quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- aberration |‘abr sh n| noun a departure from what is normal, usual, or expected, typically one that is unwelcome --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I do not find homosexuality in anyway an unwelcome departure. However, I suppose homophobes and bigots might very well feel threatened by it, and therefore not be all the welcoming...but that's why we have a Constitution...to prevent homophobes, bigots, racists, etc, from determining what is and what is not allowed in this Country.
Hoot Mon writes:
I think there is a biological reason, but it seems to be elusive and no confirmable gene has been discovered. Perhaps it's hormonal/developmental.
Then it's not a choice. You could say the exact same thing about many forms of cancer. Stupid people...choosing to have cancer. I now feel no sorrow for my late father (a victim of cancer) now that I know it was a choice he made. You're a real piece of work there, Hoot Mon.
Hoot Mon writes:
But, more likely, confused youngsters dabble with it like they dabble with drugs and alcohol. And dabbling choice, is it not?
I find it rather stunning that anyone can seriously believe this. Really, in what Century are you living, Hoot Mon??
Personally, I do not find homosexuality in anyway an unwelcome departure. However, I suppose homophobes and bigots might very well feel threatened by it, and therefore not be all the welcoming...
Then please take my simple test for bigots: If you have four children, and if you have no prejudice against homosexuality, then you will hope that two of your children become gay. If you hoped otherwise then you're a bigot.
Mary: Oh, I sure do hope two or our four kids turn gay.
John: Yeah, me, too. I hope the two girls become lesbians.
Mary: Why?
John: Because I can't bear to picture our my sons as gay.
Mary: Why not?
John: It's man thing, Mary. A guy's nuts should count for something.
Then it's not a choice. You could say the exact same thing about many forms of cancer. Stupid people...choosing to have cancer. I now feel no sorrow for my late father (a victim of cancer) now that I know it was a choice he made. You're a real piece of work there, Hoot Mon.
I'd pick a different simile to support your argument.
Tell me this: It won't be very long before they discovery the biological roots of homosexuality. A gene maybe. Or maybe a queer chemical experience. And when they do make that discovery they will find a way to reverse homosexuality into heterosexuality. Some form of therapy will become available to correct that condition. Now, FliesOnly, when that happens are you still going to claim that choice is not a factor in being gay?
Then please take my simple test for bigots: If you have four children, and if you have no prejudice against homosexuality, then you will hope that two of your children become gay. If you hoped otherwise then you're a bigot.
I don't follow. Why do I have to hope that half my children are gay or be considered (by you) to be a bigot? It's a total bullshit premise, Hoot Mon. I would hope all my children (by the way, my wife and I will NOT be having any children...just so we're clear on this) are basically healthy, and that's about it. Why do I have to hope that two are gay anymore than I have to hope that two have red (or blond, or black, or brown) hair, or risk being considered a bigot because I prefer blonds (or red, or brown, or whatever)...or that I must have two boys and two girls rather than all of one sex, or be considered a sexist? This line of argument is meaningless and makes no sense.
Hoot Mon writes:
Tell me this: It won't be very long before they discovery the biological roots of homosexuality.
And you know this how?
Hoot Mon writes:
A gene maybe. Or maybe a queer chemical experience. And when they do make that discovery they will find a way to reverse homosexuality into heterosexuality. Some form of therapy will become available to correct that condition. Now, FliesOnly, when that happens are you still going to claim that choice is not a factor in being gay?
Yes...why would I do otherwise? If they're "born with it" then it's not a choice. Is that a concept beyond your comprehension, Hoot Mon? And who gives a flying fuck what "might" happen down the road? We're talking in the here and now, Hoot Mon. Not some fairly-tail BS world where everything that you find distasteful or threatening is simply wished away or cured by a magic pill.
Then please take my simple test for bigots: If you have four children, and if you have no prejudice against homosexuality, then you will hope that two of your children become gay. If you hoped otherwise then you're a bigot.
Mary: Oh, I sure do hope two or our four kids turn gay.
John: Yeah, me, too. I hope the two girls become lesbians.
Mary: Why?
John: Because I can't bear to picture our my sons as gay.
Mary: Why not?
John: It's man thing, Mary. A guy's nuts should count for something.
This isn't a bigotry test, it's a test designed by a bigot.
If I were to have children, I wouldn't care whether they were gay or straight. Either way, they'd be my kids, and I'd love them. I wouldn't "hope" for them to be of any sexual orientation any more than I'd "hope" for them to be right- or left-handed. That you seriously think one should "hope" one way or another is part of what defines you as a bigot.
quote:Then it's not a choice. You could say the exact same thing about many forms of cancer. Stupid people...choosing to have cancer. I now feel no sorrow for my late father (a victim of cancer) now that I know it was a choice he made. You're a real piece of work there, Hoot Mon.
I'd pick a different simile to support your argument.
Tell me this: It won't be very long before they discovery the biological roots of homosexuality. A gene maybe. Or maybe a queer chemical experience. And when they do make that discovery they will find a way to reverse homosexuality into heterosexuality. Some form of therapy will become available to correct that condition. Now, FliesOnly, when that happens are you still going to claim that choice is not a factor in being gay?
A biological cause for homosexuality does not mean a procedure for reversal is possible. Even if it were possible, it's highly unlikely that homosexuals would undergo such a procedure - sexual orientation is a part of what identifies you. Changing it means giving up your current relationship and social structure. The environment built up because of having a history with one sexual orientation would come crashing down by changing it, and the emotional stress and pain involved would mean I seriously doubt any doctor would condone the practice (for the same reason doctors will refuse to do gender alteration surgeries on mentally unsound patients).
In any case, it's irrelevant - you are admitting that homosexuality is not a choice. I'm now extremely confused as to what your position is, since you've previously claimed that it is a choice. All I know at this point is that you get all upset at the thought of the state recognizing gay marriage, and that you get really grossed out when you picture two men kissing. And that ""gay marriage" is a only a device used by gays to annoy people for the sake of coming of the closet," which is a preposterous argument on its face.
Gay marriage is exactly like straight marriage: a contract between consenting adults granting certain specific rights, privileges, and responsibilities to those bound by it. It's not a goddamned political statement intended to piss people off, it's a demand for equal treatment under the law. Since your suggestion that all marriage be eliminated from the law is impossible to sell to the public, equal treatment for homosexuals by allowing gay marriage is the only other option, legally.
Then please take my simple test for bigots: If you have four children, and if you have no prejudice against homosexuality, then you will hope that two of your children become gay. If you hoped otherwise then you're a bigot.
Again, is your senility this bad? When I have kids, I hope that they will be healthy and happy. I hope that I will be as best a parent as I could be. I don't hope one way or the other if they'll be gay or straight. I don't hope one way or the other if they'll be a lawyer or doctor or mechanic or a cashier at walmart. I'll certainly encourage them to take higher education. But regardless, they'll be my children.
Tell me this: It won't be very long before they discovery the biological roots of homosexuality. A gene maybe. Or maybe a queer chemical experience. And when they do make that discovery they will find a way to reverse homosexuality into heterosexuality. Some form of therapy will become available to correct that condition. Now, FliesOnly, when that happens are you still going to claim that choice is not a factor in being gay?
Now, you are playing semantics. You know damn well that the choice you just described is a different kind of choice than being a homosexual or being a heterosexual. It's like left handed versus right handed. Is being left handed a choice? I'm pretty sure there are some people out there who decided to be left handed some time in their lives. If medical science is able to find a "cure" for left-handedness it still would not change the fact that most left-handed people never had a choice to begin with.
By the way, I am right handed. If they find a "cure" for right-handedness, I would never ever take the cure. I am perfectly happy with the way I am. Why in the world would I expect a left-handed person to want to be "cured"? In the same token, I'm straight and would not want to change into a homosexual anytime soon. I am perfectly happy the way I am. Why in the world would I expect a homosexual to want to change anymore than I want to change?
Hoot, bigotry comes in a lot of colors. I know it when I see it. You are a genuine (I wouldn't be surprised if you're also a certified) bigot.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
Gay marriage is exactly like straight marriage: a contract between consenting adults granting certain specific rights, privileges, and responsibilities to those bound by it. It's not a goddamned political statement intended to piss people off, it's a demand for equal treatment under the law. Since your suggestion that all marriage be eliminated from the law is impossible to sell to the public, equal treatment for homosexuals by allowing gay marriage is the only other option, legally.
This is a very narrow point of view. If you are sincerely interested in "equal treatment under the law," then you should be as passionate about legalizing polygamy and bestiality. If I were to take up the position of a polygamist I would have lot a people to call bigots. It's the convenient thing for pompous people to do. And your POV is so myopic you can't see the broader picture of societal implications.
All we have here are opinions on the matter. No one has moral authority on this issue over anyone else. It's just opinionation. And the prevailing opinionation about gay marriage is still negative, just as it is with polygamy. You have to face that and quit calling people bigots just because the disagree with you.
I don't care how you cut it. If a homosexual has a chance to have his or her condition reversed, and he or she declines the opportunity, then he or she is making a choice. That fine day in biology has not yet arrived, but it will. And when it does your argument goes out into the trash.
Taz writes:
Hoot, bigotry comes in a lot of colors. I know it when I see it. You are a genuine (I wouldn't be surprised if you're also a certified) bigot.
Well, that's a matter of opinion. Should I call you a bigot just for disagreeing with me? Where's your moral authority? Cruising up the Hershey Highway.*
”HM
*Thanks to the moral authoritarian, subble, for that one.
This is a very narrow point of view. If you are sincerely interested in "equal treatment under the law," then you should be as passionate about legalizing polygamy
I am, nitwit. I strongly favor viewing the marriage contract as nothing more than a contract, and I see no viable legal argument for limiting the marriage contract to two parties.
But then, you're actually trying to insinuate that I support pedophilia by bringing the Mormon polygamy example into the debate. News flash, Hoot: a contract is valid only between consenting adults. Children cannot enter a contract becasue they lack the ability to make their own decisions.
and bestiality.
And there you go again. What part of CONSENTING ADULTS do you not comprehend? A dog can no more consent to enter a contract than an infant or a toaster.
If I were to take up the position of a polygamist I would have lot a people to call bigots.
If I had been alive a couple hundred years ago, I'd have to call even more people bigots. What's your point? I oppose bigotry regardless of the number of bigots, or against which group they are bigoted.
Stop with the polygamy and bestiality bullshit. The topic of this thread is gay marriage - your attempts at a tu quoque argument are completely irrelevant. Present your argument for deying homosexuals the right to marry as is granted for heterosexual couples or concede.
It's the convenient thing for pompous people to do. And your POV is so myopic you can't see the broader picture of societal implications.
And what are the societal implications of gay marriage? Please, do tell.
All we have here are opinions on the matter. No one has moral authority on this issue over anyone else.
None of my arguments are based on morality, Hoot. You'll notice I keep on bringing up pesky terms like "Constitutional" and "legal argument" and "legal age of consent." I'm not arguing from a position of morality, as you would know if you've been reading at all. I'm arguing about equal treatment under the law as guaranteed by the Constitution.
It's just opinionation.
Bullshit. Legal arguments are not simple "opinions." The legal opinion of a Judge is a fuck of a lot different from the random redneck down the street's opinion.
And the prevailing opinionation about gay marriage is still negative, just as it is with polygamy.
Irrelevant, bigot. Anti-civil rights activists were bigots back in the first half of teh 20th century even when they outnumbered the rational people who supported equal treatment under the law as guaranteed by the Constitution. "Prevailing opinion" is meaningless when the prevailing opinion violates the Constitution.
You have to face that and quit calling people bigots just because the disagree with you.
I'll call a spade a spade, bigot. Just because it pisses you off that you're a bigot doesn't make you any less of a bigot. I don't call you a bigot because you disagree with me, mind you. I call you a bigot because you are intolerant of homosexuals, and seek to deny them equal treatment under the law as guaranteed by the Constitution.
FliesOnly, I don't believe you can say in all honesty that you don't care what sexual orientation your children assume. I believe you prefer them to be straight. But I'm not sure, of course, since I'm not you. All I know is that if you prefer one thing over another then you are prejudiced against that which you do not prefer.
I find a great deal of hypocrisy in those who cry "Bigot!" over the gay-marriage issue. If I were a black person I would be offended by those who attached the word "bigot" to people who oppose gay marriage; it trivializes the plight of blacks who know much better the true meaning of the term.
FliesOnly, I don't believe you can say in all honesty that you don't care what sexual orientation your children assume.
I can say in all honesty that the sexual orientation of any of my children would be so far done the list the things I would give a shit about, as to be virtually nonexistent.
I would admittedly, however, feel somewhat worried for any homosexual children I (or any other parent) would have because of bigoted assholes that would want to deny them equal rights solely because of their sexual orientation...and the physical and mental harm that so many gay people have to endure, also because of people like yourself.
For those reasons alone, in this current environment, I would hope that my children would be heterosexual.
Hoot Mon writes:
All I know is that if you prefer one thing over another then you are prejudiced against that which you do not prefer.
No...you would be showing a preference. So, as it turns out, since "all you know is" turns out to be wrong, it stands that apparently you know nothing. Look, if you acted in such a manner as to restrict (ie show an intolerance towards) the rights of those individuals that possessed things not of your preference(s), then you would be a bigot. Showing a preference is not bigotry, Hoot Mon. Showing intolerance is.
Hoot Mon writes:
...it trivializes the plight of blacks who know much better the true meaning of the term.
Bull shit. They are simply two different "forms" of bigotry, but both are most certainly bigotry. One is not necessarily "better" than the other, Hoot Mon...they both suck.
All I know is that if you prefer one thing over another then you are prejudiced against that which you do not prefer.
Who cares what he prefers? You're not a bigot for preference, you're a bigot for pushing your preference on other people. I don't particularly like gay marriage myself, but then, I have the freedom to not get involved in it. But, I don't have the right to insist that no one else get involved in it, and I don't have the right to demand that I be treated better because I'm not involved in it.
I prefer marriage between a man and a woman, with child-bearing as an explicit part of it. So, I married a woman and we have a baby. I got what I wanted and thought I should have from marriage. That's good enough for me.
That fine day in biology has not yet arrived, but it will. And when it does your argument goes out into the trash.
Again, how senile are you? You and I spent about 3 pages in another thread talking about this issue. I thought I made it clear to you then that even if homosexuality is completely a choice it would still not negate their rights to pursue happiness. I thought I made it clear to you then that biological or not has nothing to do with the issue.
Well, that's a matter of opinion. Should I call you a bigot just for disagreeing with me? Where's your moral authority? Cruising up the Hershey Highway.*
Every person on the face of the planet belongs to some kind of minority group. The fact that I am a male automatically puts me in a minority group (there are more women around!). My moral authority is the fact that in order to ensure my safety and your safety and the safety of every decent human being in our society we need to protect EVERY minority group as long as what defines them as a minority doesn't infringe the rights of other people.
You still have not provided a real reason why gay marriage would affect or harm anyone else beside the gay couple except for "it grosses me out to see 2 men kissing in public..."
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
I find a great deal of hypocrisy in those who cry "Bigot!" over the gay-marriage issue. If I were a black person I would be offended by those who attached the word "bigot" to people who oppose gay marriage; it trivializes the plight of blacks who know much better the true meaning of the term.
This is bullshit. I know a gay couple who tried to get an apartment in Chicago. This was back in the late 80s. They talked to the woman (she was black mind you) who represented the housing agency. They told her that they wanted a single bedroom apartment. She got up and said right into their faces "we don't serve your kind here, please leave". This was coming out of the mouth of someone that not too long ago heard the same words from another group of people.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
You know, I haven't called anyone on this thread a bad name like nitwit, bigot, ot asshole. But I've been called all three and more. Makes me wonder why all you moral authoritarians have to resort to name calling. I think I know the reason why, but you'll have to pay me to find out.
Look, I've already said in this thread that there is a simple solution to the problem; it's real and it's doable. Just take "marriage" out of the law. I support civil unions for gays. If churches want to marry 'em, let 'em. Won't bother me a bit. I don't believe in persecuting gays, insulting gays, hurting gays, or even treating them differently. If they want to be gay I have no problem with it, so long as they don't put it in my grill. Hey, we're all in this together. Let's have a group hug.
You see, I'm such a nice guy. And for that I get called a nitwit, a bigot, and an asshole? On this thread no good deed shall go unpunished.
Well, I'm going to get a beer now and turn on Rush Limbaugh. My bigotry's slipping and I need a lift job.
™ Version 4.2