• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* - - - - 2 votes

CA Prop 8: Props to the Bruthas


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#31 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 12 November 2008 - 03:41 AM

Funny how the anchor said there was "a lot of anger and hate on both sides." I only saw anger and hate from one side.

This is another sloppy form of argument: find an extreme example and paint the entire minority with that example to demonize them. You might be right for this video alone, but of course this video is only one narrow view of the occasion, and of the history of this issue. There has been overwhelming anger and hate against homosexuals. Somehow the slapping of a cross out of an old woman's hand, which cannot be condoned, does not compare to the ongoing horror and injustice of being beaten and murdered over your sexuality.

#32 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 12 November 2008 - 04:20 AM

I suspect the deep revulsion to some forms of sexuality, which in my view ultimately underpins much of the religious dogma, is biological in nature. If you take away the religion, the biological revulsion will still remain.


So, is this evolved revulsion limited to humans? Because homosexuality is rampant in nature. Monogamy is more rare and is arguably more dangerous for the evolution of most species.

If you think a natural revulsion to bacteria-laden bodily excrement is base, then I can't help but wonder what you think about the idea of withdrawing from you lover with your......Oh, nevermind.


What about kissing? Exactly what kind of bacteria do you think are present in fecal matter and how clean do you think the mouth is?

Edited by shepard, 12 November 2008 - 04:25 AM.
Clarification


#33 Connor MacLeod

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 12 November 2008 - 07:06 AM

Incestuous relationships do not have the numbers, opposite-sex relationships can be genetically dangerous for offspring, and the relationships can often be secondary to issues of power, which always complicate matters. Scientists also suggest that there are particular evolutionary guards against incestuous relationships not found in LGBT relationships.

Note that I specifically mentioned same-sex incestuous couples (i.e. father-son, mother-daugher, sister-sister, brother-brother.) These are homosexual relationships between adults that pose no risk of producing genetically weak offspring. Regarding your comment that they (i.e. same-sex incestuous couples) "don't have the numbers," I am honestly a little surprised. I would think that you of all people would be strongly motivated to come to the aid of a minority whose "rights" were being denied be the majority. Do you think these people have any less right than you to marry the person they love?

I did note that and provided three separate points; genetic danger to offspring does not currently apply but the other two do. I provided an argument for why polygamy and incest have not reached a particular social movement threshold and why I doubt they ever will. More importantly, however, I prefaced this argument with "First of all, we are concerned with the rights of LGBT here, not other social movements. A slippy slope does not lead movement to movement; we deal with this now and deal with what comes next when it arrives."

Don't activists claim that gay rights is simply a continuation of the civil rights movement? Is it not the case that many have compared the deprival of homosexuals of their "right" to marry with anti-miscegenation laws? This is "movement to movement." It seems extraordinarily unlikely that other groups won't use the granting of the right for gays to get married to argue for further modifications to the definition of marriage down the road.

The "slippery slope" argument is a sloppy and common one in debates like these. The intention is to confuse the central issue with increasingly arbitrary and shocking scenarios. Choose not to support these escalating scenarios and you are accused of undercutting support for the central issue because of the incorrect assumption that all these scenarios are understood to be on the same moral footing.

Two adults in a loving, consensual relationship...where's the difference in the "moral footing?"

Whatever your view of homosexuality, African Americans certainly do not deserve unfounded attacks. Unfortunately, I have seen too many LGBT people discriminating against black people over Prop 8 and that does nobody any good.

It's much safer to discriminate against Mormons as they are significantly less likely to pop a cap in yo' ass.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 12 November 2008 - 06:50 PM

i'm of the opinion that the government shouldn't have anything to do with anyone's marriage. It shouldn't be legal or illegal. Marriage is not even mentioned in the constitution. Every state has cobbled together it's own rule book.

Note that I specifically mentioned same-sex incestuous couples (i.e. father-son, mother-daugher, sister-sister, brother-brother.) These are homosexual relationships between adults that pose no risk of producing genetically weak offspring. Regarding your comment that they (i.e. same-sex incestuous couples) "don't have the numbers," I am honestly a little surprised. I would think that you of all people would be strongly motivated to come to the aid of a minority whose "rights" were being denied be the majority. Do you think these people have any less right than you to marry the person they love?


people are going to do whatever they want. It doesn't matter if the government bestows the title of "married" on them. That includes same sex and opposite sex incestuous relationships. Legislating morality of any kind is both pointless, and um immoral. That doesn't mean you aren't free to be disgusted by whatever you want. But trying to make an institution out of something that never was one (it's different from religion to religion and culture to culture, of which the US has all of them) is just strong arming by by the small majority of the Christians. Marriage as a government institution should be declared unconstitutional for the highly discriminatory and intrusion of church on state that it is.

#35 VespeneGas

  • Guest
  • 600 posts
  • 34
  • Location:Oregon, atm

Posted 12 November 2008 - 08:37 PM

Incestuous relationships do not have the numbers, opposite-sex relationships can be genetically dangerous for offspring, and the relationships can often be secondary to issues of power, which always complicate matters. Scientists also suggest that there are particular evolutionary guards against incestuous relationships not found in LGBT relationships.

Note that I specifically mentioned same-sex incestuous couples (i.e. father-son, mother-daugher, sister-sister, brother-brother.) These are homosexual relationships between adults that pose no risk of producing genetically weak offspring. Regarding your comment that they (i.e. same-sex incestuous couples) "don't have the numbers," I am honestly a little surprised. I would think that you of all people would be strongly motivated to come to the aid of a minority whose "rights" were being denied be the majority. Do you think these people have any less right than you to marry the person they love?

I did note that and provided three separate points; genetic danger to offspring does not currently apply but the other two do. I provided an argument for why polygamy and incest have not reached a particular social movement threshold and why I doubt they ever will. More importantly, however, I prefaced this argument with "First of all, we are concerned with the rights of LGBT here, not other social movements. A slippy slope does not lead movement to movement; we deal with this now and deal with what comes next when it arrives."

Don't activists claim that gay rights is simply a continuation of the civil rights movement? Is it not the case that many have compared the deprival of homosexuals of their "right" to marry with anti-miscegenation laws? This is "movement to movement." It seems extraordinarily unlikely that other groups won't use the granting of the right for gays to get married to argue for further modifications to the definition of marriage down the road.

The "slippery slope" argument is a sloppy and common one in debates like these. The intention is to confuse the central issue with increasingly arbitrary and shocking scenarios. Choose not to support these escalating scenarios and you are accused of undercutting support for the central issue because of the incorrect assumption that all these scenarios are understood to be on the same moral footing.

Two adults in a loving, consensual relationship...where's the difference in the "moral footing?"

Whatever your view of homosexuality, African Americans certainly do not deserve unfounded attacks. Unfortunately, I have seen too many LGBT people discriminating against black people over Prop 8 and that does nobody any good.

It's much safer to discriminate against Mormons as they are significantly less likely to pop a cap in yo' ass.


1. In a hypothetical society, let's say that interracial marriage were illegal. However, a growing number of citizens believed the laws to be baseless and racist, denying the right of two committed, loving people to consummate that love before the eyes of society and the law. If it were demonstrable that granting interracial couples the right to marry would help to create a movement in favor of marriage between adults and infants, would it be justified to deny interracial couples the right to marry on this basis? Of course not. The legitimacy and success of any given movement must be evaluated on its own merits. Furthermore, it is ludicrous to equate any partnership between consenting adults with a 'partnership' between an adult and anyone who cannot give consent (children, animals, etc).

With regards to these incestuous partnerships between adult members of the same sex (I imagine they are extremely rare if they exist at all): what objection can you have to them, other than the childish "eww, gross!" of your previous posts which shephard so eloquently lampooned?

2. How can you cite this "slapping the cross out of her hand" incident with a straight face, when violence against members of the gay community is so common even in the US? (see Matthew Shephard, Brandon Teena, etc etc)

3. "less likely to pop a cap in yo' ass"? This is a transparently racist generalization of the millions of black brothers and sisters of America, and makes me sick. This is plain cowardly, sir.

#36 Connor MacLeod

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 12 November 2008 - 10:56 PM

3. "less likely to pop a cap in yo' ass"? This is a transparently racist generalization of the millions of black brothers and sisters of America, and makes me sick. This is plain cowardly, sir.


Mr. Olbermann? You sir are a pretentious and humorless blowhard.

#37 VespeneGas

  • Guest
  • 600 posts
  • 34
  • Location:Oregon, atm

Posted 12 November 2008 - 11:11 PM

A member of a privileged ethnic group negatively stereotyping a repressed ethnic group is not witty.

Is that pathetic ad hominem the only reply you could muster?

#38 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 12 November 2008 - 11:13 PM

A member of a privileged ethnic group negatively stereotyping a repressed ethnic group is not witty.


I don't think the ethic group that has the president of the united states included in it can be considered repressed.

This is a good thing. this is not the america of 150 or 50 years ago

Edited by elrond, 12 November 2008 - 11:15 PM.


#39 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 12 November 2008 - 11:22 PM

also lets all try and keep this from being personal.

#40 VespeneGas

  • Guest
  • 600 posts
  • 34
  • Location:Oregon, atm

Posted 13 November 2008 - 12:22 AM

elrond: "I don't think the ethic group that has the president of the united states included in it can be considered repressed."

So you don't believe that there are still institutional and social barriers to equality for African Americans?

www.upjohninst.org/publications/newsletter/kd_701.pdf

http://www.cbsnews.c...ain575685.shtml

http://www.deathpena...ies-who-decides

Racism, though not pervasive, is alive and well in American society. While everyone (myself included) would like to breath a sigh of relief and say, "Finally! a racially fair and equal society!", the election of Barack Obama is an exception to an unfortunate rule.

#41 Connor MacLeod

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 13 November 2008 - 03:03 AM

A member of a privileged ethnic group negatively stereotyping a repressed ethnic group is not witty.

You're right. As a non-Mormon I shouldn't assume that all of them are straight-laced goodie-two-shoes. There probably are some Mormons who in fact roll pretty hard.

As far as Black people go, I'm sure the vast majority - at least outside the elite (i.e. Jackson, Sharpton, Wright, Obama, etc.) - would be a good deal less offended by my joke (which in fact has much more than a grain of truth to it), than by the comparison homosexual activists make of the gay marriage issue to the civil rights movement. I sir, sympathize and stand in solidarity with my Black-American brothers and sisters who are angered and hurt by the efforts of homosexual activists to co-opt the civil rights movement in an effort to promote a lifestyle which according to Black-American culture and values is immoral, debased and just plain nasty. Privileged (and mostly) White homosexuals should reflect on the hardships Black-Americans have been through and show some respect and sensitivity towards the values that they hold dear. Now I understand that you sir may think Black people are simply acting childishly in regards to this matter, but my experience growing up in a largely Black community has inculcated in me a basic respect for their traditions and core values which I cannot so easily dismiss.

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 13 November 2008 - 03:32 AM.


#42 VespeneGas

  • Guest
  • 600 posts
  • 34
  • Location:Oregon, atm

Posted 13 November 2008 - 09:33 AM

And, having grown up around lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals, I have earned a respect for them as in every way as worthy to enjoy the rights and privileges enjoyed by us heterosexuals. I'm not saying you're a racist; I just thought the joke was flippant. But I am confused that you don't see certain similarities between the civil rights movement and the LGBT rights movement. Granted, American blacks have had to claw their way up from SLAVERY which is categorically different, and to equate the two groups seems a bit silly. But there was a time in the United States when it was argued that blacks were inferior, both biologically, and in the eyes of God, amen, and that the tiny brain of the black man would only be capable of violence and criminality.

Now we know these arguments to be specious and a lingering stain on our nation's character. But now people (Christians even! Christian's whose profit condemns judging one's fellow man, whose God loves all of his children, etc) turn these hateful beliefs onto our LGBT brothers and sisters, calling them 'abomination', 'inspiring basic biological revulsion', etc. As a straight person, I feel no revulsion toward homosexuality, because I've grown up around it and know that gay relationships are just as healthy/confusing/fucked up/wonderful as straight ones. One always fears that which one doesn't understand, and until America learns to embrace the LGBT community for what it is, homophobia will continue to carry racism's baton of hate and exclusion.

In the words of Busdriver,
"Gay is the new Black."

#43 Connor MacLeod

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 619 posts
  • 46

Posted 17 November 2008 - 01:44 AM

As a straight person, I feel no revulsion toward homosexuality, because I've grown up around it and know that gay relationships are just as healthy/confusing/fucked up/wonderful as straight ones.

Living in or near a few of the largest gay communities in the U.S. pretty much entirely disabused me of the politically-correct notion acquired in college that (statistically-speaking) gay couples are no different from heterosexual couples. I've also seen once healthy, happy friends embrace the gay life-style, get infected with AIDS in the course their completely out-of-control sexual rampages, descend into darkness and anger, and then - in the final months of their lives - waste away in despair. I don't think that homosexuals are bad or evil people, but at the same time I'm convinced there are some rather serious pathologies, at both an individual and societal level, that underpin much of the behavior associated with gay culture.

#44 VespeneGas

  • Guest
  • 600 posts
  • 34
  • Location:Oregon, atm

Posted 18 November 2008 - 03:00 AM

I believe most of these 'pathologies' (which are far from universal in the LGBT community) stem from marginalization. If I were raised to believe that my being straight was evil and perverse and disgusting, I'd probably be pretty confused myself. If you believe that promiscuous unprotected sex is epidemic in this group, why would you deny gay/lesbian couples the right to form a stable and monogamous bond?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users