Gruntathon on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 12:27:43 AM EST


    __________
    If they hadn't been such quality beasts (despite being so young) it would have been a nightmare - good self-starting, capable hands are your finest friend. -- Anonymous CEO
    [ Parent ]
    lol here's my cts impersonation (3.00 / 11) (#91)
    by Cat Huggles on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 04:49:57 AM EST

    i see gay people

    and they DON'T EVEN KNOW

    that they're gay


    Almost a haiku (none / 0) (#121)
    by MMcP on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:57:28 AM EST

    Try harder!

    [ Parent ]
    dude (none / 0) (#131)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:28:49 PM EST

    that's fucking hilarious ;-)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    cts? (none / 0) (#150)
    by mpalczew on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:27:33 PM EST


    -- Death to all Fanatics!
    [ Parent ]
    Clitoral Touching Syndrome. (3.00 / 2) (#162)
    by fluxrad on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 03:43:25 PM EST

    It's a sexy, sexy disease.

    --
    "It is seldom liberty of any kind that is lost all at once."
    -David Hume
    [ Parent ]
    yeah, cts = pussy king, i endorse the synonym (nt) (none / 0) (#181)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:27:48 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    troll rubbish (2.25 / 4) (#92)
    by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 05:05:52 AM EST

    Were conservative-minded folk in ancient Greece homophobic?

    Since "homosexual" is a political category, hostility to homosexuals among conservative-minded folk would arise from their usual combination of fear and self-righteousness -- an example of a threat to the moral universe by Jews|Gypsies|Muslims|Homosexuals|Modern Art|The Other. Why, in America/2005, homosexuals and not vegans or whatever? Who knows! Ask ten sociologists and they'll give you ten different stories why; basically, history unfolds randomly.

    Interesting quack-science factoid: as measured by penile plethysmography, homophobic men watching gay porn show significant increase in penile circumference compared to the control (non-homophobic men.) Ha-ha! This stuff is lamer than psychometrics.

    --
    Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.

    actually no (none / 1) (#118)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:55:35 AM EST

    the conservative ancient greeks were flamingly homosexual

    which doesn't bother me, but should bother current biggotted, ignorant conservatives a whole lot

    so thanks for that ;-)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    was ricki santorum the one who wanted to watch OJ (none / 0) (#94)
    by lukme on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 07:50:02 AM EST

    on trial while there was a hearing that he needed to attend?


    -----------------------------------
    It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
    +1 FP (1.50 / 2) (#96)
    by tetsuwan on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:21:51 AM EST

    Almost as good as localroger's "Why I want to Fuck Ronald Reagan"

    Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance

    I suggest a compromise to the good Senator (2.60 / 10) (#97)
    by Anonymous Howards End on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 09:08:37 AM EST

    How about for every ten guys that I fellate, I have to knock up a broad?  Heck, let's get properly Biblical here; I'll even marry all of the broads that I impregnate so that they don't have to be stoned to death for being whores.

    Does that sound reasonable to you, Senator Family Values?
    --
    CodeWright, you are one cowardly hypocritical motherfucker.

    How clever of you to conveniently leave this out: (2.62 / 8) (#101)
    by JChen on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 09:51:58 AM EST

    (last question and answer in the AP interview; CTS forgot to leave in the rest of Santorum's quote)

    AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?

    SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

    Let us do as we say.

    yes (none / 0) (#117)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:52:53 AM EST

    it's nice of him to phrase his obvious obsession with homosexuality in such a pleasant way, thanks for pointing that out to us

    (snicker)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    What does that even mean? (none / 0) (#164)
    by fluxrad on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 04:02:31 PM EST

    Why is it somehow devious of cts to leave out the latter part of the quote? It's obvious that the gentleman from Pennsylvania wishes to eliminate the right to privacy. Whether or not he agrees with making privacy and other "privileges" a state condoned activity or allowance is moot. He wants to eliminate the right in the first place.

    More importantly, the second part of the quote is entirely bullshit to begin with. It is an argument of those who wish to move the goal posts. The first step is to argue that X is not a federal issue and that it should be left to the states. This is an argument to convince those on the fence that only minor changes need to be made with regard to X, or that a compromise need to be reached (a la Fox News' "fair and balanced" reporting mechanism).

    In our example the change is eventually made and the right to privacy is "left to the states." Of course, by this time some other anti-X group or whoever (maybe another more right wing senator from Georgia or some other state where "god hates X") has come along and sponsored another bill outlawing X. Since the right to X is no longer a constitutionally protected one, the states can do little to protect themselves from X being outlawed (remember kids: X is no longer a constitutionally protected activity!). And there you have it. The original goal of eliminating X has been achieved through a series of small and seemingly innocuous steps.

    --
    "It is seldom liberty of any kind that is lost all at once."
    -David Hume
    [ Parent ]
    emanations and penumbras (none / 0) (#184)
    by chunkstyle on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:41:19 PM EST

    Santorum is taking a strict constructionist viewpoint. Show him where this right to privacy is located within the US Constitution and then you'll have a starting point for debate.

    [ Parent ]
    That would be (3.00 / 2) (#197)
    by fluxrad on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 12:34:05 AM EST

    Amendment IX. You know, the gutted one.

    Just because Santorum starts from a particular viewpoint does not mean that viewpoint is valid. In fact, numerous federalist and antifederalist writings alike show that the framers had absolutely no intention whatsoever of the first ten amendments being an exhaustive list of rights enjoyed by the people.

    To say that rights are not rights until they are enumerated on a piece of paper is preposterous. This makes the assumption that rights are granted by the rule of law, when in reality they are recognized by the law. Moreover, 99% of the religious people I know are of the belief that human rights are given by no one but God. It would seem interesting to me then that Mr. Santorum (a religious man, to be sure) would argue hypocritically that rights are instead granted by the government. In fact, I've got $20 that says God is going to be pretty pissed off about that one when old Ricky reaches the pearly gates.

    --
    "It is seldom liberty of any kind that is lost all at once."
    -David Hume
    [ Parent ]
    I agree the Constitution grants nothing (none / 0) (#378)
    by chunkstyle on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:53:08 PM EST

    It is a restriction on what the Government can do. Everything else is not allowed as a governmental function, nevermind the 'living document' claptrap. That's why it's a strange proposition to have the government in the position of endorsing particular living arrangments which is what recent Supreme Court and State Supreme Court decisions have done, de jure creation of nationwide legislation.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you blind (none / 0) (#246)
    by paranoid on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:51:47 AM EST

    He clearly wants Congress to be able to pass an anti-gay marriage law and not have the Supreme Court strike it down. He clearly wants states to be able to pass anti-abortion laws and not have the Supreme Court strike them down.

    The missing text doesn't vindicate him in the least, quite the contrary.

    [ Parent ]

    First they came for the homosexuals (1.44 / 9) (#102)
    by the ghost of rmg on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 10:00:07 AM EST

    And I did not speak up, because I was not a homosexual...

    It may seem trite to make the obvious comparison to NAZI GERMANY, but this is Kuro5hin, so I'll make it anyway. The Nazis started the same way the Republicans have: By denying the basic rights and humanity of Jews, gypsies, and other non-aryans. One commenter below, who, incidentally, Rusty will give as many further opportunities to spread hate as he likes, suggests that "homosexuals are like free masons." I.e. that there is a conspiracy amongst them to permeate professional spheres where, the author of the comment believes, they do not belong.

    Is this not precisely the argument made against the Jews in the beginning of the twentieth century? And the result: Over ten million Jews killed in progroms and Nazi death camps.

    Yet the sentiments expressed by the author have become accepted "moral values" in this society, precisely because permissive media outlets like Fox News and Kuro5hin allow such talk, slowly letting it creep into the mainstream. But make no mistake: When you institutionally dehumanize a group of people, mass, state-sponsored murder is an inevitability.

    Those of us with the sensibilities to see this see our fellow citizens with their hate radio and propaganda websites. On reflection, we cannot doubt that these hatemongers are both willing and capable of precisely the crimes the German people committed all those years ago. If we allow their hatespeech within our forum, we are helping their ends to come about. We, too, will be responsible.

    That is why I call upon Rusty to ban people like minerboy who spread empty, hate-filled lies about "The Great Homosexual Conspiracy." But do not stop there: There are many in this forum who believe it is acceptable to use the word "nigger" in a pejorative sense. One sees such talk in our own diary section. Why should we let a site with such high minded ideals sink so low? Why should it be a conduit for hatespeech?

    If we do not put this to a stop, we will be complicit when they start sending the gays to the ovens. These spreaders of hatred must be banned at once.


    rmg: comments better than yours.

    It's curious (1.50 / 2) (#108)
    by minerboy on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:08:38 AM EST

    no reader with an IQ of more than 80 would take the comment I made seriously, beyond the funny quip that it was.

    If I would have said that evangelical Christians were conspiring, no one would complain. It is funny that you would complain within an article that spews hate at a US senator and Christians. In fact, you seem to accept reference to Masonic (generally WASP)conspiracies without issue (masons claim that there is no such conspiracy).

    Nope, modern pogroms will be against Christians, not Gays. Your comment is a stark example of that.



    [ Parent ]
    Hatespeech is not funny. (none / 1) (#113)
    by the ghost of rmg on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:39:58 AM EST

    Now that someone calls you out, you back off. "Oh, you misunderstand! Gay people have such a persecution complex!"

    Just like a Nazi.


    rmg: comments better than yours.
    [ Parent ]

    Real Hate speech (none / 0) (#132)
    by minerboy on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:34:31 PM EST

    Why not ban these ?

    From the K5 christian Pogrom

    Example 1 "Christians are the lowest of the low. Lower than even the niggers. The only thing lower is the christian nigger, on second thought, no the white USian christian is just to low. To dumb. Nothing in all of history in all the universe could compare to their stupidity.

    They need killed. Every fucking one of them. I dead seriouse. They deserve it more than any creature that has ever existed. I just hope with all my abilty that Bush will do the job. With he help of osama and such. I hope he kills every fucking one of them. I hope he fulfils there stupid little revelations prophesy for the masses of them. It's seems to be what they desperatley want. They want to be martars or something."

    Example 2 "after reading this, i couldnt help thinking that evangelical christians are like the borg. assimilate or die. =)"

    Example 3. "The loveable mental midgets they are ... "

    Example 4. "let us expose christian fundamentalism as the caustic force it is"

    Example 5. "The only persons I've encountered that I would ever call evil, have all been christians.

    They are the fucking scum of the earth. Their "religion" has nothing to do with religion. Their lifes have got nothing in common with their Jesus. They are incapable of seeeing this.

    If you are a christian, then god bless you and know in your heart that you can change."

    Imagine if you replaced Christian with Gay in the above sentences

    Its easy to see what the true hate speech is, the question is why doesn't anyone care ?

    Enough yet ? no ? there is even mainstream books on the topic. Trash like this - "As Esther Kaplan shows in this fast-paced investigation, no condom fact sheet or obscure drug advisory panel is too small to escape the roving eyes of Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, or the many other political advisory arms of the evengelical right. While organizations that promote family planning and sex education are the targets of relentless audits, church groups receive hundreds of millions in federal dollars for programs promoting sexual abstinence, faith-based social services and marriage training, especially for the poor. Religious considerations even shape the government's foreign aid policies and its war on terror. And while much of the Christian right's influence could be quickly reversed with a change in administration, Bush's crusading makeover of the federal courts may undermine women's and gay rights - and bolster a corporate agenda - for decades to come." - Now read it again, but change Christian, to the word Jew, It could be a teaser for the "Eternal Jew".

    Last consider a comparison of how UC boulder treated an evangelical Christian Professor, (compared to a fake Native American)



    [ Parent ]
    Oh, I see. (none / 0) (#145)
    by the ghost of rmg on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:40:25 PM EST

    So Christians are just taking out the abuse they receive on homosexuals. You see, I hadn't looked at that way. I know how the cycle of abuse can be self-perpetuating. I mean, can we really blame a man for beating his gay son to death if he had an abusive father? Or if the people on TV tell him he is evil for hating gays?

    Well, boy, I don't know. In this crazy world, you just never can tell. There are so many different angles to every story, there's just nothing more than varying shades of gray. It's all just a matter of opinion, in the final analysis. Maybe Christians really are going to be sent to the gas chamber by weirdos on the internet. There's just no basis for judgement of the relative power of the anti-gay and anti-Christian forces.


    rmg: comments better than yours.
    [ Parent ]

    Here's a thought. (none / 0) (#154)
    by Nosf3ratu on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:50:35 PM EST

    How about no one hates anyone else? Using some trite little examples from drunken K5 diaries as a justification for centuries of ostracizing homosexuals is not what I'd call just.

    It's idiotic and ranty.

    The day that evangelicals stop stop hating homosexuals is the day I'll stop saying that they are no better than pagans and satanists.


    Woo!
    [ Parent ]

    oh please (none / 0) (#281)
    by Battle Troll on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 04:32:42 PM EST

    I was with you until you dragged in Fred Phelps. Nobody likes him, not Billy Graham, not Falwell, not anybody.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]
    Are you saying you're gay (none / 0) (#166)
    by zorba77 on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 04:47:40 PM EST

    Or a whiney hypocrite that hates himself?
    Return the West Coast to the Tribes of sasquatch!
    [ Parent ]
    Who. (none / 0) (#170)
    by the ghost of rmg on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 05:27:58 PM EST

    Who hates himself.

    This is what I meant by "illiteracy."


    rmg: comments better than yours.
    [ Parent ]

    wait dude (2.33 / 3) (#114)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:46:55 AM EST

    the best way to kill hate is to set it free

    by bottling it up, the psychological subtext is that you are banning it because it is too powerful

    no, it's not powerful, it's stupid, so let the morons out there and let them fall on the weakness of their own words

    there is no greater way to give something inconsequential great power and lots of free pr than by trying to censor it

    just ask ex-mayor rudolph giuliani and his attempt to ban a painting of the madonna made of elephant dung

    if it wasn't for his censorship attempts, we would never have even heard of that painting


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    The down-side to banning hate speech (none / 0) (#175)
    by shinshin on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 07:44:34 PM EST

    Better have the hate speech out in the open where it can be exposed, picked-apart, and ridiculed for the nonsense that it is. Pushing it underground (to places like this) will only cause it to fester, and will provide reaffirmation of their deep-seated belief in a "homosexual media conspiracy" that is trying to destroy their way of life.

    ____
    We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
    [ Parent ]
    Good troll, mostly (none / 1) (#259)
    by Mason on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:53:06 PM EST

    You've improved, but you still got a bit over the top there at the end.  You've got to pace yourself, man.

    For example, no liberal would rant like that about talk radio or conservative websites.  Remember, we cripple ourselves by seeking to protect the unpopular while at the same time protecting the rights of bigots to say what they want.  So yelling about the need for censorship is pretty amateur.

    Still, you had a pretty good start, and more than a few bites.  Just don't get so carried away.

    [ Parent ]

    shut up. (none / 0) (#261)
    by the ghost of rmg on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:58:55 PM EST




    rmg: comments better than yours.
    [ Parent ]
    Wow, that's some rant (2.00 / 2) (#103)
    by LilDebbie on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 10:31:18 AM EST

    I must confirm, as an active member of the GOP, that our "conventions" would make Caligula blush. Gay orgies aside, a conservative response:

    First of all, this article, like the word 'santorum', is a deliberate attempt to enrage conservative marriage proponents by accusing them of being closeted homosexuals. We call it trolling, but in this case cts also is trying to convey a point, that is, we anti-gay marriage people aren't simply mistaken, we are mentally ill.

    There are valid reasons for being against gay marriage, most of them revolve around the idea of not exposing children to the idea of a homosexual relationship as a normal model for a family. As you invoke Freud so heavily, let me add the importance, psychologically speaking, of having a male AND female role model in the home.

    But, of course, you weren't arguing that. You were only talking about big bitot Santorum's hatred of gays and love of sodomy laws. I'd actually believe you on that if you didn't try to pull in the whole of the conservative movement in your analysis.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    The Nazis were protecting their children too. (2.33 / 3) (#105)
    by the ghost of rmg on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 10:52:04 AM EST




    rmg: comments better than yours.
    [ Parent ]
    C'mon rmg (none / 0) (#107)
    by LilDebbie on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:08:12 AM EST

    that was just lazy and you know it.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    Don't give me that shit. (none / 1) (#112)
    by the ghost of rmg on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:38:24 AM EST

    It's fuckin' true and you know it.


    rmg: comments better than yours.
    [ Parent ]
    dude (none / 0) (#115)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:49:21 AM EST

    are you purposely trying to invoke godwin as many times as possible or what?

    we can defeat social conservatives without invoking hitler, and do a much better job of it for that


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    So says the right wing waterboy. (none / 1) (#149)
    by the ghost of rmg on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:20:02 PM EST

    When you're not spewing Republican talking points, you busy yourself giving "advice" to liberals. My interest has run out.


    rmg: comments better than yours.
    [ Parent ]
    yeah, i'm the right wing waterboy (none / 0) (#177)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 07:56:50 PM EST

    that's it, you got me pegged


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Quite possibly the wisest thing rmg has said (none / 1) (#294)
    by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:38:39 PM EST

    aside from "cocks" that is.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    isn't the idea compelling to you? (none / 0) (#116)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:51:36 AM EST

    that the most fervent anti-homosexuals in your ranks have a psychosexual componenet to their fervent hatred of homosexuals?

    as a heterosexual, you can understand why homosexuality doesn't threaten you

    so why drag down conservative politics for the desperate self-destructive needs of some deeply closeted homosexuals in your ranks?

    you should be outing them, they will drag conservative politics down in the end

    everything comes out in the end


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    You're not listening (none / 0) (#125)
    by LilDebbie on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:09:20 PM EST

    It doesn't matter what Senator Santorum thinks. He does not represent mainstream conservative opinion on homosexuals. Most opponents of gay marriage, whom you lump in with him, don't care if homosexuals have sex, we only care if they get married.

    Anyway, you'll forgive me if I find your accusations of repressed homosexuality affecting 60+% of the population to be nothing but baseless ad hominem attacks coming from someone who read too many pop psychology books.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    that's all fine and dandy (none / 0) (#127)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:18:35 PM EST

    because you agree with me

    santorum is, to use a "pop psychology" reference: emotional baggage

    and according to pop psychology, and in agreement with your own take on santorum, you conservatives should be making yourself busy getting rid of old senator frothy lube to better yourselves, right?

    so get to it friend, get rid of your useless psychological baggage: you have some house cleaning to do of people who are only going to hurt your causes in the end, right?

    go, get to work, lose him


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    We don't ditch legislators on single non-issues (none / 0) (#133)
    by LilDebbie on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:37:56 PM EST

    in case you weren't aware, the whole gay marriage issue is mostly a smoke screen. I mean, we don't want it, but we'll use it in order to push the more important elements of our agenda.

    I was actually fairly surprised recently when the religious right actually started to call the Administration on it. I was of the opinion they'd just let it die in the Senate as expected.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    hey man (none / 0) (#182)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:30:35 PM EST

    you're the guy distancing yourself from santorum as much as possible

    meanwhile, santorum is sticking his head up your ass as much as he can in his pursuit of the holy cloak of social conservativism to protect himself form his own sexuality

    i'm just saying you need to clean house

    but you do what you think is best for conservatism

    they say that you are judged on the company you keep...


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    what's good for conservatism? (none / 0) (#240)
    by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:25:13 AM EST

    so we have a senator who is very anti-gay representing a party which is primarily anti-gay catching flak for being anti-gay from people who will NEVER vote GOP anyway. yeah, he needs to go.

    hey, maybe we should get rid of Dubya too. he really pisses off the liberals. that'll help conservatism a ton!

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    i'm just saying (none / 0) (#269)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 03:13:32 PM EST

    when they catch santorum dancing around in pink undies with an intern, you might want to revisit my words

    hurts you, not me

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Backslapping in the Closet (none / 0) (#173)
    by T818 on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 06:43:55 PM EST

    Even assuming conservatives are really gay this fails to address the issue of whether certain desires are best suppressed. Perhaps Rick and friends back slap each other in the closet on the suppression of 'errant desires'. Basically one just has to trust the statistics on this one. As far as I know the statistics show gays are by and large productive law abiding citizens. There is no evidence gay sex is undermining the republic. Also in the US there is best a presumption in favor of freedom. The US is after all the US. I think the presumption should be against gay adoption until the case is clearly proven to the effect there is no harm. The safety of children is paramount. But perhaps on TV I have just seen too many transvestites shimming down the road during the celebration of Gay Pride Week. I do believe that the statistics would show people who do it with dogs generally make poor citizens.

    [ Parent ]
    it's about the love (none / 0) (#199)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:27:27 AM EST

    you don't need studies to prove that a child is better off in a homosexual household where the parents love him/ her rather than a heterosexual household where one might be a drunk and the other might be a self-hating distant noncommunicative wastoid

    the orientation doesn't matter, just how much love the child gets matters

    it's about the love, period, end of story


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    A Factor to Consider Though (none / 0) (#230)
    by T818 on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:52:40 AM EST

    Perhaps the situation might be something akin to college admissions. Many colleges consider race a factor to consider but quotas are eschewed. Perhaps sexual orientation is best no absolute barrier to adoption but rather a factor to consider.

    Certain kinds of gay lifestyles are certainly less family friendly than other gay lifestyles. A transvestite might have a lot of love but still make a poor parent. Certain lifestyles that may neither be here nor there assuming one is an adult may make for a poor environment for a child. There seem to be a lot these lifesytles amongst gays.

    Another factor to consider is that one has no right to demand that children be completely rational. There may be a biological predisposition against gayness and to demand children eschew this predisposition and adopt adult atitudes may be asking too much of a child. This is no argument greenlighting school homophobia but the point is perhaps children must be weaned from this atitude.

    The point is that whether or not a prospective parent is gay and the associated lifestyle associated with that gayness is always relevant. All other things equal a child certainly will have an easier time in a heterosexual household but, of course, this theoretical supposition must be ignored 'on the ground' where situations are always far from equal. The situation is different with lesbians. The dangers of taking children from biological mothers far out ways any benefit gained from taking away children from the usual lesbian lifestyles. As I understand the situation lesbian couples are by and large more stable than male homosexual couples.

    With adoption clearly there must be no assumption heterosexuals are good parents just because they are heterosexuals. The goal must always be the best home for the child. Gayness may be a liability and hence the gayness of prospective parents certainly must be examined.

    [ Parent ]

    You can have your opinion, but not your own Facts (2.77 / 9) (#135)
    by saodl on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:51:06 PM EST

    Indeed, the concern about young children is the most reasonable argument advanced for suppressing homosexuality. You say that psychologically speaking, it is important to have both male and female role models at home. From a layman's perspective (which I am when it comes to psychology) that seems right on- and considering its importance I would hope someone would have looked into it more closely.

    Well, what do you know. Apparently both the American Psychological Association (1998) and the American Psychiatric Association (2002) have standing official opinions on exactly this issue based on more than 30 years of studies. And in both cases they state firmly that there is no evidence that children are adversely affected by having homosexual parents. To quote from the latter:

    Numerous studies over the last three decades consistently demonstrate that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as children raised by heterosexual parents. This research indicates that optimal development for children is based not on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults. The research also shows that children who have two parents, regardless of the parents' sexual orientations, do better than children with only one parent...

    The American Psychiatric Association supports initiatives which allow same-sex couples to adopt and co-parent children and supports all the associated legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities which arise from such initiatives.

    Interesting...as a reasonable layman I am forced to accede to the opinion of the preponderance of experts who have done years of research into the issue. Furthermore, I am forced to the conclusion that passing legislation which would take children away from all single parents and place them with stable couples in commited relationships, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is a far more pressing need.

    We should notify Senator Santorum immediately- I am sure he will want to propose an appropriate bill for a vote as soon as possible.

    [ Parent ]

    Bigot vs bigot (none / 0) (#213)
    by the womble on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 04:33:47 AM EST

    A lot of the gay rights people are bigoted and intolerant themselves - if you do not agree with them all the way down the line.

    An example is their reaction to the mainstream Christian ban on gay sex. I do not regard this as any different from (say) the Jewish and Muslim bans on eating pork.

    I have friends who do not eat pork (becuase they think its wrong), I eat pork and as long as they do not try to stop me eating it thats fine by me. Similarly all the major religions  ban homosexual sex (although the Buddhist teaching seems to depend on who you ask), if you do not agree you can follow your own beliefs

    Similarly mainstream Christians mostly believe homosexual sex is wrong, but do not seek to forciblys top others from doing what they want. Whats wrong with that? No one has to follow religous rules, it is purely voluntarilly.

    However gay activists and their like tend to say, in effect , you must agree with us about homosecuality or there is something wrong with you.

    A appointee to the European Comission was foreced out of his job last year becuase he thought gay sex was wrong. There was nothing to suggest that he would seek to in anayway act to disadvantage gays, but he still lost his job. Is that supposed to be tolerant? What is next no Catholic judges becasue they mighte be biased against divorcees, no Muslims or Jews in agriculture related governmental bodies as they might discrimiate against pig farmers etc?

    If you ask for tolerance being intolerant is hardly a good way to put your case! People have a right to their views, particiularly in an area as difficult to make clear rules in as sexual ethics.  Of course your senator is a nut case, but that is not a reason to suppress everyone how disagrees with you.

    [ Parent ]

    pure bullshit (none / 0) (#216)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:44:39 AM EST

    there is intolerance

    and then intolerance of intolerance

    intolerance is a sin

    intolerance of intolerance is probably one of the greatest virtues there is

    there is a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE

    between

    "i hate you because you are gay"

    and

    "i hate you because you hate"

    understand the concept fucktwit?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    You would have a point if.. (none / 0) (#221)
    by the womble on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:09:19 AM EST

    You would have a point if disagreeing with someone implied hating them. Judging by the languagge you use you probably do hate people you disagree with, fortunately some of us are more civilised and tolerant.

    [ Parent ]
    completely wrong (none / 0) (#223)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:32:18 AM EST

    "i hate homosexuals"

    vs.

    "i hate you because you hate homosexuals"

    the first is a sin, the second is a virtue, period

    i'm glad you see it as "disagreeing with someone" when what you propose is to make someone a second class citizen

    i'm certain nazis simply "disagreed" with jews as well, and had all sorts of pleasant speak about what they thought and what they did too


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    since you're worked up already (none / 0) (#242)
    by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:31:32 AM EST

    might I remind you that sodomy laws do not make anyone a second class citizen, they apply to everyone equally. if I consider myself a heterosexual, have sex with women all the time, but decide to try gay butt sex to what it's like, all those heterosexual encounters aren't going to save my ass (pun intended) in court. remember, the law is against the act, not the person.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    hate the sin, not the sinner (none / 1) (#268)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 03:11:42 PM EST

    except that homosexuality is not a sin

    by any measure of morality or logic


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    why? (none / 0) (#277)
    by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 03:54:06 PM EST

    let's hear this logic of yours.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    it doesn't hurt anyone (none / 0) (#278)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 04:15:04 PM EST

    duh


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    I do not accept your assertation (none / 0) (#280)
    by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 04:18:57 PM EST

    and that's what this entire argument is about.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    homosexuals hurt you? (none / 0) (#283)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:00:27 PM EST

    could you quantify and qualify the way in which a homosexual hurts you?

    i don't think you can


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    not me personally (none / 0) (#285)
    by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:07:09 PM EST

    hence why I personally don't care (but I feel obligated to argue for my conservative brethren. solidarity, baby). in the interest of saving my wrists from further repetitive stress injury, I direct you towards the many comments I have already made in this article arguing why homosexual marriage hurts people.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    that is wh i am still posting to you (none / 1) (#286)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:18:42 PM EST

    as you haven't made a compelling argument yet

    you have smoke and mirrors

    hiding a simple fear of the unknown

    a simple groundless fear based in simple ignorance that has driven many crimes throughout human history

    no really: you have not put forth a quantifiable and qualifiable way in which homosexuals hurt anyone anywhere

    because none exists

    i encourage you, regardless of your carpal tunnel syndrome, to find a valid argument against homosexuality, on your own time

    one which stands the test of logic and morality in your mind

    and then, after searching in vain, i ask you, in good conscience, to reconsider your prejudice if you are a fair minded individual

    or, simply continue your life with an injustice in your beliefs on your conscience


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    No quantifiable data exists (none / 0) (#289)
    by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:29:29 PM EST

    suggesting one way or the other. I will withhold my personal opinion until then and argue with you on it in order to keep the question alive.

    You have provided me with proof either, choosing instead to place the burden of proof on me even though history is on my side.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    sp/You have/You have not (none / 0) (#290)
    by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:30:26 PM EST

    schiesse!

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    you're such a fucking smug asshole (none / 1) (#299)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 06:18:02 PM EST

    what if i say i believe that the presence of downs syndrome people in society hurts society

    what do i say in defense of my statement?

    "No quantifiable data exists suggesting one way or the other."

    HEY ASSHOLE

    HOMOSEXUALS DON'T FUCKING HURT SOCIETY YOU STUPID BIGOTTED FUCK

    END OF FUCKING STORY

    I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING

    BECAUSE I'M NOT THE MOTHERFUCKER DENYING PEOPLE THE SAME RIGHTS YOU WOULD DEFEND FOR YOURSELF

    UNDERSTAND YOU BIGOTTED STUPID FUCK?

    "I will withhold my personal opinion until then and argue with you on it in order to keep the question alive."

    yeah, keep up with that, let's see how much of a smug bigotted moron you are

    "You have provided me with proof either, choosing instead to place the burden of proof on me even though history is on my side."

    HEY ASSHOLE

    I'M NOT THE ONE DENYING PEOPLE THEIR RIGHTS

    you really are one stupid fucking twit

    how do you defeat your ideological opponents?

    just let them fucking speak, like lildebbie, and let them fall on their own sword: the weakness of their own smug arrogance


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    how do you defeat your ideological opponents? (none / 0) (#328)
    by LilDebbie on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:15:51 AM EST

    just let them shout, like circletimessquare, and let them reveal their own hypocrisy.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    there is nothing hypocritical about what i say (none / 1) (#338)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:00:20 AM EST

    and i'm sorry my loud rude honesty offends your quiet placid lies

    listen carefully fuckface:

    homosexuals will get the rights they deserve

    progressive have been doing end runs around social conservatives for decade: slavery, suffrage, civil rights, etc.

    and every single time, the momentum looked like it was against progressives, and their enemies were wide and deep

    but mostly, in each issue, what defeated the social conservatives most of all, was their own smug callousness

    homosexuals will have the right to marry and adopt children within your lifetime in the usa

    bet on it

    so, please, you go on with your bad self, you rest comfortably on your certainty that things will never change

    that's what we need you to do in order to defeat you


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    why is the onus on him (none / 0) (#282)
    by Altus on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 04:58:35 PM EST


    to prove that it is not a sin?  what proof do you supply that it is a sin?

    some line in a book?  that sure doesnt mean much...

     

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    I did not offer any (none / 0) (#287)
    by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:19:19 PM EST

    but here you go:

    Sin is defined as acting in such a way as to offend God. How one offends God is defined by what the preeminent religion of the moment says. The preeminent religion of the moment (Judeo-Christian-I don't know how to fit Islam in this phrase and not destroy the flow) says that homosexuality is a sin. Q E MOTHAFUCKIN' D

    His (grandparent poster) first mistake was to frame the question with regards to sin. Though his mistake does illustrate a very, very, very important point that seems to be lost on technocratic liberals today: modern society is based upon the morality of the past. Logic only serves to extrapolate all true interpretations of the morality of the past. Logic can only tell you how to live if and only if you have a moral basis, or a set of axioms if you want to use logospek, from which to draw logical conclusions.

    If you want to prove me wrong, give me a logical proof as to why murder is wrong. You will quickly discover you cannot.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    well you had brought up logic (none / 1) (#295)
    by Altus on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:38:47 PM EST


    and that is not a logical proof....

    but you are right... there is not way to define sin with logic.  you would have to start by logically proving that God exists and then logically deduce Gods will and so on.

    hell... for all we know there is a God and he gets his jollys off watching men fuck and then kill each other.

    And if modern society is based on the morality of the past why arent we all fucking boys like the ancient greeks?  oh yea... thats right... dont go back too far, look just far enough.

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    you can't define anything with logic (none / 0) (#296)
    by LilDebbie on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:43:21 PM EST

    that's why it's a definition. sheesh, take a fucking class.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    dude (none / 0) (#353)
    by Altus on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 01:45:31 PM EST


    you really need to grow the fuck up.

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
    [ Parent ]
    this is pure bullshit (3.00 / 2) (#310)
    by bradasch on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:48:05 PM EST

    You are using semantics to defend your point of view.

    But your pov depends essencially on what you define as good, correct and acceptable. So, what you are seeking is a bunch of "amens", nothing else. Disagreement is met with, down to basics, "because I said so".

    This is pure bullshit and a waste of time.

    [ Parent ]

    Finally (none / 0) (#331)
    by LilDebbie on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:33:13 AM EST

    Someone who gets it.

    Although, I worry you do not fully grok your own words.

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    please (none / 0) (#336)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:55:50 AM EST

    keep talking

    the best way to prove someone wrong is have them enunciate their own failures

    you're doing a great job, keep it up


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    sir (none / 0) (#356)
    by bradasch on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 02:00:53 PM EST

    I admire your directness. It's refreshing.

    I completely grok what I say: what you don't seem to understand is that I was criticizing you.

    The world would be a lot better if the conservatives could just express themselves in the exact same way you do.

    Really, thanks.

    ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    For your edification... (none / 0) (#311)
    by MrMikey on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:19:59 PM EST

    You seem to be laboring under several misconceptions...
    Sin is defined as acting in such a way as to offend God.
    This definition carries within it several unsupported assertions:
    • The Deity in question exists, and is the only one that exists.
    • The Deity in question is capable of being offended by human acts.
    • Humans are capable of accurately discerning what will and what will not offend the Deity.
    • The giving of offense to the Deity is sufficient justification to warrant that the act that gave offense be considered imoral/illegal.
    Since all of these assertions are unsupported, the resulting definition is a rather weak one, and of limited use. Indeed, it is reduced to mere assertion.

    How one offends God is defined by what the preeminent religion of the moment says. The preeminent religion of the moment (Judeo-Christian-I don't know how to fit Islam in this phrase and not destroy the flow) says that homosexuality is a sin. Q E MOTHAFUCKIN' D
    QED is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, which roughly translates as "which was demonstrated" -- a phrase used after the conclusion of some line of reasoning, especially in mathematical or logical proofs. Yet, what you offer above is not a mathematical or logical proof, or even a line of reasoning, but merely an assertion "It's a sin because the religion of the moment says so."

    His (grandparent poster) first mistake was to frame the question with regards to sin. Though his mistake does illustrate a very, very, very important point that seems to be lost on technocratic liberals today: modern society is based upon the morality of the past.
    As others have pointed out, "the past" covers a lot of philosophical and historical ground. How do you decide which particular bits of "the past" justify current action, especially when you can find parts of "the past" that support both the prohibition and the encouragement of a particular act?
    Logic only serves to extrapolate all true interpretations of the morality of the past.
    Logic is a system of symbolic operations and procedures such that, assuming your starting axioms are true, and the logical operations performed on those axioms (and the result of past operations) are true, the outcome will be true. Logic is not about "extrapolating true interpretations", though you can use logic as part of that process. For instance, depending on which "past" you look to, polygamy is either a societal norm or a prohibited practice. What sort of "extrapolating true interpretations" do you propose that will lead to us knowing whether polygamy should or should not be a societal norm today?
    Logic can only tell you how to live if and only if you have a moral basis, or a set of axioms if you want to use logospek, from which to draw logical conclusions.
    The word "axiom", in terms of logic, can be defined as "a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident." The core values upon which a moral system are grounded could be described by the word "axioms" (which, by the way, is a word you should have seen in your High School or college math classes, or logic classes if you took any... it isn't "logospeak", just English). That said, the logical conclusions one draws from one's moral "axioms" is a separate question from that of whether or not a particular set of axioms/conclusions are desirable or justified given the consequences of a society actually putting them into practice.

    If you want to prove me wrong, give me a logical proof as to why murder is wrong. You will quickly discover you cannot.
    You seem to be contradicting yourself... can we use logic to derive moral precepts, or not? My moral "axioms" don't require the supposed whims of a Supernatural Entity as their support, yet I am capable of logically deriving a prohibition against murder based upon them.

    All human lives have value.
    The murder of a person represents a loss of value that cannot be regained.
    The loss of value diminishes society.
    The diminishment of society is wrong.
    Therefore, murder is wrong. QED

    I'll be the first to admit that it isn't a very good proof, but it is a proof. So, as you can see, I can, indeed, give you a logical proof as to why murder is wrong.

    Enjoy.

    [ Parent ]

    "The diminishment of society is wrong." (none / 0) (#330)
    by LilDebbie on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:32:10 AM EST

    You take this statement for granted, i.e. as an axiom, which is exactly my point. To answer your question, no, I absolutely do not believe one can logically derive moral precepts (unless one wishes to derive the law of the jungle).

    My question to you is, if not from a Supernatural Entity, where do you derive your moral axioms?

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    cmoon fucking sense (none / 0) (#335)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:54:05 AM EST

    we're sorry that you are morally impaired, but most of us can understand morality, right and wrong, simply from simple concepts we learned in kindergarten

    jesus you are one royally fucked up loser


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    kindergarten ehh? (none / 0) (#423)
    by kamera on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 11:29:12 AM EST

    That sounds about right. Seeing the world in black and white, right and wrong, is about a 5-year-old's mindset. Most of us have grown beyond that to see complexity in the world and ethical decisions. Those who haven't, well, generally haven't spent any time studying ethics.

    But right and wrong it is! Fuck all those "royally fucked up losers" like Aristotle, Kant, Mill, Hegel, Rawls, Nozick, Singer, et al that spent life times thinking about something they should have learned in Kindergarten.

    "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde
    [ Parent ]

    I derive my personal moral axioms... (3.00 / 2) (#341)
    by MrMikey on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:10:14 AM EST

    from several sources:
    • I see that I am interconnected, to one degree or another, with everyone and everything else, such that my causing harm to others will also harm me now, and in the future.
    • I have a feeling of empathy for others, and so empathize with the pain I cause them. I don't want to hurt them because I know what it feels like.
    • The assumption that others will treat me well if I treat them well.
    • My desire for a "better" world, and the idea that my treating others will contribute to the formation of that better world.
    These are some of the "basis vectors" of my moral space. I have no belief in a Supernatural Entity, and, even if one did exist, I would consider the threat of eternal damnation / promise of eternal reward to be insufficient inducement for my acting in ways that I considered to be immoral (i.e. I wouldn't be calling for a ban on all abortion, or an anti-same-sex-marriage amendment, or the banning of evolution classes, or any of a number of other things that some Believers believe they are called to by their SE). At least, I'd like to think I was that moral a person... Indeed, to act in a moral fashion primarily out of fear of punishment and/or desire for reward is, IMO, the morality of a child, not the morality of a reasoning adult.

    Thanks for asking, BTW... I look forward to hearing what you think of my axioms.

    [ Parent ]

    I imagine they serve you well (none / 0) (#357)
    by LilDebbie on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 02:22:33 PM EST

    and, with a wink, I'd add that they are summed up nicely by the words of one of the more famous SEs, "do unto others as you would have them do to you."

    My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
    - hugin -

    [ Parent ]
    Don't worry... (none / 1) (#373)
    by MrMikey on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 07:06:20 PM EST

    I already know. :)

    Heck, if most Christians actually followed the putative teachings of Christ, the world would be a better place. It's the ones trying to get evolution out of schools, books out of libraries, the option of abortion out of women's hands, and gays out of, well, existence that chap my hide.

    There are some nifty ideas to be found in the religious texts of the world. I'm fine with ideas. I like ideas. Just don't ask me to believe that there was a worldwide flood, or that two of every animal was put onto a boat, or that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Also, don't ask me to act as if the ideas of Men really did some from a Supernatural Entity when the evidence isn't there to support that assertion. And, finally, don't ask me to obey a power hierarchy just because they claim there's a God at the apex of it.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree (none / 1) (#302)
    by slashcart on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 07:05:19 PM EST

    might I remind you that sodomy laws do not make anyone a second class citizen, they apply to everyone equally.
    On that point I disagree. Although an anti-sodomy laws are ostensibly directed against acts only, they're obviously intended to target a class of persons by outlawing acts which those persons alone feel compelled to do.

    For example, suppose I pass a law banning the following: wearing yamulkes, speaking in Hebrew, speaking in Yiddish, living in Jewish sections of New York, eating at Delicatessens, naming one's children "David", etc. All of those things are acts, and the law applies to everyone equally. Nevertheless, such a law would be specifically crafted to uniquely identify the members of a despised minority, in this case, Jews. Therefore, even though the law prohibits only acts, it still targets certain people and makes them second-class citizens.

    It would be quite easy to multiply examples. That's why the Supreme Court has previously ruled unconstitutional a law motivated by animosity that attempted to identify a minority (in that case, Hippies) by banning a fairly exhaustive list of their activities. IIRC, the law was trying to deny Hippies the ability to collect food stamps or eat at soup kitches because the surrounding community was angry at their stance on the Vietnam war. The law was focused on acts only, e.g. "persons with hair length in excess of n inches shall not be able to eat at..."

    Also, having the intimate details of your private life under the control of another person will make you a second-class citizen to him. He is the master, and you are the servant. The only exception is when your private behavior would damage him, and you rely on laws to prevent others from damaging you.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree but... (none / 0) (#383)
    by the womble on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 03:23:30 AM EST

    I agree with you about anti-sodomy laws, although I have to say I find it hard to believe that they will be passed. Even most countries that have them (I am in one) they have fallen into disuse (it is safe to be openly gay here).

    One the other hand I would argue that marraige laws are different,they primarilly have a social purpose, Many of the other common limitations in marraige law, such as not allowing polygamy and polyandry, are clearly discriminatory to certain groups, but I would not necessarilly be in favour of changing that either.

    [ Parent ]

    That makes so much fucking sense it hurts. (3.00 / 3) (#327)
    by cburke on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:02:50 AM EST

    So if there were a law against Driving While Black, that wouldn't make black people second class citizens because if I painted myself up in blackface and tooled around town, I could be arrested just like my dark-skinned fellows.  The law applies to everyone equally!

    I've never looked at it that way before!  

    Sorry, but 1) only when making this kind of defensive argument does anyone think anti-sodomy laws don't discriminate against gays, because that was the reason they were created, and 2) "You're allowed to be gay, you're just not allowed to express yourself sexually with another gay person" is without a doubt making them into a second class citizen.

    But I give you points for the hilarious suggestion that a completely straight person would go out for some gay butt sex on a lark, and arresting this "straight" person for having gay sex means you're equally oppressing "straight" people.  Hilarious.

    [ Parent ]

    What proposal (none / 0) (#382)
    by the womble on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 03:09:14 AM EST

    i'm glad you see it as "disagreeing with someone" when what you propose is to make someone a second class citizen

    How exactly did I propose to make anyone a second class citizen?

    All I said was tha marraige laws are a difficult area and there is room for disagreement. There are limitations on who can marry and who they can marry anyway, not recognising homosexual marriage is one of many limitations, which vary from country to country (and in your part of the world from state to state).

    the first is a sin, the second is a virtue, period

    hating someone is never a virtue, not racists, not nazis, not mass murderers.

    [ Parent ]

    A minor correction (2.83 / 6) (#110)
    by mike3k on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:27:14 AM EST

    Rather than saying they're "Deep in the Closet", I'd say "Deep in Denial" is more accurate. Most likely they have homosexual feelings which they haven't acted on. However, they're so afraid of it and feel so threatened by their urges that it manifests itself as extreme homophobia. That's the most likely motivation for extreme, outspoken homophobes like Fred Phelps, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, and Rick Santorum.

    Recommended Reading: (none / 1) (#119)
    by MichaelCrawford on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:55:53 AM EST

    • The Shameful Life of Salvador Dali by Ian Gibson
    Dali is the best known of the surrealists, but Bonita tells me he is not the most significant artistically; she feels Magritte is much more important. But Dali basically hijacked the whole surrealist movement and turned it into a spectacle of which he was the main attraction.

    Gibson says Dali's showmanship was to compensate for his shame at being bisexual.

    A lot of artists are angy at Dali, because they feel surrealism could have accomplished much more than it did had not Dali turned it into a cult of personality.


    --

    Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


    that's bullshit (none / 1) (#124)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:05:22 PM EST

    dali is the stephen king of the art world: he enjoyed much commercial and popular success, like stephen king

    and so "playa hataz": unsuccessful, jealous snobs have to tear him down in order to build themselves up within the tiny circle of art snobs/ literary snobs that, in reality, just don't fucking matter

    snobs are inconsequential

    so they hate dali because he's popular

    so they hate stephen king because he's popular

    big fucking deal, they are small-egoed losers

    i hate snobs, fuck them, their entire lives are spent building up small social circles that represent themselves as some sort of group of superior-minded ivory tower assholes that the rest of us are supposed to listen to as if they spoke the word of god

    when the truth is, their entire social worlds are constructed to be a support group for their tiny, easily bruised egos


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    I like Dali myself (none / 0) (#129)
    by MichaelCrawford on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:22:04 PM EST

    but there is no question whatsoever that he did indeed hijack the surrealist movement for his own purposes.


    --

    Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


    [ Parent ]

    what does that mean? hijack? (none / 1) (#130)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:27:48 PM EST

    if someone proves popular, it's a proof-positive effort

    he didn't squash any one else's appeal in order to appear more appealing himself

    he didn't hijack anything, he was just more popular

    what, he snuck into another surrealist's studio and pissed on their art?

    he snuck into their bedrooms at night and pointed a gun at their head and commanded them not to paint anymore?

    come on, how the hell did he "hijack" anything??!!


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    You don't know much about Dali, do you? (none / 0) (#134)
    by MichaelCrawford on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:46:35 PM EST

    Most art movements are about the art, or the art's message. For example, David's work during the French revolution was about the revolution's ideals, and, since David knew on which side his bread was buttered, his later paintings of Napoleon were about cementing Napoleon's place in the hearts and minds of the French people.

    But in Dali's mind, surrealism was about Dali, not about any message that one might find in any surrealist paintings. It is a testament to Dali's effectiveness as a showman that most people these days, and certainly in the later years of surrealism, felt the same way.

    I am not, by any means, accusing Dali of being a poor painter.


    --

    Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


    [ Parent ]

    if i write a book (none / 1) (#137)
    by circletimessquare on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:54:26 PM EST

    and it's all about me, me, me

    and it proves wildly successful

    it doesn't matter that the book is about me, me, me

    it just matters that the book is successful

    if something is popular, if something is successful, that determination is distinct from the subject matter

    so dali made his art all about him, him, him?

    ok, fine

    he was still successful

    it doesn't matter HOW you are successful, it just matters that you ARE successful

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    But doesn't it also matter WHY? (none / 0) (#140)
    by MichaelCrawford on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST

    Dali could have been just as great an artist, and even made a lot of money, without surrealism having to be all about him.

    It's just as if I claimed that we needn't concern ourselves with your Senator, because all we need to know is that he is a good enough politician to get elected. We need not concern ourselves with why he felt the need to wield such power.


    --

    Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


    [ Parent ]

    Nothing popular can be bad (none / 0) (#257)
    by Mason on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:40:17 PM EST

    A new CTS rule to remember.

    [ Parent ]
    we're talking about ART asswipe (nt) (none / 0) (#267)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 03:09:41 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    More Recommended Reading: (none / 0) (#128)
    by MichaelCrawford on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:20:30 PM EST

    • For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence by Alice Miller
    Miller illustrates the incredible power neurosis has over world affairs by explaining Hitler's murderous ambition as the result of a childhood in which he was mercilessly beaten by his father.

    I once heard a talk by feminist Gloria Steinem, in which she said that if we stopped beating our children, there would be no more wars.


    --

    Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


    Don't say that! (none / 0) (#226)
    by Have A Nice Day on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:05:16 AM EST

    "if we stopped beating our children, there would be no more wars"
    Don't say that! If anyone in the gubmit realises that then they'll have to institute mandatory beating for children in order to support the future of the defense industry....

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    Another book for you: (1.00 / 4) (#138)
    by MichaelCrawford on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:59:25 PM EST

    Stop Me Before I Post Again.

    Read the chapter on Paranoid Style in:
    • Neurotic Styles by David Shapiro
    Paranoia is best known as a symptom of schizophrenia, which is a chemical imbalance of the brain, possibly with genetic roots, but paranoia can also arise as a symptom of neurosis in otherwise healthy people.

    There is also a neurosis called Paranoid Personality Disorder, but I don't know much about it.

    Many kurons would also be interested to read the chapter on Obsessive Compulsive Style in Shapiro's book, as oc-style is quite commonly found among people who work in technical occupations. Neuroses are not always harmful to the neurotic; Shapiro emphasizes that the obsessive compulsive is able, actually compelled to pay incredible attention to detail and possesses an enormous capacity for work.

    Most people with biological mental illnesses are also neurotic. My therapist back in Santa Cruz told me I have obsessive compulsive style.

    Shapiro says that people with paranoid style possess advance powers of observation, but of a different sort than the o.c.

    (Note that obsessive compulsive style is quite a different thing than obsessive compulsive disorder.)


    --

    Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


    Write-in poll option (3.00 / 7) (#151)
    by Pseudonym on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:33:48 PM EST

    No, he's just a dipshit.

    Suggesting that the Senator is a closet homosexual is demeaning to homosexual men. Gay men, as we all know, are good dancers, have an appreciation for kitsch and have impeccable taste in clothes and interior design. Are you seriously suggesting that Senator Santorum has these good qualities? Hmmm?


    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    Now on TV: Political Eye for the Straight Guy (none / 1) (#152)
    by MichaelCrawford on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:37:58 PM EST

    Text? Nay, I say!


    --

    Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


    [ Parent ]

    Jesus Christ (2.00 / 2) (#153)
    by aphasia on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:42:48 PM EST

    Must we recycle this Santorum schtick every six months?

    "You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave

    Yes. (none / 1) (#160)
    by Nosf3ratu on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 03:27:48 PM EST




    Woo!
    [ Parent ]
    self loathing creates evil (none / 0) (#157)
    by dirvish on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:56:14 PM EST

    The self-loathing that is spawned by being a deeply closeted homosexual can have ugly results. Once he comes out of the closet he'll feel better and will likely be less evil.

    Technical Certification Blog, Anti Spam Blog
    oh please he's not THAT deeply closeted (none / 0) (#194)
    by massivefubar on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:27:09 PM EST

    I don't think coming out of the closet will help at this time of century.

    [ Parent ]
    look is this really about santorum ? (1.50 / 2) (#168)
    by massivefubar on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 05:10:15 PM EST

    I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that Santorum is the one bringing gay prostitutes into the White House, nor is Santorum the one who appointed his "boyhood friend" (nice euphemism that) to an ambassador's office. We all know who the closeted, well maybe not that closeted, gay man in high office is. Either say it or don't say it, but I'm guessing that Santorum is just an idiot riding on the coat-tails of gay-baiting because it's the fashionable thing to do, not because he cares whether or not box turtles get married.

    It's a re-run of the 80s and we're all tip-toeing around afraid to notice that Reagan has Alzheimer's. Who are we protecting? I guarantee that the other heads of state, and their secret services, already know what they need to do know on the subject of blackmail-able misbehaviors.

    Don't keep me in suspense (none / 1) (#191)
    by Benny Cemoli on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 10:39:15 PM EST

    "We all know who the closeted, well maybe not that closeted, gay man in high office is."

    No. Some of us have no clue who you're referring to.


    "the fabric of space quivers at the touch of even a microbe."
    [ Parent ]

    don't forget poland (none / 0) (#192)
    by massivefubar on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:23:42 PM EST

    Seriously if you don't know by now, it's because you don't want to know, is what I'm thinking.

    Any more clues, and I'd be spelling it out for you in words of one syllable and that would be an insult to your intelligence which I would never, ever want to do.

    [ Parent ]

    P.S. I like your alias NT (none / 0) (#193)
    by massivefubar on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 11:24:49 PM EST

    .

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks (none / 0) (#237)
    by Benny Cemoli on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:08:41 AM EST

    It's one of his little-known stories, so I often wonder whether anyone gets it.

    As for our gay mystery guest, would that be little Scottie McClellan?


    "the fabric of space quivers at the touch of even a microbe."
    [ Parent ]

    I bet if Rick was reading this... (none / 1) (#171)
    by eeg3 on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 06:09:45 PM EST

    He'd feel quite PWNT.

    -- eeg3(.com)
    Hrmm.. (none / 1) (#176)
    by Armada on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 07:54:15 PM EST

    What are the psychological roots of the politics of self-hatred and self-denial?

    Well, I guess I fall into this category because I consider myself a very devout Christian but do not want to see the 10 commandments put in the capitol building and generally want to keep God and government separate. Maybe this isn't a good example though, because the 10 commandments are Jewish law.

    It's not that I hate Christians (or myself) or those with morals, it's that I see no point in establishing some religion as superior to another by means of force.

    If someone wants to believe in God or doesn't, that's fine. I don't quite understand the flame wars over religion, though. It seems that atheists generally enjoy talking a lot about God and are bothered that there would be individuals that actually believe in him, and the Christians have a hard on for posting Jewish law in government buildings.

    No more than the Christians (none / 1) (#245)
    by paranoid on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:44:07 AM EST

    It seems that atheists generally enjoy talking a lot about God and are bothered that there would be individuals that actually believe in him
    This isn't true any more than the opposite. I am an atheist. I am actually a militant atheist. But as long as you don't force your religion on me, I am completely willing to tolerate your beliefs, even your actions to a large extent, and can enjoy communicating with you.

    I think that it is extremely great when the state opposes organised religion, prosecutes priests and destroys churches. I think this has a very strong beneficial effect on the society. But I am not preoccupied with achieving this wonderful secular society (it will inevitable come anyway). As long as we live in a religiously tolerant society I am willing to play along.

    [ Parent ]

    hunh? (none / 0) (#381)
    by Armada on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:25:09 AM EST

    Well, see I don't get that.

    Cause for all intensive purposes, yoga could fall under "religion" or even falun dafa. I think a majority of atheists just loathe Christianity and certain Christians. Freedom of religion is one thing I'd hate to see go away.

    Unfortunately, under both extremes, I think it would.

    [ Parent ]

    zzzzzzz (1.22 / 9) (#188)
    by fragmal on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 09:46:12 PM EST

    You people are some seriously needy fucks. I can't belive you voted this to the front page. Oh wait, it actually makes perfect sense.


    The content in this comment is protected under the Creative Commons License. Details about the Creative Commons License can be found here.
    yyyyyyyy (none / 1) (#402)
    by eschatron on Sat Mar 19, 2005 at 07:33:31 AM EST

    So, why did you post this comment? Did you want something from us? What a needy fuck.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the pop psychology. (2.25 / 4) (#195)
    by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 12:03:52 AM EST

    I guess everyone is an expert on what makes a homophobe tick. What a pity you miss the boat.

    ---
    AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
    ה
    what boat did i miss oh great swami? (nt) (none / 0) (#210)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:54:02 AM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    BURN! (1.00 / 6) (#198)
    by Gruntathon on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 12:35:15 AM EST

    zing zing zing
    __________
    If they hadn't been such quality beasts (despite being so young) it would have been a nightmare - good self-starting, capable hands are your finest friend. -- Anonymous CEO
    sex plot ploys (2.75 / 4) (#200)
    by banffbug on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:32:31 AM EST

    " When I am in the bedroom, I'm not thinking about regulating my behavior, I'm not thinking about any higher superego mental faculties at all. For me, and most other people I believe, when I am in the bedroom it's about satisfying lower pleasures. Healthy, normal pleasures, but pleasures NOT related to higher mental faculties. "
    While it is true sex is thought of as a base, primal, lower brain activity, sex can also be an exteme act of creation and not only the baby bith making aspect but a progressive work of art that nurtures higher level thinking relationships. There will still be petty arguments about money, control, and schedules, but are subject to de-emphasis when earnest conversations about lifelong needs and goal fulfillment happen. Sex fosters such emotionally tuned relationships, and i don't think it can be trivialised as a sub-human and mamminalistic act that we shamefully due with neccessity, because sex has the potential of making us more complete human beings who think of security not only for themselves, but our children, community, and nation tribe.

    Sexual pleasures relation to higher mental faculties lies in the rest and rejeuvinaiton sex provides our frontal lobes. As pertaining to homoerotic people, happy stimulated frontal lobes know no difference between man and woman. An expression of your normal organic self indeed.

    So next time you rise to the great eternal call of nature, do so with pride, not shame. Shake off the fear of being devious, and appreciate the beginning of a healthier life.

    After all, if the universe is nothing but one colossal orgasm, why can't I be too?

    And don't forget to eat your own words cuz no-one else will if you won't.

    "They just won't care" (none / 1) (#206)
    by banffbug on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:44:52 AM EST

    not to stroke your ego, but you deserve credit for fixing the issue of a debate over homosexuality, a debate thats basis has irked me for some time.
    "among heterosexual men who are not homophobic, you can say that they can even view homosexual pornography to no great effect: they won't like it, but they won't hate it. Their reaction? They just won't care. It simply is not a threat to them."
    I suppose as long as there are people who love it there will be people who hate it. but i also wonder how many males would claim to be indifferent to male gay porn versus how many would be outwardly discusted and inwardly indifferent.

    [ Parent ]
    true (none / 0) (#209)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:53:31 AM EST

    that is why i prefaced my remark with "among heterosexual men who are not homophobic" in regards to someone being outwardly indifferent, not just inwardly indifferent


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    context and prejudice (none / 1) (#208)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:51:41 AM EST

    1. consider the context in which i am saying what i am saying: pointing out Santorum's psychology
    2. i called sex something not related to the frontal lobes, but YOU are the one who has assumed there was any shame in that... show me where i attach shame to the aspect of sex being below the frontal lobes in source in my words above
    you can't find it, because no such words are there

    so in your words here meant to call me out, i'm calling you out instead: stop attaching shame to your instincts whose origin is lower than that of your frontal lobes

    this is a prejudicial idea completely of your own supply

    nowhere above can you find words where i am attaching shame to sex, simply because it is of origin lower than the frontal lobes

    it's a prejudice you've supplied here all your own


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    There's a book about this topic... (3.00 / 4) (#212)
    by taiwanjohn on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 04:22:35 AM EST

    The Wimp Factor just came out a few months ago. I haven't read it yet, but there's an interview with the author over at Buzzflash.com which talks about the book.

    FWIW, I've often thought the same thing about the rabidly anti-gay crowd. In fact, I believe that most of the punitive/puritan political agenda is driven by fearful people (ie: people afraid of their own desires and feelings) projecting their own weaknesses onto others.

    A fine example of this is the urban legend about Vietnam vets being spit on by anti-war protesters. Turns out the only documented cases of spitting (and there were many) were of pro-war protesters spitting on anti-war folks. They simply projected their own despicable behavior onto their opponents.

    I've thought about writing something about this myself, so I'm happy to see this excellent treatment on the FP. Nice work, CTS!

    --jrd



    BTW, about that book... (none / 0) (#214)
    by taiwanjohn on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 04:46:49 AM EST

    I should have mentioned, the author of The Wimp Factor seems to be heavily steeped in the jargon and world-view of radical feminism. Not that there's anything wrong with feminism per-se, I just think it detracts from his case to dress it up in so much feminist language.

    --jrd

    [ Parent ]

    hitting the nail on the head (3.00 / 2) (#220)
    by minerboy on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 06:50:27 AM EST

    The real political and cultural battle is masculine Ideals vs Feminine Ideals, and traditional masculinity is getting its Ass kicked. Gay politics is a large part of this cultural struggle. In the end I don't think it has much to do with sexual behavior



    [ Parent ]
    riiiight (2.14 / 7) (#217)
    by eclectro on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:45:45 AM EST

    Saying that Senator Santorum is deep in the closet is like saying you are a homesexual looking for a cure.

    Where I live (Utah) there are people who disagree with "whatever floats your boat", as there are polygamists who want to marry 13 year old girls. Because we don't want to see this happen anymore, does that make us "deep in the closet" polygamists??

    Maybe you can take a step back from your seething hate and realize that people who say that "homosexuality is wrong" are not "deeply closeted" or "bashing you", but disagree with your "homosexual behavior".

    I vote for and give resources to people who will represent my views.

    I disagree with most of congress on many issues (deeply), but I have not gone so low as to call them "shitstain", nor have I tried to associate their name with a filthy pornographic reference.

    You are not winning people to your cause with this.

    Completely shameful. This should have never seen the light of day on K5.


    some corrections for you (2.00 / 4) (#219)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:52:19 AM EST

    pedophilia hurts an innocent party that cannot consent due to psychological immaturity

    homosexuality happens between consenting adults

    therefore, it is moral and consistent to condemn pedophilia and accept homosexuality

    to condemn pedophilia and homosexuality for the same reason is neither moral or logically consistent

    finally, as a well-adjusted heterosexual, i feel no threat from homosexuals

    as a well-adjusted heterosexual, could you describe to me a coherent threat from homosexuals to you?

    i don't think you can

    therefore, to what sort of people does homosexuality threaten

    i can only think of one type of person for whom expressions of homosexuality is interesting

    other homosexuals

    have a nice day, red neck bigot


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    But what about Polygamy among adults (none / 1) (#233)
    by minerboy on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 10:23:52 AM EST

    If all three are consenting, Who does that hurt ? Who are we to limit the choice of other people ?

    Your philosophy clearly requires a direct, concrete negative impact on society for something to be illegal. Now admit, you also believe that Adult consentual polygamy should be legal.

    I wan't to see you say it in black and white



    [ Parent ]
    I'll say it (none / 0) (#236)
    by Have A Nice Day on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 10:51:29 AM EST

    Who gives a damn if Brad, Jane and Julie decide to live together and have sex? Or for that matter if Tommy wants to join in too? The more the merrier!

    Seriously though, if consenting adults want to do it then why the hell not?

    Now that's totally different from 13 year old girls being forced into it. 13 year olds shouldn't be getting married to anyone.

    I wanna turn this around, why, give me one good reason, should something consensual between adults NOT be legal? Do you have a single good reason?

    I personally don't think the state should be sanctioning or supporting any marriage, if people want to have a contract in place to cover that sort of thing (which isn't a bad idea) then they should be able to draw one up. If religions want to condone on particular arrangement over others then fine. Gubmit keep off.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    Boils down to taxes (none / 0) (#244)
    by vhold on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:41:34 AM EST

    Should N number of people be able to file joint taxes?  Who's going to make all the forms for that? Who's going to process those forms?  What if H&R Block doesn't want to deal with it, can they be sued for discrimination?

    Basically those people can do whatever they want, except become married in a legal sense.  

    The solution of "The government should do nothing based on marriage" should include some kind of analysis of what that would actually change.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't personally think gov't should...... (none / 0) (#317)
    by Have A Nice Day on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:23:37 AM EST

    really be giving tax breaks to married people. Some sort of tax allowance per child per family seems fine to me. If that is even necessary really. Personally I think if people want kids that's their own choice and they should go for it, I just don't want to pay for it out of my taxes thanks.

    Yes, I'm bitter because I'm a reasonably well off single male in his 20s who gets taxed to hell for other people's kids and don't plan on ever having any myself.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    The other part (none / 0) (#250)
    by minerboy on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:05:53 PM EST

    of the question has to do with indirect impacts on society (as opposed to direct impact on individuals). Can certain behaviors lead to a breakdown of productive society. Why do you think that ancient tribesman wrote laws that would seek to punish certain types of sexual behavior, because it hindered the survivability of the tribe. If your coveting your neighbors wife, your not helping find food, plus, your neighbor has to spend time to keep you away from the misus, so he's not finding food either.

    Polygamy allows hording of mates, to the detriment of society - unless there is an excess of females. Homosexual behavior wastes energy on unreproductive sex, and so is frowned on, just like spilling your seed. Homosexual behavior also has an impact on male - female relationships, because of natural jealousies, etc. The greeks encourged homosexual behavior in some cases - the Theban Bands come to mind, to build loyalty among the soldiers, and to cause them to fight harder for one another - excuse the pun. It also decreased their desire for women, and the desire to return home to support their families.



    [ Parent ]
    Are those issues today though? (none / 0) (#316)
    by Have A Nice Day on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:20:19 AM EST

    Back in the days of small tribes perhaps you had a point, and the reason much of this behaviour is still opressed may be that religious sensibility is based on tribalism and values extending back thousands of years.

    However you do have to ask yourself, in what way is gay marriage hurting society? A couple in a gay marriage are not (usually) producing children, so they are less of a drain on the resources of the planet. They may even adopt, helping out a kid with no other prospects.
    They aren't somehow corrupting the young, unless acceptance of ones own biology and sexuality is somehow corruption, in fact IMHO having happily engaged gay couples about the place would make a lot of people with such homosexual tendencies/feelings/persuasions a lot less messed up in the head about it all.

    And as for 'hording of mates' in a polygamous setting, yes I suppose that could happen, Hugh Hefner already does it. But even were that the case (and a agreed a "bad thing"), nobody has a right to anyone else. If Jennifer wants to go hang out with Brad and Lucy, what right have you to say she can't because there's some poor ugly geek without a woman?



    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    I guess it depends (none / 0) (#322)
    by minerboy on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:27:14 AM EST

    on what you view as the purpose of society and community. If you look at as simply collaborators in a game of "the guy with the most toys wins", then the type of sex you choose has no impact on the rest of society (and is the root of the selfish hedonist claim). If you look at it as a vehicle for helping you and your family get to a better afterlife, gay people provide an extra set of temptations that you would be better without. (same for MTV, etc.)

    I don't subscribe to either of these, and have decided I need to think about it some more, and It will take many paragraphs to explain. I don't think that society is obligated to tolerate any behavior and there are societal consequences from legitimizing gay behavior, overall are they good, bad or indifferent will depend on your view of community and society



    [ Parent ]
    A temptation? (none / 0) (#325)
    by Have A Nice Day on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:25:43 AM EST

    The only way i see the temptation angle is if someone is both:
    a)Gay
    b)part of a religion that tells them they'll go to hell for expressing it.

    I personally think religion clouds the issue and is a troublemaker in social situations. People cling to myths for comfort and think that by acting a certain way they'll have this big powerful being look after them, when it seems to me that the rules have been constructed by people who want to control the masses by a sophisticated system of sticks, carrots and scapegoats.

    As for the purpose of society, I don't consider it a "the guy with the most toys wins" situation. I'm an atheist (in case it wasn't obvious) but my view is that it should be "make things as good as possible for everyone". From this I derive that we must strive to be as tolerant as possible of others behaviour, except when it directly affects others in negative ways they don't want. Intolerance causes a lot of conflict and ultimately harm. People getting upset because there's gay people in their street is not direct harm either, I don't consider that attitude reasonable, it is reactionary and intolerant. I'm talking about theft, abuse etc.

    The situation from which you derive "gayness == bad" must be one in which the aim of society is procreation, or one in which the aim is "god must be pleased or all will be punished". neither of these necessarily makes anyone's life any better, which is what I'm all about.

    My 'belief' is that if everyone:
    a)stopped interfering in things that don't affect them (or others) negatively, like personal morality.
    b)Stopped putting their holy scripture in the way of dissemination of information on observed reality (why can't religion be an evolving process, adjusting to modern knowledge, glorying in god's master plan of evolution and physics?)
    then the world would be a better place.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    That's still materialism (none / 0) (#350)
    by minerboy on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 12:39:31 PM EST

    But expressed in a bit more just way, basically, we should have whatever we want, but not at the expense of others needs - a very common belief system. In western society, we have advanced so that needs are taken care of for everyone, for all practical purposes. Survival is not an issue, so in the absence of any spiritual goal (not necessarily religious, it could be scientific - knowledge for knowledges sake, for example) Society is left to justify various wants. Basically, how do we distribute all the stuff fairly, and protect ourselves from slipping back into a society where needs are not met. One way that a society can slip backwards is by making severe mistakes on how resources are alotted - basically, its analagous to getting rich, and then spending all your money on Booze, Gambling and Sex. Within the discussion about gays, one could argue that the money society spends to mitigate the impact of homosexual behavior is mis-spent. Just the paperwork, and ocurt costs alone administering gay marriages will be significant. Add in the increased cost of health care, and there is a reasonable argument for limiting certain sexual behaviors.

    If we want society to promote spiritual growth, then the impact of various behaviors grows. That's why most communities that were pursuing spiritual growth have generally cloistered themselves from the rest of society. It is fast becoming impossible to do this though, but thats a whole other topic.



    [ Parent ]
    Arguing that gay marriage will be expensive?!? (none / 0) (#352)
    by Have A Nice Day on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST

    Court Costs? What a ludicrous thing to bring up. What costs to society?

    Sorry, but if gay marriage is expensive to society because of court costs then so is straight marriage and both should be banned. How does a gay marriage cost more than a straight one? What is this increased cost of health care you're talking about? Which orifice did you pull that from? 'cos it's not backed by any facts or even reasonable suppositions I've ever come across.

    My views are necessarily materialistic because I don't believe in anything beyond the material. This doesn't mean that we should strive to get everyone more and more stuff and gadgets and toys and booze, I think this is a facet of our bizarre consumerist individualist society. What it means is that I think we should strive to have an environment where as many people as possible can be happy in the here and now, not put off making this world better and have petty arguments about sexual mores and subject each other to moral intolerance because we're preparing for the some 'heaven' that we can only get to if we cast out certain froms of behaviour.

    I'm not talking about blowing the fruits of civilisation on drugs and booze and gadgets and cars, I'm talking about blowing it on making sure the whole world has food and shelter and freedom from opression, be that a totalitarian regime or intolerance, religious or otherwise.

    I don't necesarily want the fruits of society to get me a bigger tv, but I'd like it if we could someday mechanise things to the extent that people would only work because they wanted to and we could do away with money entirely. Then perhaps people would stop the war, the intolerance and the sky spirit worship, because all would be good here and now.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    So how do we decide (none / 0) (#363)
    by minerboy on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 04:18:08 PM EST

    Gay marriage costs more than no gay marriage. perhaps we could use that money to feed starving children.

    as far as "I think we should strive to have an environment where as many people as possible can be happy in the here and now" who are you, or anyone, to say if we should spend excess money on booze, Drugs, hookers, or whatever, you are making a moral judgement. It may be a fair argument, that we in the west should share the wealth more, so that all humans have their needs satisfied. We're not that far from doing that. Then where do we go - work less ? Ever read The myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus ?

    The only way out of consumerism is some kind of spiritualism, and spiritualism in any form requires personal discipline. If society is to support that discipline they have to restrict peoples actions, even if they don't directly effect someone. There is some precedent for this in some countries hate crime laws.



    [ Parent ]
    Sisyphus blows.... (none / 0) (#368)
    by Have A Nice Day on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:24:09 PM EST

    I read for relaxation and escapism, not self punishment, so I gave up sisyphus after a couple of chapters of pain.

    "Gay marriage costs more than no gay marriage."
    And hetero marriage costs more than no hetero marriage, what's your fucking point, bitch?

    As far as who am I to decide? I'm not, hence the world isn't the way I want it, think of my last post as a manifesto, or a wish list (much the same for someone with no inclination to a political career). I just reckon the world would be better that way. That was opinion, not argument. It was also defense to your moral judgement in the previous post where you basically portrayed my preference for a liberal stance on gay marriage as a route to societal squandering of all we have built.

    The only way out of consumerism IMHO is not spiritualism, it is humanitarianism and collectivism. Some may call me a techno-communist because, as I said, I dream of the day when the labours of society will free all people from the drudgery of labour simply for the privilege to take part in society. But this again is conjecture and inb no way backed up by any hard facts.

    Your conclusion that a disciplined society thus requires restrictions on peoples activities (and by implication the cessation of homosexuality) is simply ridiculous, care to put any basis behind that assumption? Or is it also baseless conjecture?

    You still haven't said a single thing that backs up any discrimination between homosexual and heterosexual marriage/sex/anything. You've spouted about discip[line and harm with no basis and no fact. What do you base your prejudice on?

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    sisyphus is an essay (none / 0) (#371)
    by minerboy on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 06:55:25 PM EST

    Here's the Link. It'll take all of 5 minutes to read, a longer time to understand. It will show you the foolishness of the "I dream of the day when the labours of society will free all people from the drudgery of labour simply for the privilege to take part in society" statement.

    My point wasn't to argue against or in favor of things like gay marriage, my point was that there is no inherent reason why society can't restrict things that have indirect impacts on society, and whether or not to do this depends on what societies purpose was. These of course are theoretical, so no I didn't mention facts, it was a social thought experiment.



    [ Parent ]
    an aside about age (none / 0) (#256)
    by minerboy on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:32:29 PM EST

    I agree with you completely that age limits for consent are important. The UN on the other hand, does not, and will not say that marriage at a young age is exploitation, since it is a "cultural issue"

    I suspect that the next assualt on values will be an attempt to redefine consent.



    [ Parent ]
    You don't need to look very far back when (none / 0) (#304)
    by lukme on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 07:21:13 PM EST

    what we consider children were married in our culture (here in the US as well as europe). My grandmother was married at age 13, had her first kid at 16. Her family emmigrated when she was 11 from eastern europe.

    Look at some of the old tombstone, you will find mom dad and several kids buirred together. If you read the ages and figure out the ages of the mom and dad when they had their first kid, they were occasionally very young by today's standard.




    -----------------------------------
    It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
    [ Parent ]
    And people today complain about..... (none / 0) (#314)
    by Have A Nice Day on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:10:47 AM EST

    teenage pregnancy and young mothers!
    It's been going on since the dawn of humanity, the only change now is it's frowned upon and discouraged by society. I'm not going to make a value judgement on it, but I will say it astounds me how people get suprised and worked up about these "new phenomena" of the modern age which are not new and are probably at a relatively low ebb, historically speaking.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    Hasn't happened (none / 0) (#254)
    by Mason on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:27:56 PM EST

    Or at least I've never heard of a culture which does it.  Polygamy is usually based around a middle-age guy assembling a harem of wives when they're too young to object.  Toss in some psychological brutality all through adolescence and puberty, and wham, nice big happy family.  Remember that girl who was kidnapped by the homeless couple and made into a second wife?  That sort of thing.

    Happy, mature adults tend not to enter into these sorts of relationships.  I mean, do they?  Do you know of any group of 3 or more adults that does this sort of thing willingly, except for the presently-illegal marriage part?  I sure don't.

    Show me that these people exist before we start arguing for their rights, or use them as a counter-example to gay marriage.  Given that polygamy has historically been based on pedophilia, I'd wager such groups are almost entirely hypothetical.

    [ Parent ]

    you'd loose your wager (none / 0) (#260)
    by minerboy on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:58:00 PM EST

    http://www.absalom.com/mormon/polygamy/faq.htm -try this site.



    [ Parent ]
    Islam allows at least up to 4 wives (none / 0) (#303)
    by lukme on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 07:15:40 PM EST

    The uncle of a friend of mine, is around 50 and just married a second wife who is around 30. He is still married to his first wife who is more or less his age. According to my friend, this happens frequently in the middle east.


    -----------------------------------
    It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
    [ Parent ]
    And we all know the first wife's consent is given! (none / 0) (#318)
    by Have A Nice Day on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:36:13 AM EST

    Apparently Islam does allow for this, The problem is that in most situations I've heard about where this happens (it happens in some muslim circles in the UK as well), the firt wife is opressed by her husband and the whole of the male dominated society such that she cannot give any opinion without fear, let alone informed and honest consent for something like this.

    You can use countries of the middle east as examples of consenting adult polygamy when they are free and equal societies.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    so we should ignore the world before ~1920. (none / 0) (#329)
    by lukme on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 10:18:35 AM EST

    Furthermore, we should exclude the entire world before women were given equal rights in the US and europe - say before ~1920.

    Nor should we give examples of other cultures that currently practice polygamy outside of the US and europe.


    -----------------------------------
    It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
    [ Parent ]
    Yes, we should in this case. (none / 1) (#339)
    by Have A Nice Day on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:05:49 AM EST

    What's so hard to grasp about free, informed consent?

    Polygamy in most situations is not done under these circumstances and I think if people wish to enter into polygamous weddings of their own free will and with legal or societal pressure, then why the hell stop them? But OTOH in most of the polygamous societies we have ever seen on the planet, this isn't the way ot works, women are pressured, beaten and opressed into these situations in most places where it occurs, or married off as children.

    Due to these factors it is then NOT appropriate to compare the possibility of allowing polygamy to be legally recognised between consenting adults in a free society to the reality of polygamy under religious theocracy and male domination of women.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    You're sophmoric. (none / 0) (#400)
    by lukme on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:54:58 PM EST




    -----------------------------------
    It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
    [ Parent ]
    How so? (none / 0) (#407)
    by Have A Nice Day on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 06:36:28 AM EST

    Implications that my views are naive and miss the point are all well and good, but criticism without substance is just useless. Care to tell me why you think my views are sophmoric? Perhaps you could tell me what's incorrect about any of what I said, or even point out some subtle grey areas I glossed over?

    Otherwise I suggest you STFU.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    Ok sophmore, I'll humor you (none / 0) (#408)
    by lukme on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 11:19:20 AM EST

    You exclude all cultures other than that of the US and parts of europe from about the 1920's on in your analysis. Obviousily you don't care how those cultures worked - and, quite frankly, these cultures have worked considering their long history.

    Your whole arguement about consenting adults - guess what, each culture determines both the definition what to consent means and what an adult is. Furthermore this definition is different for different cultures and different time periods in each culture. It doesn't take a genius to realize that if the average age someone dies at is 40 (think the american colonies), that by the time modern americans think one is an adult, the colonist life is half over. If women (and men) of thoes times waited, we wouldn't be here, nor would this society exist.

    By blithly ignoring the social context of what both consent and adult mean, you, my dear friend, are a sophmore.

    Have a nice day -lukme PS: After writing that, I, like everyone else, have ceased to care about this thread.


    -----------------------------------
    It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
    [ Parent ]
    All sorts of cultures work (none / 0) (#411)
    by Have A Nice Day on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 06:44:46 AM EST

    It doesn't necessarily mean that they are a good thing or beneficial to the people that live under them. Hell, Saddam's Iraq works under your criteria - it was stable for years and would have been around a while longer had the US/UK not intervened. However it was a regime of rape torture and murder, not exactly aspirational stuff.

    I stand by my original post, whilst age of consent is variable by culture, I don't believe fact of consent is. Dismissal of most, if not all, polygamous culutres that have arisen in the past is still viable because they have coincided with abuse of one gender by the other. The fact that social values change over time does not mean that the values of previous times were necessarily either good or correct (indeed I don't see that there can be such thing as "correct" in this context).

    Just because other values have existed, and existed for more than some arbitrary amoount of time that allows you to say that they worked, doesn't mean that we should count them.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    More Complex Than That (3.00 / 2) (#413)
    by czolgosz on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 03:31:59 AM EST

    Apparently Islam does allow for this, The problem is that in most situations I've heard about where this happens (it happens in some muslim circles in the UK as well), the firt wife is opressed by her husband and the whole of the male dominated society such that she cannot give any opinion without fear, let alone informed and honest consent for something like this.

    You can use countries of the middle east as examples of consenting adult polygamy when they are free and equal societies.
    I have stong ties to the Middle East and lived there for several years.

    There are some primitive, tribal parts of the Muslim world where women have no voice. Just as in the US. But even in extremely conservative societies such as Saudi Arabia, women have more leverage than Westerners think.

    Islam allows a man to have four wives, provided he treats them equally in all regards including frequency of conjugal visits. If he doesn't, the wives have grounds for divorce. It's not just a matter of oppression of women preventing this happening. It does happen, because the wronged wife's male relatives also get involved. It becomes a matter between families, not just between women and men. Men I knew in the Gulf who were in polygamous situations put a lot of sincere effort into following the requirement to be fair to their wives.

    In other parts of the Arab world such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, polygamy is not particularly common and generally occurs only in exceptional circumstances such as the first wife being infertile. The institution of marriage there is not that different than Western serial monogamy.

    There is some truth to the canard that women in Muslim countries are oppressed. But their position now is on the whole better than that of Western women until very recently in our own history. And it is important to distinguish local custom from the requirements of Islam. For example, Islam does not require women to cover their faces. That is a custom that originated with the Persians. Similarly, female circumcision is still practised in upper Egypt, despite the Islamic prohibition against self-mutilation. But the ignorant use the religion as an excuse for both.

    We should be careful about criticizing other societies until we ourselves have a free and equal society. At the moment the trajectory is moving away from both freedom and equality. That's where our fight should be. We can't impose our values on the Muslim world. Ultimately they'll have to fix their own problems. And it won't be to our timetable or our set of priorities.


    Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
    [ Parent ]
    Agree (none / 0) (#414)
    by Have A Nice Day on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 04:55:35 AM EST

    On the whole I agree with your post, and I certainly think we need to be on the lookout for our own freedoms, we seem to be moving backwards at quite a rapid pace at the moment.

    I really just wanted to make the point that if you want to look at polygamy as a totally free, unpressured and non abusive social choice without consequences for any party that doesn't wholeheartedly agree, it hasn't been a particularly common occurence and looking at other societies around the world may not necessarily be a good way to gauge the effect if it were introduced in the west. Certainly in muslim society in the UK one gets the distinct impression that it is accepted by the first wife only grudgingly because of religious (or pseudo-religious) reasons and the consequences of defying the males in her family (husband/father/brothers) and their opressive attitudes towards women. In the middle east one gets the impression that where women are not opressed they are still disenfranchised and don't get to make decisions about their lives.

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    [ Parent ]
    UK (none / 0) (#427)
    by czolgosz on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 01:18:24 PM EST

    Yeah, Pakistan and Bangladesh are not at the forefront of women's rights in the Muslim world (except for their Westernized but kleptocratic upper classes, where a Benazir or Khaleda Zia is accepted). But that's where most UK Muslims originated.

    It's changing though. I knew a few rather wild second-generation Pakistani women while in London, who didn't seem at all concerned about the risk of being stoned to death by male relatives protecting the family honor.


    Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, it has (none / 0) (#312)
    by Benny Cemoli on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 10:54:50 PM EST

    Vietnamese guys do this a lot. Not all of them, but if a guy gets a bit of money that second wife starts looking like a pretty attractive option. First wife is usually not thrilled with it, and it's unlikely that any of these, err, groups will be clamoring for official recognition anytime soon, but it does happen.


    "the fabric of space quivers at the touch of even a microbe."
    [ Parent ]

    Straight Spouse collateral closet damage (3.00 / 4) (#225)
    by redelm on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:03:35 AM EST

    Santorum and his ilk would drive GLB people deeper into the closet. Perhaps exactly where he is (50/50). This hurts everyone, yet the damage to straights is never mentioned.

    About 2 million GLB people have been or are married, usually unannounced to straights and often with children. The innocent kids and straight spouses suffer enormously as the gay spouse wrestles with their sexual identity and perhaps deceits. "We come to hate those we have wronged" [Tacitus]. When the gay spouse comes out, they often try to force the straight spouse into their closet. The shock is horrible -- not only is the future in doubt, but the past is too! Straight Spouse Network

    Juveniles might think having a lezzie wife means fun threesomes. Nope. You're the third wheel. The girls are more interested in proving their love for each other. It's no fun being tolerated at best.



    and the damage to the kids (3.00 / 4) (#227)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:14:39 AM EST

    why do conservatives think a gay man or gay woman pretending to be straight is a healthier parent than one who is at peace with their sexuality

    if conservatives take their ultimate measurement as a reason to oppose gays to heart: the health of the children, then they would actually be pushing for homosexual rights so that no child winds up with a self-hating parent

    self-hating parents don't raise healthy, well-adjusted children

    but the effect of the anti-homosexual conservative agenda is to create exactly that: self-hating parents


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    A Factor to Consider Though (none / 1) (#228)
    by T818 on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:27:48 AM EST

    Perhaps the situation might be something akin to college admissions. Many colleges consider race a factor to consider but quotas are eschewed. Perhaps sexual orientation is best no absolute barrier to adoption but rather a factor to consider. Certain kinds of gay lifestyles are certainly less family friendly than other gay lifestyles. A transvestite might have a lot of love but still make a poor parent. Certain lifestyles that may neither be here nor there assuming one is an adult may make for a poor environment for a child. There seem to be a lot these lifesytles amongst gays. The point perhaps is that whether or not a prospective parent is gay and the associated lifestyle associated with that gayness is always relevant. All other things equal a child certainly will have an easier time in a heterosexual household but, of course, this theoretical supposition must be ignored 'on the ground' where situations are always far from equal. The situation is different with lesbians. The dangers of taking children from biological mothers far out ways any benefit gained from taking away children from the usual lesbian lifestyles. As I understand the situation lesbian couples are by and large more stable than male homosexual couples. With adoption clearly there must be no assumption heterosexuals are good parents just because they are heterosexuals. The goal must always be the best home for the child. Gayness may be a liability and hence the gayness of prospective parents certainly must be examined.

    The above was posted to the wrong spot (none / 0) (#229)
    by T818 on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 09:37:26 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Only after you consider other factors (none / 0) (#243)
    by paranoid on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:37:11 AM EST

    I am ok with considering sexuality, but only after you start considering intelligence, personality, erudition and other important factors. These are much more significant than one's gayness.

    [ Parent ]
    Social Service Utopia (none / 0) (#284)
    by T818 on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 05:03:52 PM EST

    All who try to adopt are examined extremely closely on a whole range of factors. Per se heterosexuality is no problem vis-a-vis adoption Per se homosexuality is problemtical vis-a-vis adoption. Both starting points can be negated by close examination of particular situations.

    [ Parent ]
    There you go again.... (3.00 / 4) (#234)
    by Have A Nice Day on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 10:24:02 AM EST

    Just when we're all thinking you've cracked and can't do anything more than shout and rant incoherently, you go and write something like this. Bravo!

    I think you're probably largely right. The extent to which the whole anti-gay agenda is driven by this people is probably difficult to determine, but I'm quite sure that the illogical hatred that drives many people is rooted in fear of themselves and their own urges. I'm with you, personally I couldn't give a stuff what consenting adults of whatever genders do with each other. the keywords here are adult and consenting. Others have (as retards are wont to do) used the "slippery slope" fallacy to link homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality, but they disregard the two important words consenting and adults.

    the other problem is that people just can't keep their damn noses out of other people's business, morality in particular. Sometimes you just want to shout at the people who are in some sort of weird fear of homosexuality and homosexual marriage in particular that you don't have to have gay sex. Even if the US passes a constitutional amendment to make gay sex explicitly allowed and even welcome, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE GAY SEX OR MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX. You get the feeling that some of these 'tards think that allowing gay marriage amounts to legalising anal rape...

    --------------
    Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
    i know, it's crazy isn't it? (none / 1) (#273)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 03:27:59 PM EST

    what kind of feeble minded fool thinks you can legislate someone's sexuality?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    The Two-Part Mind (2.66 / 6) (#251)
    by Mason on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 01:12:20 PM EST

    While I agree with much of the analysis, I think there are a few subtleties worth mentioning.

    First, as this interview describes, American conservatives are perfectly happy working with women and gays, so long as they aren't effeminate and don't hold nurturing values.  So it doesn't end someone's career in conservative politics or punditry to be outed as gay, so long as you stick to the party line.

    Second, latent homosexuality is no doubt the case for much of the right's homophobia, but a lot of its fervor can also be traced to the bifurcated mindset of most conservatives.  Various studies have indicated that conservatives are far more likely to displace all negative attributes, both real and imagined, onto an ethereal "other".  It doesn't matter if this "other" is communists, terrorists, or homosexuals, they represent everything that is bad or confusing in the world, in a single, easily-assailed target.  

    Additionally, the displacement of all positive attributes onto comforting figures explains a lot about conservative behavior.  From their affinity for religion to strict paternalism to their willingness to following leaders (like Santorum) who seek powers that would never be allowed in the hands of non-conservatives, much of it is based on an irrational projection of perfection onto fallable human targets.

    So while any given gay or lesbian can be accepted by conservatives quite happily (so long as they don't have threatening beliefs), there is a very strong negative projection against the monolithic "gays and lesbians" and their sinister agenda.  So we get the strange occurance of gay conservatives making gay jokes about heterosexual Democrats.  Onto an "other" like liberals, conservatives can happily project any and all forms of unacceptable behavior, especially those in which conservatives themselves engage.

    Once you understand the bifurcated mind, conservatism almost makes sense.  Like when legitimate criticism over America's execution of the Iraq war is followed by the ardent suggestion that the critics themselves are terrorists.  This makes no rational sense, but if you're a person who must project all negative attributes, someone voicing unpleasant truths about a botched war is just as threatening, psychologically, as a ululating guy with an AK.  If you lack the mental equipment to deal with the confusion associated with America (projection of good) causing unnecessary death and destruction as part of a bogged-down war of choice, your only two options are to break down your entire identity and belief system, or ignore/hate the messenger.  Easy choice, and it gets easier each time you make it.

    except that (none / 0) (#272)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 03:27:02 PM EST

    as the guy who wrote this story, and who can grok everything you say:

    i sincerely and wholeheartedly support the war in iraq

    it is cynical not to

    ("unnecessary death and destruction as part of a bogged-down war of choice" = cynicism)

    and i sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry and raise children

    it is cynical not to


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Why gays act effeminate (none / 0) (#298)
    by JohnLamar on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 06:08:34 PM EST

    I think it has something to do with the women's movement.

    I could be wrong, and often am, but I think that movement told gay men that they had to act like women. Remember effeminate gays are really something new, before (1950's) it was just a sterotype.
    The worst thing you've ever seen
    [ Parent ]

    What about the other gays? (none / 1) (#344)
    by badtux on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:33:26 AM EST

    The ones that do NOT act effiminate? Some of my friends and acquaintances in high school "came out" after they graduated. Other than their propensity to take theatre rather than shop, and the choice on the part of one of them to become a hairdresser, there was nothing "effiminate" about them. Then there was the happy couple that I met over in Baytown (grundgy industrial subdivision of Houston), oilfield workers, very burly and macho and gay as a gay pride parade...

    - Badtux the Tolerant Penguin
    In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin
    [ Parent ]

    Oscar Wilde -nt (none / 0) (#406)
    by heavenstorm on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:31:07 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    And Called It Macaroni (3.00 / 2) (#412)
    by czolgosz on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 03:01:47 AM EST

    I could be wrong, and often am, but I think that movement told gay men that they had to act like women. Remember effeminate gays are really something new, before (1950's) it was just a sterotype.
    In the late 18th century in England, there was a moral panic over effeminate gay men, called at the time "mollies" or "macaronies." That predates the 1950's by a fair bit. And some of the Roman writers imply that there were fem gay men even then. Check Catullus for one.

    Being effeminate is certainly not the only mode of gay expression. I live close to San Francisco and, as a fairly muscular, macho straight guy, am aware that there are a number of gay subcultures where I wouldn't be considered man enough were I to swing that way.

    My own theory is that conservative Republicans, due to their involvement with the Cuban exiles, Pinochet and the murderous puppets in Central America in the 1980's, have absorbed certain aspects of Latin culture: jumped-up strutting dictatorship for one. Bush is the first US president to wear a military uniform while in office-- neither Grant nor Eisenhower did. Then there is the fondness for warmongering, torture and disappearances. In addition, they seem to have picked up the Latin notion that tops are not gay, only bottoms.

    I don't buy the argument that Santorum is necessarily a self-hating gay. I think that he's just another cynical, twisted weasel that only gets off when exerting power over others. Even if the hypothesis were true, then Mr Right came along and they both lived happily ever after, I don't think Santorum would ever be capable of anything beyond being a lying, scheming mouthpiece for those who like to mind other people's business. If there's self-hatred, it's directed at being human, not specifically at being gay.

    Incidentally, I recently had an encounter with a woman who actually used the term "santorum" following an act that is often associated with gay men but which any couple can enjoy. Word travels fast.


    Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
    [ Parent ]
    Some conservatives (none / 1) (#308)
    by rusty on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:32:45 PM EST

    We ought to be drawing a distinction here between the conservatives that cts is talking about and conservatives who actually believe in... y'know... conservatism. Like government should be smaller and less intrusive, budgets should be balanced and reasonable, states should exercise the rights not explicitly granted to the fed. That kind of thing.  I know quite a few of those, and none of them give a damn what gays do in their bedroom. The very notion that they should care would fly in the face of the rest of their conservative beliefs.

    I propose we just call Santorum and the rest of the bedroom Republicans "Gay Republicans" and the remainder "Non-gay Republicans." That ought to make it clear. Non-closeted gay Republicans can continue to be known by their traditional name "Log cabin Republicans." The only aspect of all this that may be somewhat confusing is that technically, Log Cabin Republicans are a subgroup of Non-gay Republicans.

    Oh well.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    As opposed to the (none / 0) (#324)
    by Skywise on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:04:23 AM EST

    Biurfication of race, sex, creed and minority status to which all faith must be placed in the Sunflower theory (anything that grows higher than the group must be whacked)?

    Once you understand that, liberalism makes sense.  Like when legitimate criticism over affirmative action is followed by the ardent suggestion that the critics themselves are racist.

    [ Parent ]

    Farenheit vs. Celcius controversy (none / 0) (#343)
    by badtux on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:30:00 AM EST

    So I see that in the debate "Freeper IQ: Room temperature in Farenheit? Or Celcius?" you are coming down firmly on the Celcius side...

    - Badtux the Snarky Penguin
    In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin
    [ Parent ]

    Brilliant! (none / 1) (#305)
    by undermyne on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 07:25:45 PM EST

    You have santorum running down your leg.

    And a little on your chin...


    "I think you've confused a GMail invite with money and a huge cock." Th
    A question of Rights (none / 1) (#313)
    by jd on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 12:00:12 AM EST

    First off, I think I'd better define what I, personally, mean by a "right". To me, a "right" (as opposed to a priviledge) is something I have. It cannot be awarded or removed, it exists because it is. Recognition may vary and may be absent, but the right itself doesn't change.

    To my way of thinking, there aren't a whole lot of rights. Those that exist, though, exist in the same spirit as those in the Declaration of Independence - inalienable, the cause and not the product of humanity.

    By this standard, "rights" are not granted by law, the law merely recognizes those rights as existing. "Human Rights" are the rights which all humans have, but which not all humans enjoy because not all nations have laws which recognize those rights.

    There are very few rights, because we do not live in an absolute world. Different people, indeed different societies, have different needs. Their laws and their culture will reflect those needs and not necessarily the needs (or the wants) of anyone else.

    Which category does sexuality belong? A need or a right? Well, there is little doubt that it is a biological/genetic phenomenon. There is also little doubt that deliberate suppression of that phenomenon (beyond a certain point) is psychologically harmful, possibly physically harmful. Many illnesses in Victorian England can be traced to dangerous levels of suppression.

    Is it a right, though? Is it utterly inalienable? The answer to that would seem to be no. Plenty of people live with genuinely little or no sex drive, and those people are still capable of reproduction, which suggests sexuality is a derivative of something, rather than something from which things are derived. There is also a lower age limit at which the brain is structurally incapable of safely dealing with the signals involved. Because the brain deteriorates through everyday damage, aging, etc, if a person lives long enough, their brain may cease to be capable of safely dealing with the processing involved.

    The implication of that seems to be that we can identify individuals who ARE alienated (at that time, though not necessarily for all time) from sexuality.

    Does that mean sexuality should be regulated? Within reason. Lower age limits and mental capacity are considered by the legal framework. That seems sensible enough. The mental capacity might want to be adjusted, as I think America is seriously twisted on that subject. Age should probably be looked into, as there is way too much variation in the US. Nine years, between the two extremes in the US, is simply not biologically or sociologically justifiable. There just isn't that kind of variation in US society.

    What about homosexuality? That, after all, is the point of the original article. Sexuality, in that sense, IS a right. I'll explain.

    There is very likely a spectrum covering everything from absolute heterosexuality to absolute homosexuality, and a second spectrum that is orthogonal to the first that covers everything from absolutely zero drive to virtually infinite.

    Where you are on the two-dimensional spectrum at any one time is likely (but not necessarily) different than where you were at any given time before, or where you will be at any given time later. It probably won't vary by much and will probably vary more in drive than direction, but that is going to vary between individuals.

    Typically, when a specific type of sexuality is "permitted", it involves pointing to an infinitesimal dot on the two dimensional spectrum and saying "that is where you have to be". If, however, you have accepted that nobody stays at any point in the spectrum for longer than an instant, you have (by implication) accepted that you can't be where "you are supposed to be" for any longer than that instant, no matter how hard you might want to try.

    If you cannot legislate a point - or even a zone - then clearly this aspect of sexuality is more fundamental than laws and may therefore reasonably be taken as a right.

    But... but... but.. God says! No, Saint Paul says. Most of the Bible doesn't seem to give a damn and all Jesus says on sexuality is "don't judge". I'll politely ignore the fact that different denominations can't even agree on what books to actually include in the Bible, which editions of the originals should be used, what translations are "correct", what "laws" even apply to the current Biblical covenant, or even if the Biblical covenant still applies. (The Mormons claim to have an updated version.)

    In truth, we haven't the faintest idea if there even IS a God, never mind that that God actually wants. For the benefit of the religious side of the argument, though, let us suppose there is a God and that God gives a damn about what you do in your own bedroom. (Rather an odd thing for God to care about, in my opinion.)

    Homosexuality is of a biological/genetic origin. It is not a state of mind. Just how "built in" it is is unclear, but religious scientists have never isolated a "homosexual gene" yet, so I will assume it is not a defect of some specific part of DNA, but something far more intrinsic to the nature of life itself.

    Is this a reasonable assumption on my part? Yes. Sexuality is fairly new, in evolutionary terms. Asexual reproduction is far older and far more the norm on Planet Earth. Most of your body functions by it, as it is required to replace cells. Heterosexuality is wrapped over that, to increase genetic diversity. Some species reproduce both ways on the macrocellular level, and all species regenerate asexually at the cellular level and below. (DNA also reproduces.)

    The sexual nature of something, therefore, is very fundamental. It is within the very nature of life itself, without respect to the complexity of that life or even the nature of that life. It appears to be as fundamental to anything that could be described as "alive" as Pi is to mathematics. It is not a choice, nor is it a defect, even when there are those who claim it is irrational.

    What does this have to do with God? Simple. If the whole range of sexuality is "built in" to the very fabric of life itself, and you believe that the fabric of life was made by God, then the conclusion is obvious. God created homosexuality. It is inescapable.

    If God is perfect and humans are only fallen from grace because of human "weakness" and not because God was having an off-day and messed up, then homosexuality is a creation of God and is a part of God's design for humanity. That, too, is inescapable.

    If homosexuality is a part of God's design, then interfering with that design is to obstruct God. Now, I don't know about you, but if there is a God and homosexuality is a part of God's plans, then messing wantonly with those plans for no obvious reason but to suppress others is unlikely to score too many points with God.

    Oh, that does happen. Religious types are very good at ignoring instructions and suppressing others. They're just really, really lousy at doing anything positive.

    Devil's Advocate (none / 0) (#326)
    by T818 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:48:42 AM EST

    There is almost certainly a genetic predisposition to cheating on a spouse still cheating is wrong.

    I think what consenting, honest adults do in the bedroom is their own concern but the assumption that if a behaviour has a strong genetic component that behaviour is acceptable lays a poor foundation for an ethics.

    [ Parent ]

    True (none / 0) (#375)
    by jd on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 07:19:59 PM EST

    And that is a problem. However, I would argue that genetic issues are for the medical, not legal, profession. I think mental and physical health workers are in a better place to identify and correct such problems. Laws and punishment tend to make things worse for such people. Most ill prisoners in the eisting system re-offend, so why not deal with the illness first and see if there's anything left for the law afterwards?

    If those who know the subject say that it is nothing to worry about, they are more likely to be right than some fixed codex of laws. That is distinct from them saying there's a problem, but it's not their field. Even then, laws might not always be the best solution, but you've increased your odds of using the right tool for the problem at hand.

    [ Parent ]

    Best website link (1.09 / 11) (#315)
    by ginozhu on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:13:13 AM EST

    ҳ վ վά վƹ vi ci googleƹ ¡ ÷ Բ в ӹ Ʋ Ⱥ װе ҩе ϲ ѯ Ʊ ߵ ֹ ı ձ ͱ ̱ ƶ ģ ģ ѹģ ģ ̼ ܷ ʹ ѹ ŷ ҵ ¯ ë չʾ ֯е ѹ Ӵ ʳƷе ˮ豸 עܻ װ peĤ mba emba pmp ccie ccna Ӣѵ ѵ erp crm scm ͻϵ Ӧ г Ʊ ƱԤ ϳ ʵ ȵż ¶ȼ ѹ ѹ ѹ ̵ ŷ ֻ ñ ͷ ͷ ܵ ±ص ޺ Ƶ Դ豸 л ޻ ҵ ɫĸ ޻ ϱĤ Ϳ Ӽ ˮ ϳ ճ ʳƷӼ ߻ Ʒ Ʒ 칫˾ Ʒ ϴ ϴ ҵ ʼDZ ʼDZ ߶ 칫Ҿ Ҿװ װ깫˾ Ь׻ Ȼ Ϳ ˮͿ ש ذ ϵذ ذ Խ Ȳ ͱƷ Ƶ cpu Ӳ ups ͶӰ 洢豸 · վ Ʒ յ д¥ չ˾ ѧ ǩ֤ ˾ע ֽͭ ֽ ǩֽ ֽ豸 ͨѶ vpn ӵ绰 ŵ绰 gps 绰Ʒ ˮͷ ұ豸 ְ ְ Ʒ ͨʾ · ǽ Ƶת ¼һ ̨ƾ ż

    z#=06*-=q*g#_t-ScGj+d8Csr (none / 0) (#321)
    by harrystottle on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 06:13:34 AM EST

    obviously

    Mostly harmless
    [ Parent ]
    The Religious Mindset (2.60 / 5) (#320)
    by harrystottle on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:55:57 AM EST

    Good article. I'm likely to quote bits of it in one of the chapters I'm writing. It is very closely associated with an aspect I am working on myself.

    One of the questions I'm addressing is why creationists are fighting so stubbornly and (to the rest of us) stupidly against the theory of evolution.

    Their resistance suggests that even if an indisputable god showed up and appeared, personally, to every person on the planet in whatever form they could cope with; announced his godness, apologised for any confusion he may have been responsible for and promptly declared the implementation of personalised paradise and omortality (that's "optional mortality" - you can live as long as you want to) for all...

    ...then, unless he performed precisely as the fundamentalists prescribe, at least half of them would promptly denounce him (and it had better be a "him" or else) as a blasphemer and charlatan.

    If, for example, he revealed that, "yes, well done mankind, you figured out quite cleverly (for a primate) how I shaped the universe with the laws of physics and evolution" the fundamentalists would go apeshit. Even though this was coming directly from the deity himself.

    Why? Given that they'd have concrete proof of god, why would they still want to oppose evolution?

    Because, unless that god confirms, without exception, that the description of how he created the universe as laid down in the bible is accurate, then though they'd win on the existence of god, they'd lose on the validity of the bible; and the validity of the bible has become a far more important issue to them than the exact nature of any prospective deity.

    Why?

    Because what they are primarily concerned with is controlling social behaviour - an example of which is precisely what your article is all about - and the bible is their principle source of authority for the rules they wish to impose. Undermine that authority, and you remove all basis for religious control of society. That is what is at stake. That is why they fight so hard to challenge science with their own naive attempts at subversion.

    The unfortunately inevitable consequence of that analysis is that this is a mindset that cannot be negotiated or reasoned with, and that is the fundamental basis of the global problem we are now in the midst of.



    Mostly harmless
    And what do you think you're doing? (none / 1) (#323)
    by Skywise on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 08:59:34 AM EST

    First off, the idea of an anti-Christ is not an original one.  It's already setup for in the Bible.

    Second, if God did come down and say that He did it through evolution (which I doubt) it would still ultimately prove out Creationist theory (that God created the universe).

    Thirdly it's ALL about social control.  You, yourself, are implying that if you could only get fundamentalists to believe the way YOU do that they'd only see the "logic" and "rationalism" of the world and we'd all live in a candy-land like paradise.  To wit, it's not about evolution but that evolution is the whipping boy of the atheists to force their views on believers.

    That you don't understand THAT, that you have no respect for "them" or their rationale for their world view because yours is "right"... well, allow me to throw your words back at you:
    "The unfortunately inevitable consequence of that analysis is that this is a mindset that cannot be negotiated or reasoned with, and that is the fundamental basis of the global problem we are now in the midst of."

    (And I'm not denying that there are idiot religious nuts who espouse the world will end in 5 days and then go off and shoot their congregation.  Just as there are idiot evolutionary nuts who will enslave an entire people because they're weak and religious minded (tibet) )

    [ Parent ]

    check out Deism (none / 0) (#364)
    by harrystottle on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 04:23:57 PM EST

    Believers who don't have a problem with science http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm

    Mostly harmless
    [ Parent ]
    Thats not how scientists works (none / 0) (#419)
    by C0vardeAn0nim0 on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 03:29:42 AM EST

    "The unfortunately inevitable consequence of that analysis is that this is a mindset that cannot be negotiated or reasoned with, and that is the fundamental basis of the global problem we are now in the midst of."

    this is not the mindset of a scientist, not a serious one.

    a SERIOUS scientist will accept a new theory if it´s well based, research and demonstrated, and WILL change his/her mind.

    evolutionism is a theory derived from a strict scientific proccess. if flaws are later found in such proccess, the theory is either amended or discarded. as you can see, science itself evolves.

    can you say the same about creationists ?

    http://www.comofazer.net
    [ Parent ]

    Suggestion: (none / 0) (#369)
    by Pseudonym on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 06:32:35 PM EST

    I don't know what you're writing, but here's a suggestion: Try replacing the phrase "the religious mindset" everywhere with the phrase "the gay lifestyle". If your work now looks like a neo-conservative rant, then worry.


    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    [ Parent ]
    When I've finished writing it (none / 0) (#393)
    by harrystottle on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 06:22:14 PM EST

    I'll do just that and let you know...

    Mostly harmless
    [ Parent ]
    Mad Libs (none / 1) (#424)
    by Dyolf Knip on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 01:40:56 AM EST

    I think that your suggestion would certainly provide amusement, but would ultimately be like any other Mad Lib; not based in any reality we live in.  Such 'Search & Replace' analogies are only valid when the existence of the result is as demonstrable as the source. (Not invoking Godwin here!) A stereotypical rant by any obviously unpalatable group like the Nazis or the KKK about the dangers presented by Jews or blacks could only look intelligent when reversed. An attempt to Mad-Lib this religious-vs-homosexual essay would suffer the opposite problem (i.e., it is only true as is).

    I know more than a few gays, and I don't think any of them profess a belief in a higher power that loves only gays and hates straights. Few of them base their homosexuality on anything but their own feelings, certainly invocation of "God's will" to explain their attractions is rare. There's no debate in the gay community about whether or not heterosexuality is a disease that ought to be eradicated.  Gays do not proseletyze or demand that employment or citizenship or freedom requires an attraction to the same sex.  The few (openly) gay congresscritters are not proposing laws and constitutional ammendments for relegating male-female marriages and penile-vaginal intercourse to criminal obscurity.

    Whereas religious nuts that publicly declare they would happily wipe out every homosexual in existience not only exist, but are downright plentiful and often attain high power jobs in politics.  Exhibit A: Shitstain Santorum himself.  Exhibit B: Pat Robertson, who blames terrorist attacks by other religious nuts on gays.  Exhibit C: The fact that laws against 'deviant sexual behavior' between consenting adults were not repealed until this, the 21st century, an event religious nuts actually lament.

    ---
    If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly.

    Dyolf Knip
    [ Parent ]

    Interestingly... (none / 0) (#425)
    by Pseudonym on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 09:40:48 PM EST

    I know more than a few gays, and I don't think any of them profess a belief in a higher power that loves only gays and hates straights.

    I also more than a few homosexual people, and I agree with you. On the other hand, I find them to be a fairly representative cross-section of the kind of people I know. Many are intolerant. They just point their intolerance at "intolerant people", which is a bit ironic in the Alanis Morrisette sense of the term.

    My purpose in making the comment was two-fold. One was the amusement factor, as you know. Any lessons to be learned from the exercise are no more specific than "worry".

    My main point, though, was that the term "the religious mindset" is fairly unhelpful and more than a little unfair. I know people who live "the gay lifestyle", but it's a minority of the homosexual people that I know. Similarly, I know people who have "the religious mindset", but it's a minority of the theistic/spiritual people that I know.

    The OP was entirely correct in limiting his complaints to "creationists" and "fundamentalists", and those who would mix their religious beliefs with Earthly politics. However, terms like "the religious mindset" tars everyone with the same brush, including those who do not deserve to be tarred.

    As a final, note, might as well point to this C.S. Lewis quote again.


    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    [ Parent ]
    Beastiality and Republicans (2.33 / 6) (#345)
    by badtux on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:38:38 AM EST

    "If homosexual marriage isn't outlawed, what's next? Man-and-dog marriage? Man-and-box-turtle marriage? Man-and-sheep marriage?" -- Sen. Santorum, Sen. Cornyn, other Republican senators

    Curious penguins want to know: Why are Republicans so familiar with the details of beastiality?

    It is clear that Republican know far, FAR too much about these details of beastiality to be the upright innocents that they paint themselves as. Curious penguins want to know: How far does this Republican conspiracy of carnal knowledge of animals go?!

    - Badtux the "Hey! Santorum! Keep your thingy away from me!" Penguin
    In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin

    Rules for Illogical debate or court questioning (1.00 / 2) (#347)
    by CAIMLAS on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:52:57 AM EST

    1. Attack the facts
    2. Try and get them to contradict themselves
    3. Assassinate their character
    You seem to have jumped to step number 3 for Senator Santorum. "If he dislikes homosexuality, he must be one himself!" It's amazing how many supposedly intelligent people make this conclusion despite any evidence to the contrary.

    (I'm not saying he isn't gay; I don't know anything about him. I'm just tired of seeing such emotional and unethical character attacks. Grow up.)

    --

    Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.

    a good reason for character assassination: (3.00 / 4) (#348)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 12:05:56 PM EST

    senator santorum does not respect my right to privacy, nor any other american, based on his own statements (which you can find above)

    so senator santorum opened the door: if he doesn't respect me, i won't respect him

    if senator santorum apologises to the american people and says that, upon reflection, he respects people rights to privacy, then at that time, i will refrain from character assassinations and respect his right to privacy as well

    he started the war: he says i have no right to privacy in my bedroom

    i do have a right to privacy in my bedroom

    and i will defend that right: i will reveal the hypocrisy of someone who says i have no such right... why are you surprised that his personal life gets questions publicly? what do you or the senator expect if he says i ahv eno right to my privacy in my bedroom?

    so, until he apologises to the american people, what i am doing is called self-defense

    besides, why don't you join me?: he is not a real conservative, real conservatives DO repsect people's right to privacy

    he hurts the conservative cause


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't forget that fear can be taught. (2.83 / 6) (#349)
    by cburke on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 12:15:41 PM EST

    You make an imminently reasonable argument:  Only homosexuals in denial are threatened by homosexuality, because honest homosexuals embrace it and heterosexuals don't care.

    You're forgetting that fear can be taught.  Like racism, homophobia is taught from an early age and if it takes hold can form the basis for a groundless fear that can last all the way to adult- or Senator-hood without the racist/homophobic really knowing why.  Sure, there'll be some crazy reasons thrown out ("they'll rape yer women/sodomize yer children!" or "God says they're beasts/evil") but they don't actually make any sense if they person thought about them.  Which is the point -- they aren't thinking, so you're initial logical argument about who fears homosexuals simply doesn't apply.

    In all cases, anyway.  Certainly there are those who, taught to fear and hate homosexuals, fear and hate their own sexuality.  But I'm not going to assume it applies to our friend Senator Asscream; I believe it is perfectly possible that he's simply a monstrous heterosexual bigot.

    Nevertheless, I love this kind of homophobe-baiting because latent homosexual or not it pisses them off.

    exactly (none / 0) (#355)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 01:49:53 PM EST

    if i'm right, more power to me

    if i'm wrong, who cares... because it pisses them off to no end, because it plays right into their irrational fears ;-)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    You've got to be taught to hate and fear (none / 0) (#405)
    by Arvedui on Sat Mar 19, 2005 at 06:44:42 PM EST

    You've got to be taught to hate and fear
    You've got to be taught from year to year
    It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear
    You've got to be carefully taught

    You've got to be taught to be afraid
    Of people whose eyes are oddly made
    And people whose skin is a different shade
    You've got to be carefully taught

    You've got to be taught before it's too late
    Before you are six or seven or eight
    To hate all the people your relatives hate
    You've got to be carefully taught
    You've got to be carefully taught

    ARTIST: Rodgers and Hammerstein (1949)
    TITLE: You've Got to Be Carefully Taught [South Pacific]


    [ Parent ]

    Look. (1.20 / 5) (#351)
    by CAIMLAS on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 12:41:34 PM EST

    Look, if you're going to make a proper argument, you're going to have to try a bit harder. For starters, don't state assumptions that are completely off base from reality, effectively misrepresenting the people that hold those views.

    ... to consider homosexuality a threat to the family, heterosexuality, or marriage, one must first start with the assumption that the family, heterosexuality, or marriage are weak institutions/ impulses.

    Homosexuality is damaging for society and the family not because of any inherrent strength or lack thereof of societal institutions or the family, but due to a simple problem of unity.

    Society is the collection of people that holds roughly the same beliefs, customs, and interpersonal structure within a culture. In order for a culture to remain whole and unified, the culture must share a substantial amount of "first beliefs" - philosophical, emotional, and logical thought processes which are fairly similar. The problem with homosexuality is that it approaches these basic principles very differently than the majority of society and science views them: most Americans are deists; most Americans are aware of the fact that men and women are very physiologically and psychologically different. Homosexuality is very similar to Islam, in the respect to its acceptance with common American culture: it is in stark contrast to the beliefs of the majority of the populace, and is seen as offensive and vile. It's the same concept as not wiping your ass with your hand, but instead with toilet paper: we just don't wipe our asses with our hand in America.

    By encouraging homosexuality (or sexual experimentation in general, for that matter) in America, it also throws in a "confusing" element into marriage and social sexual expectation. It throws doubt in the mind of the members of a couple concerning what they "should" be doing. Should I remain faithful and committed as I said I would, or should I mess around? Are women/men really all there is, or is the opposite sex more fun and less stressful? As you said, sexual compulsions are strong, and this can cause both inner and interpersional termoil. As might be suggested by the fact that both married and single people both have less health problems and live longer than divorced people (ie, people that have had severe relationship problems), this isn't good for the members of a society.
    --

    Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.

    "Homosexuality is very similar to Islam... (none / 0) (#354)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 01:47:57 PM EST

    ...in the respect to its acceptance with common American culture: it is in stark contrast to the beliefs of the majority of the populace, and is seen as offensive and vile. It's the same concept as not wiping your ass with your hand, but instead with toilet paper: we just don't wipe our asses with our hand in America."

    how do you defeat your ideological opponents?

    let them speak freely, and let them fall on their own sword

    so thank you, oh fucking retard, for the humor

    because you can't be fucking serious

    no wait, wait, wait... i hope you are serious

    it makes defeating fucktwits like you that much more easier

    (snicker)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    hmm... (3.00 / 6) (#358)
    by slashcart on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 02:28:04 PM EST

    Homosexuality is damaging ... due to a simple problem of unity. Society is the collection of people that holds roughly the same beliefs, customs, and interpersonal structure within a culture. In order for a culture to remain whole and unified, the culture must share a substantial amount of "first beliefs" - philosophical, emotional, and logical thought processes which are fairly similar.
    I'm not meaning to throw around incendiary terms, but your point of view is essentially fascism. Also, your point of view (not homosexuality) violates the "first beliefs" of America, namely, that people can differ on important issues without threatening society.
    most Americans are aware of the fact that men and women are very physiologically and psychologically different.
    That's irrelevant to determining the morality of homosexuality. It could just as easily be used to condemn heterosexuality: "look how irreconcilably different men and women are..." etc.
    By encouraging homosexuality (or sexual experimentation in general, for that matter) in America, it also throws in a "confusing" element into marriage and social sexual expectation. It throws doubt in the mind of the members of a couple concerning what they "should" be doing. Should I remain faithful and committed as I said I would, or should I mess around? Are women/men really all there is, or is the opposite sex more fun and less stressful?
    That appears to promote the view that people are brainless sheep who are utterly devoid of thoughts or even of basic desires. Imitation alone determines their activites, and any examples of people acting differently will throw them into total confusion, about their marriages and their lives.

    You also confirm what the article was saying. You imply there's no inherent preference for the opposite sex, that people are essentially bisexual or homosexual. Marriages and families remain intact only because men have no other options or examples. Should there be any examples of homosexuality being tolerated, people will become "confused."

    Are women/men really all there is, or is the opposite [kind of] sex more fun and less stressful? As you said, sexual compulsions are strong, and this can cause both inner and interpersional termoil [sic].
    I'm not trying to sow confusion here, but you appear to be confirming the article's point. I'm not suggesting that you're gay, but you're promoting the view that people are inherently bisexual or homosexual.

    From my experience, most heterosexuals have a durable preference for the opposite sex that will persist even after they become aware of gay people.

    [ Parent ]

    Best sentance evar... (none / 0) (#365)
    by tonedevil on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 04:34:44 PM EST

    From my experience, most heterosexuals have a durable preference for the opposite sex that will persist even after they become aware of gay people.

    That is my experience as well, I just never considered the durability.

    [ Parent ]

    I thought about not replying, but... (none / 1) (#374)
    by MrMikey on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 07:16:38 PM EST

    then again, some things should not be allowed to pass without comment.
    Homosexuality is damaging for society and the family not because of any inherrent strength or lack thereof of societal institutions or the family, but due to a simple problem of unity.
    "A simple problem of unity", eh? This should be interesting...
    Society is the collection of people that holds roughly the same beliefs, customs, and interpersonal structure within a culture.
    True... depending on your particular value of "roughly", and I suspect yours is nowhere near reality.
    In order for a culture to remain whole and unified, the culture must share a substantial amount of "first beliefs" - philosophical, emotional, and logical thought processes which are fairly similar.
    A fine assertion... but how much is "substantial", exactly? I note that our culture, our diverse culture, has a great many belief systems. And, guess what? Those belief systems change over time.
    The problem with homosexuality is that it approaches these basic principles very differently than the majority of society...
    You mean like women voting, slavery, birth control, abortion, women serving in the military, ... etc., etc., etc.
    and science views them:
    BS ALERT! Please, please tell us all about how "science" views homosexuality. We're all ears...
    most Americans are deists;
    True... and irrelevant.
    most Americans are aware of the fact that men and women are very physiologically and psychologically different.
    True... and irrelevant.
    Homosexuality is very similar to Islam, in the respect to its acceptance with common American culture: it is in stark contrast to the beliefs of the majority of the populace, and is seen as offensive and vile.
    BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Thanks for that wonderful belly laugh... I'm surprised you didn't call homosexuals terrorists, too. What I find "offensive and vile" is ignorance and prejudice trying to pretend it's rational.
    It's the same concept as not wiping your ass with your hand, but instead with toilet paper: we just don't wipe our asses with our hand in America.
    No, but you seem to be happy to spread your rhetorical fecal matter around on kuro5hin.
    By encouraging homosexuality (or sexual experimentation in general, for that matter) in America, it also throws in a "confusing" element into marriage and social sexual expectation. It throws doubt in the mind of the members of a couple concerning what they "should" be doing. Should I remain faithful and committed as I said I would, or should I mess around? Are women/men really all there is, or is the opposite sex more fun and less stressful? As you said, sexual compulsions are strong, and this can cause both inner and interpersional termoil.
    IANAC (I am not a counselor), but I'd say the above paragraph says more about your confusion and problems than it does about anyone else's.

    [ Parent ]
    Gays and ragheads (1.50 / 2) (#397)
    by PrinceSausage on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 01:01:30 PM EST

    Yeah, they are the same. Fire up the gas chambers boys, we got a whole new batch coming.

    [ Parent ]
    Ein Volk ??? (none / 0) (#409)
    by C0vardeAn0nim0 on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 04:31:03 AM EST

    "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer, ein Volk"

    that´s a pretty good definition of what this whole "cultural uniformity" BS means and how it ends.

    look, if uniformity were any good, the world would have only one kind of primates (us ?), one kind of ruminants, one kind of bird, one kind of fish... you get the idea.

    diversity, believe you or not, _IS_ good. that´s why it exists in nature and why nature tries really hard to restore it everytime the number of species drop significantly.

    if you don´t believe me, come to my country and i´ll show you whats left of when you remove the diversity that keeps the amazon forest what it is.

    here we also have a variety of immigrants as great as in US, and thanks to this a great and wonderfull cultural production admired in the whole world. other countries wich such creative potential also have a great degree of diversity and respect for it.

    a diverse culture, with whites, blacks, heterosexuals, gays, christians, jews, muslims, anglo-saxonics, latin-americans, and so forth is a healthy and thriving culture. remove the diversity and it stagnates or dies. just like the our forest is dying.

    http://www.comofazer.net
    [ Parent ]

    Conservatives vs Liberals - Costs vs Cost-Benefits (2.00 / 2) (#360)
    by T818 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 02:50:48 PM EST

    The real difference between conservatives and liberals rather than being one of closeted homosexuality is that conservatives routinely accept slippery slope type arguments whereas liberals are suspicious of such arguments.

    Many conservatives argue mothers best stay at home because with a mother working a family is on the slippery slope toward negelected children. Liberals say yes there is a danger but that danger can be avoided and mothers can work.

    Conservatives are against human embryonic stem cell research because this puts scietific research on the slippery slope to Nazi sorts of research on humans or maybe even infanticide. Liberals argue safeguards can be emplaced, for example no scientific research on embyros after gastrulation, and still the medical benefit of stem cells can be obtained.

    In sum conservatives consider only costs while liberals consider both costs and benefits.

    I disagree (none / 1) (#384)
    by minerboy on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:16:44 AM EST

    Liberals have a more concrete view of risks, and a more theoretical view of benefits. Conservatives take a more theoretical view of risks, and a more concrete view of benefits.

    Conservative: Gay marriage will undermine society (theoretical). There is no benefit for society in gay marriage, there are relatively few, and most don't remain monogomous anyway(concrete).

    Liberal: Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone (concrete) and it benefits society by providing rights to a formerly opperessed group (theoretical.)



    [ Parent ]
    Interesting... (none / 0) (#394)
    by Kaki Nix Sain on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 12:56:20 AM EST

    ... do you have any more good examples of this phenomenon?



    [ Parent ]

    Also war on terror (none / 0) (#395)
    by minerboy on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 10:06:14 AM EST

    Conservative - Risk - Iraq could (theoretically) give WMD to terrorist. Benefit (concrete) We will have a direct influence on the new Iraqi Government.

    Liberal - Risk - It is doubtful that Iraq could attack us - they pose not threat (concrete) - Benefit - Eventually, Saddam will die, and then we should be able to help the new better Iraqi government without any bloodshed (theoretical)



    [ Parent ]
    Your concrete is theoretical and vice versa. (none / 0) (#398)
    by T818 on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 04:22:42 PM EST

    First of all direct influence on the Iraqi government is more than a little theoretical. Sistani seems neutral but assuming someone more radical succeeds Sistani then Iraq could easily become very anti-American. Second of all the evidence for war was concrete. Iraq wass presented as having weapons of mass destruction according to Colin Powell.

    [ Parent ]
    Iraq and the UN (none / 0) (#399)
    by T818 on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 04:28:44 PM EST

    Conservatives - The UN can mess up so the UN will mess up. Working with the UN is being on the slippery slope to hell.

    Liberals - There are costs in dealing with the UN but these costs can be managed and benefits which can accrue from working with the UN can be gained.

    [ Parent ]

    I call Bullshit (none / 1) (#416)
    by The Real Lord Kano on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 03:25:52 PM EST

    When conservatives tried to ban Partial Birth Abortion, liberals were up in arms about the slippery slope. Today you can't kill a fully developed fetus and the next think you know, you won't be allow to kill your baby and any time during pregnancy. LK

    [ Parent ]
    random thoughts (3.00 / 2) (#362)
    by SocratesGhost on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 04:09:37 PM EST

    I'm not going to address the thesis because, well, frankly I don't find anyone's sexual orientation all that interesting to care about. Instead, I think we get more mileage from looking at some of the article's claims.

    I'll start with an easy one: Log Cabin Republicans are not filled with self loathing. In fact, they want to be openly gay, get married, serve in the military, etc. Being gay is not the determining factor in their choice. Recent events may encourage a change in party loyalty but I think they have it right: if you want the Republican party to be gay-friendly, you're better off working within it otherwise you abandon the stewardship to your enemies. Alternatively, you can view it conspiratorially: they register Republican to undermine the party. Either way, their agenda is very supportive of gay rights. I have friends who are LCR and they are just as disgusted by the actions of some Republicans as some liberals were disgusted by the Democratic position on the Vietnam war (and consequently discovered conservatism, beginning the neoconservative movement in America).

    However, to address the thesis a bit more directly, I can understand the motivation behind a person in legislating behavior that they want to excise from themselves. We do it all the time when we desire seat belt laws, speed maximums, and the Fourteenth Amendment. When the people themselves are the lawmakers, they don't write laws to apply only to others; they write them because they know it will bind upon themselves just as much. Perhaps most people see it as a trade off: I'll reduce my car's speed because I can't trust you at a similar high speed. However, another interpretation is that we have laws to place limits on ourselves. What do I care if you don't wear your helmet while on a motorcycle? For that matter, what do I care about a law against murder? If I'm murdered, I doubt I'll care if my executioner forever enjoys the state's hospitality, faces the electric chair, or escapes to a South American beach. Heaven, Hell, Nirvana or nothing, I'll have a whole new set of concerns. No, I want a law against murder because I limit my own actions: no matter how angry or upset I become, I've already agreed that I won't murder the person with whom I'm angry. Cast in this light, a law against homosexuality may seem a rational check by someone upon their own perceived weakness. These people are acting to make themselves better, like an overweight person jogging or a diabetic taking insulin. It could be seen as self-hatred but isn't that the germ for all self-improvement?

    I have a cousin/uncle (he's about the age as my dad, so I think of him as an uncle) who went to seminary in order to become a Catholic priest. He was gay. When he left seminary, it wasn't because he had some dawning awareness of being gay(he was already aware), nor that his homosexuality was incompatible with Catholicism. He left seminary because he no longer needed to be a priest to better himself. To this day, he lives as a celibate about 200 yards from the Vatican he loves. He's the most peaceful and gentle man I've ever known. I think there's something instructive in that.

    -Soc
    I drank what?


    The other guy needs values (none / 1) (#366)
    by T818 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:02:50 PM EST

    Most people who talk about values would say yes 'Yes, I have an excellent set of values but the country is falling apart.' The good Senator is most definitely not saying 'I would like to bugger a stud muffin and leave my wife. I must be stopped by society'.

    Liberals trust the individual to handle complex problematical situations whereas conservatives seek societal regulations which disallow the individual from making poor decisions.

    Ask Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell if a sodomy statue is necessay to prevent them from hitting on Chippendale dancers.

    [ Parent ]

    heh (none / 0) (#370)
    by SocratesGhost on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 06:36:15 PM EST

    I think you missed my point: I don't care about the article's thesis, but I could understand why a person who was gay--and if they thought it a bad thing--might want to put such laws in place. Think of it from the perspective of a person who knows he's an alcoholic and wanted to change; could we blame him from seeking a social arrangement for restricting him?

    Also, considering that the liberal solution to most problems is to create a program for it, I find your second paragraph highly specious. Since when has the left been the party of smaller government? The right at least pretends by putting it in to the party platform.

    -Soc
    I drank what?


    [ Parent ]
    What were these programs for? (none / 0) (#376)
    by T818 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 07:52:42 PM EST

    Liberals have had no problem with some redistribution of income and programs to effect this have been supported by liberals. Liberals are big on Medicare and Social Security for example. Liberal programs were enacted to give individuals more freedom.

    Taxes clearly restrict one's freedoms but one pays the taxes then reads what one wishes to read, associates with who ever one wishes to associate and works on the projects one wishes to work on.

    Also liberals adamantly supported civil rights. Many liberal programs were designed to assist the spread of civil rights. Civil rights were to enhance individual rights.

    Liberalism clearly groped around in the dark for solutions but the committment of liberalism to individual rights was behind much of the liberal program. Identity politics and the creation of bureaucratic fiefdoms which liberalism is prone to fall into are mistakes but the motivation behind many liberal iniatives was the support of the individual.

    Many liberal goals certainly could have been achieved through less intrusive means, for example pollution vouchers rather than detailed regulations on allowed plant scrubbers, but 60's liberalism which the right wing parades as the bogeyman was to a large extent about enhancing individual rights.

    George Bush is Mr Big Government. The deficit has ballooned under Republican presidents. Clinton balanced the budget. Clinton prematurely apparently claimed, 'The era of big government was over'. Bush won in 2000

    Basically promoting a statute because it helps one toe the line so to speak is narcisstic. One must argue that the behaviour is immoral for all. Say some individual is attracted to gay sex but feels degraded afterwards. This is no reason why gays who I assume generally benefit from gay sex with like minded individuals should be prohibited from engaging in gay sex.

    [ Parent ]

    first of all (none / 0) (#379)
    by SocratesGhost on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 09:43:18 PM EST

    Good rebuttal to what I thought was an otherwise throw away comment from the both of us (social programs). I almost want to steer the conversation toward that if you wanted to, so I'm going to reply to them in two parts. If you want to stay on topic, skip to part II:

    Part I:
    While you can see the efforts of the civil rights movement as being in the best interests of the individual, the fact is that its application presented an actual distrust for individuals and entities to hire/fire. If you look at most left-wing issues, they seem to come from this idea that people oppress as often as they can: there is a reticence toward expressing religion particularly in schools (I personally know teachers who are pained that they cannot even wear a cross necklace under their shirts--they'll be sent home. In another case, at my high school graduation the principal said that it was against state law to give a benediction but gave a "God bless you all" anyway; in yet a third case, a cross built on a hill overlooking San Diego was erected to welcome home soldiers from WWII but an opposition group has developed over the years that wants to tear the cross down), companies must follow hiring guidelines that consider racial bias, and, of course environmental regulations on business. All of these are curtailments of rights. Even our graduated tax scale can be seen as a greater curtailment of rights for the rich than the poor.

    Now, you can say that this ultimately is in the interest of individual liberties to defend these. If you do that, then anything can be similarly defended. The reason alcohol must be outlawed is because these people are destroying themselves. By outlawing it, we free them from the enslavement of their own addiction. Thus, personal liberty is increased by outlawing alcohol. I think I got that from Rousseau. Nice, huh?

    Nice in theory, of course, and we both know why this type of reasoning fails. A curtailment is a curtailment is a curtailment and whatever the noble reason behind it, you cannot dictate what qualifies as personal freedom to everyone. The only empirical thing is how many curtailments we must endure. You can dress it up as much as you like, but if the law says: "You must do this" or "You must not do that" then each one impacts our actual liberties and not some notions that matter only to theoreticians.

    And curtailments, I'll contest, is much more likely to arise from the left who fears the presence of religion anywhere and refuses to allow any relaxation of business regulations. By comparison, what does the right want to curtail? Assuming the drug war is a strictly Republican thing (it is not) then I count two types of restrictions from the right: drugs and sex. That's not exactly the same either in depth or scope.

    As for the deficit, I think we understand Big Government differently. To me, it's bigness has to do with its involvement in our day-to-day life along with the layers of bureaucracy by which to accomplish it. It's a perception that government is the problem. GWB may believe the same thing and be applying a "starve the beast" strategy to handling social programs. By sending us into such debt, we may force ourselves to cut back. So, a part of me rejoices at the big deficit because I see it as a sign of the end of big government. As you explain it, it has only to do with the size of government income and expenses but I'm not sure that's a valid way of looking at it: the military alone is very expensive but I think it contributes almost nothing to the idea of "big government" in either a bureaucratic way or in a personal involvement way.

    Part II: I should probably preface any response by saying I'm not opposed to homosexuality at all. I'm mostly musing on what could bring an actual gay person to want to restrict themselves and this is what I've come up with.

    You seem to think that if a straight man can find reasons to dislike homosexuality that a gay person cannot see those same exact reasons. He may be Catholic. He may see a need for "traditional" values. He may see homosexuality as disruptive to social interaction. He may have notions about increased risks for homosexual activity. He may even be saddened by the difficulties in having a child free from the entanglements of having three parents. He may have reasons to oppose it that I cannot understand because I don't oppose it and cannot conceive what they may be. But if a straight person can dislike something enough to outlaw it, theoretically a gay person could, too.

    A gay man has only a handful of reasons (positive and negative) available to him that the straight man does not and they are mostly experiential. You seem to think that it's always a positive experience and surely you don't believe that sex (gay or straight) is always a positive thing.

    -Soc
    I drank what?


    [ Parent ]
    The Foundation of Civil Rights Legislation (none / 0) (#380)
    by T818 on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 11:02:36 PM EST

    At bottom civil rights legislation says one is forbidden from penalizing an individual for belonging to some group whether that group be a race, a sex, and nowadays a sexual orientation. The point is that an individual must be treated as an individual rather than as an examplar of a group. Blacks, gays and women can be passed over when hiring is occuring but not because they are blacks, gays or women. The individual's right to be treated as an individual trumps a groups right to oppress another group, white men from opressing black men, for example.

    As for taxation shit sometimes happens to very good people. Government dollars can help and programs can be set up which minimize governmental influence in people's live. Basically this is an optimization problem. Perhaps liberals of 30 years ago failed to see that governmental interference had to be minimized while at the same time helping the very neediest but that was thirty years ago. As I said in another post conservatives just see cost while liberals see both the costs and benefits of governmental programs. A long time ago governmental programs might have been viewed as all benefit by liberals, The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith comes to mind,but that is now a distant era.

    Conservatives really have no argument with liberalism these days. Jimmy Carter promoted a moral foreign policy, Paul Volker appointed by Carter tamed inflation, conservatives have jumped on the civil rights bandwagon except for gay rights, the war in Iraq can only be justified on humanitarian grounds the same grounds for Kosovo and Clinton balanced the budget and reformed welfare. George McGovern was never elected President.

    The difference today between conservatives and liberals is a religious one. Conservatives lean towards a fundamentalist religion and liberals lean toward a more liberal view of religion.

    Conservatives have taken from the playbook of liberals and now liberals best take from the playbook of conservatives. Reigion is important. Unless liberals address religion a vaccum will be formed which will suck all religious debate into the debate over varying brands of fundamentalism.

    Someone who is gay might certainly take a dim view of gay culture and therefore oppose gay culture. Still objective arguments as to how gays harm civilization must be put forward. By and large gays are law abiding productive citizens.

    [ Parent ]

    strange conclusions (none / 0) (#367)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 05:03:11 PM EST

    so the goal to excise homosexual impulses?

    that assumes 2 things:

    1. that heterosexuals would ever have homosexual impulses, no matter how much homosexuality they were exposed to
    2. that homosexual impulses by homosexuals are something that needs to be excised... on what premise?
    i'm confused about what you are trying to say


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    well (none / 0) (#372)
    by SocratesGhost on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 07:00:38 PM EST

    I'm not really trying to conclude much.

    Personally, I'm not sure there is a clear bright line between homo-, bi-, or hetero- sexuality. So, yes, I think some definite heterosexuals will have homoerotic thoughts. This doesn't make them gay any more than wading into the shallow end of a swimming pool means you can swim. Alternatively, consider it from the case of a person who has had a single tequila binge and wants to give it up forever. Are people only 100% alcoholics or 100% not? Can't they be anywhere on that spectrum and still want to get rid of it?

    I think that everyone can arrive at conclusions independent of their orientation. If a straight person thinks that homosexuality is bad, it's possible that a gay person could think homosexuality bad for the exact same reasons, whatever they may be. I wouldn't know since I'm not opposed to homosexuality. Studies show that societies that permit homosexuality tend to be more stable and, like you said, it doesn't really affect me what my neighbors are doing. I suppose a case could be made opposing gay marriage since it was originally a religious rite co-opted through government interference (the word even derives from the name of "Mary" and it was only Medieval Kings who realized they could tax it for additional revenue) but I think equivalent benefits and rights should be made available--particularly around the handling of children; it's the 14th Amendment advocate inside me.

    From my perspective, I'd rather see something more productive than a smear campaign from either side, since that only gives away the moral high ground. I didn't want to confess this but after reading your article, I'm actually more sympathetic for the Senator even though I disagree with him. I suspect this was not your nor Dan Savage's intent. I haven't been following the issue too closely but if this is the left's sophomoric response, I'm more ashamed to agree with them than having this man as a Senator. Is this really the quality of the conversation in this country, where we'd prefer to degrade someone than debate them? Being somewhat ambivalent about the issue (whether they pass the law or not doesn't really matter to me) I'm the guy in the middle that either side should be trying to convince. They may get style points for the name calling but ultimately they lost that round of the debate.

    -Soc
    I drank what?


    [ Parent ]
    the senator disrespected me (none / 0) (#385)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:28:43 AM EST

    he said that i, and the rest of the american people, don't deserve a right to privacy

    this isn't some random yahoo saying this, this is a us senator

    therefore, i am perfectly entitled to disrespect him: he disrespected me first

    i'm defending myself, i'm not attacking him, and i didn't choose the battle ground, he did: our personal lives

    in fact, if you were really uncomfortable with me getting personal with the man rather than debating the issue, you would be more angry at senator santorum than me in the first place on that basis:

    he is the one who wants to make your personal life governmental knowledge

    if that doesn't get you angry, i don't know what would

    but even if it doesn't get you angry, it does remove any basis or premise you might have with having a problem with my smear campaign on the senator: whatever logic you have for chastising my personal approach, that immediately and automatically applies to the senator as well, since he is the one saying we don't have a right to personal lives

    so rethink your position, and join in me in the condemnation of senator santorum

    or admit you have no real basis for having a problem with me defending us from the senator


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    doing the ol' bait and switch, are you? (none / 0) (#386)
    by SocratesGhost on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:55:19 AM EST

    you wrote "Without getting too deeply into the philosophical questions of privacy versus society..." and now you're asking that we go fully into that argument.

    I only have a small degree of concern about this: should otherwise illegal acts receive privacy protection? Are all drug deals between two private people made legal by this? Should all wiretaps and surveillance be inadmissible as evidence? I hope you see the problem with an absolute right to privacy. You can only imagine the glee that Nostra Cosa would have if we ever were to amend the first amendment to include privacy since no conspiracy charges could ever be made.

    Instead, we have a limited right to privacy that can be infringed via court order for either surveillance or search. Privacy is not and never has been a shield that can protect you while performing illegal acts.

    So, no, I'm not worried about him legislating what happens in the bedroom any more than I'd be worried about him legislating what happens in the basement of every crack house. Both invade privacy in exactly the same way.

    I think if we're going to defend homosexuality, it needs to be on a basis other than privacy standards. It would be an easy sell to me since I already agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality; I just don't think a privacy argument is a defense in this case.

    Oh, and I do have a problem with the way you are "defending us from Senator Santorum". That was my point.

    -Soc
    I drank what?


    [ Parent ]
    i'm going into it now (none / 0) (#387)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 11:06:09 AM EST

    as opposed to the article

    understand the fucking concept?

    bait and switch you say!

    stupid fuck

    listen retard: THE FUCKING GUY SAYS YOU DON'T DESERVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY

    i'm so glad this doesn't bother you

    please, by all means, you go on with your dispassionate self

    meanwhile, i'm going to get a little passionate about it, is that ok with you?

    i really feel so fucking ashamed that i AM passionate about the fucker disrespecting my right to privacy

    and that is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE BASIS for disrespecting HIS right to privacy

    anything else is called HYPOCRISY

    and if you had any INTELLECTUAL HONESTY about yourself you would be chastising the senator: HE IS THE ONE MAKING THIS PERSONAL

    HE IS THE ONE SAYING WE DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY

    DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND?

    and one final small clue for you mr. philosophy retard:

    without passion THERE IS NO ARGUMENT

    so go take your dispassionate self and go argue with the dust in the corner

    because on the basis of your insistence on dispassion, you've argued yourself out of the subject matter

    adios, you lose


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    and off the deep end, you go. (none / 0) (#388)
    by SocratesGhost on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:47:29 PM EST

    Should I regard your comments as personal attacks? Either way, you've lost my interest.

    -Soc
    I drank what?


    [ Parent ]
    small hint (none / 0) (#389)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:59:18 PM EST

    passionate polemics always beats dispassionate rhetoric

    it doesn't matter that your interest is gone, your passion was never there in the first place, so you never mattered


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    the difference (none / 0) (#390)
    by SocratesGhost on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:36:45 PM EST

    I give credit to things being interesting, not their ability to be loud. I also think you're being too quick to equate frenzy with passion.

    FWIW, I don't normally jump in to your conversations because of this sort of mad expostulation in which little progress can be made, which is too bad because I'm a CTS fan when you're more coherent.

    -Soc
    I drank what?


    [ Parent ]
    and likewise, i'm a fan of yours (none / 0) (#391)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:40:42 PM EST

    but without passion, nothing matters

    which is kind of funny meta joke, considering the subject matter of the story


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    heh, true that /nt (none / 1) (#392)
    by SocratesGhost on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:44:51 PM EST


    -Soc
    I drank what?


    [ Parent ]
    Let me put forth an alternative view (3.00 / 4) (#377)
    by jolly st nick on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 07:59:58 PM EST

    I won't say the kind of psychodrama the article talks about doesn't happen -- it certainly does. But I think there is a broader explanation that doesn't require having deep insights into individual psychodynamics.

    People are just inconsistent. They don't build a rationale for their actions by reasoning forward from the action to its consequences; they rationalize backwards from the consequences of their actions to retroactivey justify their actions.

    It's just the way people are. People routinely continue self-defeating behaviors, so you can't really expect them to be even better when somebody else bears the consequences of their actions. Pepole derive a sense of stability and even self-importance from their opinions. This alone is enough to explain why people hang onto them, even if they are wicked and bigoted. Consistency doesn't come into it -- far from it. A willingness to ignore inconsistency is better for the ego's stablity. An self professed Christian (not to pick too much on them), can easily draw the sword in the name of the Prince of Peace; can treat the poor and (in their eyes) morally imperfect with contempt as a follower of man who explicitly exalted these people above the respectable, indeed can coopt that position by claiming to be a wretched sinner himself while professing a kind of moral perfectionism.

    The same can be said for people whose pole star is a conservative or liberal philosophy. What is a liberal after all but somebody who can love humanity while hating people? As for conservatives, well, I always remember what my old Red uncle Ivan used to say, "Kid, nobody believes in socialism. Nobody believes in capitalism. I'ts socialism for me, capitalism for you."

    Story goes mainstream (sorta)... (none / 0) (#401)
    by taiwanjohn on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 11:54:53 PM EST

    According to this story, which I found on cursor.org today, Gentleman's Quarterly is running a story about the preponderance of gays at high levels of the GOP establishment.
    A gay staffer also weighed jocularly into the article, saying that the number of gay Republicans in Congress is not small.
    "There's clearly a gay Republican mafia," one gay staffer whom Rogers has targeted told Tapper. "There's one in every office."
    It will be interesting to see whether this story gains traction, and if so, how long it will take before the Santorum hits the fan...

    --jrd

    Invoking Godwin's Law (none / 0) (#434)
    by tassach on Mon May 23, 2005 at 12:44:16 PM EST

    At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, I'd like to point out Shirer's observation in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that a significant portion of the Nazi party leadership were homosexuals.

    Comparisons between the Republican party and the Nazi party are left as an exersize for the reader.

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants" -- Thomas Jefferson
    [ Parent ]

    I am shocked and appalled (3.00 / 2) (#403)
    by Bai Ou Rui on Sat Mar 19, 2005 at 05:15:27 PM EST

    First, I am not sure how this story got voted into a Kuro5hin story. You see, we have a freedom of speech. The same freedom that protects Wade Churchill and his hateful comments, is the same one that protects Senator Santorum and his hateful comments. While I may not agree with Senator Santorum, I do not see the purpose of fighting hate with hate and making a new definition of his name tied to anal sex leakage. To me, that is a hateful thing. Any respect I had for liberals and homosexuals that participated in this name-rape I have just lost. Sure, play dirty, but that is not the American way. We have lost sight of what the USA is really all about. Is that what we have resorted to, name calling, hateful comments, dirty tricks. What are we becoming? While on one hand, this "group" of liberals and homosexuals is trying to say that Senator Santorum is a homosexual himself, they are also using it in a negative way that feeds the beast of homophobes out there. This makes the cause of homosexuallity go back a few decades. I cannot believe that people actually believe in this sort of crap that they are pulling. I hope that there are liberals and homosexuals out there that have not been a party to this evil deed. I feel like that is the case, that it was all a conspiacy by a small group that does not represent the larger part. Stop being negative, instead focus on the positive. Those negative seeds you sow this day, will grow and spread more negativity and make more negative seeds later. Then, what comes around goes around, and you are the next person being defined as a shitstain.

    This account has been anonymized. I can only assume it was done because one of the editors did not like my points of view. I attempted intelligent conversations here, but found in this environment that they are not possible.
    The Least Worst Thing (none / 0) (#422)
    by mbmccabe on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 05:19:56 AM EST

    You are upset about the least worst thing concerning this discussion.

    "Move on...nothing more to see here."
                                   -Unknown

    B-]

    [ Parent ]

    Extreme homophobia = gay? (2.20 / 5) (#404)
    by Trifthen on Sat Mar 19, 2005 at 06:32:00 PM EST

    This just in!

    White supremacists, who hate Jews, Blacks, and other types of minorities, are actually Black and Jewish themselves!  They hide behind their rhetoric, driven deep into the closet about their true ancestry, and lash out at those very elements they suppress within themselves!

    Yes, ladies and gentlemen: white supremacists are all actually black Jews.

    Thanks for clearing that up!

    Think man.... (3.00 / 2) (#428)
    by acebone on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 09:23:54 PM EST

    White supremacists, who hate Jews, Blacks, and other types of minorities, are actually Black and Jewish themselves! They hide behind their rhetoric, driven deep into the closet about their true ancestry, and lash out at those very elements they suppress within themselves!

    White supremacists are most often found amongst the oppressed aren't they ?

    So they try to deal with their own state of oppression by advocating the oppresion of others, right... ?

    Not the exact same mechanism - but very related in principle, and after all - it was you who started comparing apples to oranges.


    --------- Je suis un tranger en tranch
    [ Parent ]
    I support Rick Santorum! (1.75 / 4) (#415)
    by The Real Lord Kano on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 03:23:01 PM EST

    When he was a member of the State House, I lived in his district. In 1994, when I was in the second half of my Freshman year he came to campaign in the town where I went to college. I and many other College Republicans helped him campaign. I walked with him and held a conversation with him. Rick Santorum is a good man, and an excellent Senator. I have voted for him ever since I was 18 and I will continue to do so as long as he wants to keep running.

    On to the other issue, you have the right to live however you want to. If you're gay, that's your business. If you're straight, that's your business. You do not have the right to be liked by everone. Personally, I'm straight. I like women. If you like guys, that's fine. It's your business. I am disgusted by man on man PDAs.

    Senator Santorum was absolutely correct, forced recognition of "same sex" marriage will remove society's ability to set limits. Every argument that can be made for "same sex" marriage applies to polyamory. If we have to accept "same sex" marriage, then why should we stop at discriminating against people who want to have a 3 person marriage? Or 4 or 5 or 100?

    LK

    I'm glad you asked that Question. (none / 1) (#417)
    by tonedevil on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 04:17:52 PM EST

    If we have to accept "same sex" marriage, then why should we stop at discriminating against people who want to have a 3 person marriage? Or 4 or 5 or 100?

    There is no rational reason for denying group marriages. Any other questions?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm glad you gave that answer. (none / 0) (#430)
    by The Real Lord Kano on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 09:31:45 PM EST

    There is no rational reason for denying group marriages. Any other questions?

    The fact that people who support "gay marriage" also support group marriage proves the point. To allow one removes society's ability to prohibit the other.

    LK

    [ Parent ]

    That's like saying... (none / 1) (#432)
    by Julian Morrison on Mon May 02, 2005 at 10:50:53 AM EST

    ..."removing society's right to prohibit people with different eye colours from marrying on grounds of irrationality will ruin society's ability to ban marriages between men who like hiphop and emo chicks!"

    Well duh. Why preserve an irrationality to support a further irrationality? If there is no secular and persuasive rationale for banning a thing, the government ought not to be banning it. If the rationale is religious, any ban should be between you and your priest.

    A limit for what, or who, is marryable can be reasonably defined by its status as a contract. That is, marriage requires more than one party (contracts with self are meaningless) and requires all parties to be sapient and capable of communication (for consent). It probably also reasonably requires all parties to be capable of human or human-like emotions (otherwise the promise to love is null and void). So that does rule out the typical next objections "but what if a guy wanted to marry his dog? Or his car?" Neither is sapient, nor communicative, and the car has no emotions.

    Note that these limits are reasoned and not arbitrary. So you can't eg: add in "ability to reproduce", because contracts don't require that. (Also, it would be wierd to have a law that banned infertile straight couples marrying, and might by a stretch of sophistry be extended to allow a human a one-directional marriage with a virus ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Secular? (none / 0) (#433)
    by The Real Lord Kano on Sat May 21, 2005 at 04:39:27 PM EST

    If there is no secular and persuasive rationale for banning a thing, the government ought not to be banning it. If the rationale is religious, any ban should be between you and your priest. Marriage is a religious construction. There is no reason for allowing a secular form of a religious institution.

    [ Parent ]
    Secular is a kind of religious (none / 0) (#435)
    by Julian Morrison on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 03:03:54 PM EST

    Religion is subjective by definition (otherwise it stops being religion and becomes physics). That includes the meta-religions such as agnosticism and atheism.

    If you assert something is the exclusive domain of religion, you by implication assert it's the domain of subjective preference. Your religion is good for you, their atheism is good for them, etc.

    Therefore marriage being religious does not merely fail to contradict secular marriage, it positively implies it.

    [ Parent ]

    Your support, and it's foundations, are noted... (none / 1) (#418)
    by MrMikey on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 05:06:57 PM EST

    When he was a member of the State House, I lived in his district. In 1994, when I was in the second half of my Freshman year he came to campaign in the town where I went to college. I and many other College Republicans helped him campaign. I walked with him and held a conversation with him. Rick Santorum is a good man, and an excellent Senator.

    That's all very nice... it's also very irrelevant to the question of whether or not his stance is a valid one.

    I have voted for him ever since I was 18 and I will continue to do so as long as he wants to keep running.

    That all sounds very automatic and unexamined... I'm sure he appreciates the vote.

    On to the other issue, you have the right to live however you want to. If you're gay, that's your business. If you're straight, that's your business. You do not have the right to be liked by everone. Personally, I'm straight. I like women. If you like guys, that's fine. It's your business. I am disgusted by man on man PDAs.

    In other words, "I think gays are icky, and I'm going to mouth empty slogans about "you have the right to live however you want to", but I don't mean any of it, and I won't let them get married.... because they're icky, as any right-thinking person will agree."

    Senator Santorum was absolutely correct, forced recognition of "same sex" marriage will remove society's ability to set limits. Every argument that can be made for "same sex" marriage applies to polyamory. If we have to accept "same sex" marriage, then why should we stop at discriminating against people who want to have a 3 person marriage? Or 4 or 5 or 100?
    Yes, just as the striking down of anti-miscegnation laws removed society's ability to set limits. It's much like the great "Speed Limit Disaster", in which we voted to raise the speed limit, but then discovered, to our horror, that we couldn't stop! Thank God for the speed of light, otherwise the speed limit would still be rising!

    Personally, I'm perfectly fine with polyamorous marriage. If three or more consenting adults are willing to accept the legal and economic obligations of marriage, then more power to them. What, you think we'll suddenly be inundated with polyamorous marriages? Heh... perhaps you think everyone around you will suddenly turn gay if they find out they can get married... and we can't have that, because, as everyone knows, gays are icky.

    You, Sir, are one of the reasons I want this story to make it to the front page.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll vote for Rick Santorum again... (none / 0) (#421)
    by The Real Lord Kano on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 01:15:58 AM EST

    That's all very nice... it's also very irrelevant to the question of whether or not his stance is a valid one.

    I don't have to justify my position on any issue to you or anyone else. It's my position and I base my vote upon it.

    In other words, "I think gays are icky, and I'm going to mouth empty slogans about "you have the right to live however you want to", but I don't mean any of it, and I won't let them get married.... because they're icky, as any right-thinking person will agree."

    I think something's wrong with your browser. You're getting extra lines in my post.

    To recap. Yes, I think male homosexuality is icky. No, I don't think it should be illegal. No, they do not have the right to marry other men.

    Yes, just as the striking down of anti-miscegnation laws removed society's ability to set limits. It's much like the great "Speed Limit Disaster", in which we voted to raise the speed limit, but then discovered, to our horror, that we couldn't stop! Thank God for the speed of light, otherwise the speed limit would still be rising!

    Ooooh, two points. First of which, sexual preference has no comparison to race. I'm not going to debate the issue with you. In fact, homosexuals do themselves a disservice by attempting to do so. If you compare MLK to Richard Simmons or Jim J Bullock, all you're going to do is alienate people who might otherwise support you.

    Second, remember when Congress stopped attaching federal highway funds to the 55 speed limit? Montana eliminated speed limits entirely on highways. In the end, they did impose a speed limit. But that has nothing to do with this discussion.

    You, Sir, are one of the reasons I want this story to make it to the front page.

    So you can have your argument deconstructed in front of MORE people?

    LK

    [ Parent ]

    Why should we? (none / 0) (#431)
    by StephanCom on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 07:17:43 PM EST

    > If we have to accept "same sex" marriage, then why
    > should we stop at discriminating against people
    > who want to have a 3 person marriage?

    Why should we, indeed?  While I'm pro-gay, I'm moderately against gay marriage - mostly on terms having to do with why does the government have anything to do with marriage in the first place.  It seems the whole institution should be replaced with a legal contract under any terms desired.  (I just got divorced, BTW).

    The particularly funny thing that keeps jumping out at me is the idea that man-woman marriage is upholding a standard of tradition.  Yes, certainly.  Every culture I know of on earth has always supported hetero marriage; I've never heard of a culture that supports gay marriage.

    But, oddly, nearly every culture that I know of has, at one time or another, allowed or even encouraged plural marriage.  It doesn't seem fair to let gays get married, with no historical precedent, but deny these rights to larger groupings, which is permitted in rather a few countries around the world when I last checked.

    Marriage is, today in the US, a boilerplate legal contract.  Take away the special status of this standard contract, and let people write things up any damn way they please.

    Note that this neatly sidesteps the issues tying gay sex with pederasty and bestiality - animals and children cannot enter into contracts.  You can't marry a goat or a penguin, because they can't sign the marriage license.

    But if three women and two men want to be wedded, at least in the sense that a Santorum wants to deny, they don't need a friendly minister - they need a lawyer.

    I can't think of a single thing that an appropriate contract can't provide... except (perhaps) for tax breaks (though I believe if someone is your dependent, the rest doesn't matter, tax-wise; tell me I'm wrong), and health insurance.

    The latter of which I think is the real kicker, though that's not a legal issue - I would bet the insurance companies don't want to deal with one guy who has three wives and ten children.

    [ Parent ]

    Another data-point on the curve... (none / 1) (#426)
    by taiwanjohn on Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 12:29:47 AM EST

    Just ran across this article over on BuzzFlash: Boy Scout leader charged with child porn was defender of anti-gay policy, `Youth Protector', which in turn links to another story on MSNBC, Boy Scout director charged with having child porn.
    DALLAS, Texas - A longtime Boy Scouts of America official who directed a national task force to protect children from sexual abuse has been charged with possession and distribution of child pornography.

    As for the relevance to this K5 posting, I think a comment to the RawStoryQ piece puts it best:

    The images were of young boys and the investigation started in Germany according to NBC. Many of my acquaintances in the gay community would likely disagree but I always wonder in cases like this if the pervs that prey on little boys would instead be in healthy adult gay relationships if they did not live in a world where having gay feelings was something they needed to hide and they instead felt they could embrace the sexuality god gave them. In other words, it seems to me anti-gay bigotry actually helps create pedophiles like this scum. I have no objective evidence to support this theory, other than to point to all the catholic priests that get off on little boys and little girls. Surely that comes in part from pursuing a "celebate" lifestyle, no??
    Comment by Mike in Seattle -- 3/29/2005 @ 4:19 pm

    Amen!

    By the way, check out the photo of that guy. Creepy.

    --jrd



    I liked it, (none / 0) (#429)
    by calculus on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 01:31:35 PM EST

    but I stopped reading when you started talking about "baser" pleasures and all that nonsense, as if anything human were to be taken as being separate from being human.

    Deep in the Closet | 434 comments (387 topical, 47 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!