Darth Tater Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 Predicto , As to the origin of this thread, I might agree but this has, as usual, turned into the argument over whether homosexuality is a choice or not. -- Dangit RD and Art, you explained the meaning of my post better than I did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted November 8, 2002 Author Share Posted November 8, 2002 Okay Art, if I'm late for my date I'm going to point fingers. Using your response technique, my counterpoints are within. "Because a man has sex with another man it does not necessarily make him gay." Kurp. It appears I've made a mistake on your basic intelligence. You are just blinded by an issue and refuse to make even coherent statements. In fact, a man having sex with another man precisely does make him gay. No mistake Art, and no need for personal insults since they're simply a product of the weakness of your arguments. A man who has sex with another man may not be any more gay than your dog a psychotic animal for having sex with a deflated soccer ball - or your arm for that matter. A gay man is one, who when given the choice between a woman or a man, under normal circumstances, will abhor the thought of having sex with a woman. To Riggo's point, a man in prison is not necessarily gay for having sex with another inmate unless when out of prison, still chooses to have sex with men over women. The sexual drive, as with your dog, is often times so predominant that a release is sought in a manner that is counter to one's normal orientation. Now, a man having sex with a woman can probably be gay as well. But, with 100 percent certainty, a man having sex with another man is gay. I guess this is according to Art's doctrine of sexuality? Let's not quibble over terms Art. I think by now you're able to comprehend the distinction I make. You appear to be campaigning for gay and lesbian groups that like to use "gay" to describe social or cultural associates with the word rather than sexual, but, homosexual, gay, lesbian, etc., are pretty easy to define. Hell, Andrew Dice Clay said it best many years ago. "Either you suck d!ck or you do not suck d!ck." The only thing I'm campaigning for Art is understanding. That and an intolerance for gay bashing. So, now that we know you are an activist, let's go ahead and play your game. You wrote: If by writing my opinion makes me an activist, then so be it. However I think true activists might be offended by such simplicity. I have in no way dismissed a "scientific" study due to liberal press manipulation. In fact I question the scientific nature of an that initial study in the first place, given who it was conducted by and the fact that more recent studies question the findings. Are you ignoring studies that have questioned Hamer's findings? Or Levay's? If you want a read of how the liberal media may have influenced [things, read here: http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html In fact, the reports of a gay gene tend to suggest the possibility that genetic similarities found in gay men may be caused by homosexuality rather than being the cause of homosexuality. If you did a study of the liver of 100 dead alcoholics, would you announce to the world that in each case they had livers' that were unable to process the alcohol anymore and therefore bad livers cause alcoholism? Of course not. Simplistic, sure. But a valid question. Art my man. You still are quite adept at blurring the lines I see. The article I referenced stated in part, "The study found that a cluster of cells in the preoptic hypothalamus, a region of the brain known to be involved in sexual behavior and partner preference...." Now that's quite different than stating there's a "gay gene", no? Your counterpoint misses the mark because you are quoting an article that seeks to prove or disprove a single gene marker for homosexuality. Your analogy of liver toxicity is pretty laughable at best. Alchohol causes physiological changes in one's brain, liver and kidney. Are you trying to assert now that behavior can alter one's physiological makeup? Change one's cell structure? Is there any doubt that certain behavior produces traits in a person that may be genetically similar through use rather than from being the cause? Sure. You are an activist, I see, so you may not admit to what Hamer himself wrote in his study, but, it certainly seems signifcant. Wow! Now you're stating that there's no doubt that an evolutionary process can take place in a person's body during one's lifetime. I think it wouldn't be hard to find some serious disagreement there - and not just from me. Do you know whether Levay or Hamer are, like you, activists on this issue? If you knew they were, would it alter your thoughts on what they may have been able to produce? Would it matter if other scientists use their data to reject their claims? No. Because to you, these are somehow "facts" now. You've let a decade old linkage study that has since been refuted be all you'll allow into your thought process. Does it help you Art to understand my thought process by labeling me first a liberal, then an activist? If so, I'd say your understanding is based on presumptions that aren't entirely accurate. Okay Art, I just looked at my watch and I really gotta go now. My apologies for not replying to the rest of your points within. Suffice to say, I think we're getting detracted here from my original point, that is, that gay bashing is no less reprehensible than racism. Either you agree or disagree. I already think I know your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoDrill Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 I don't think gay bashing is good either. But you shouldn't have to turn to indefensible absolutist positions about genetics just to state your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 Guys, Its Friday in November, why in the double hockey sticks are we debating this issue? NO GROUP SHOULD BE BASHED EXCEPT FOR MAYBE COWGIRL FANS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 Kurp. I hate activist definitions. Gay is a simple word. Period. It simply means, of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. If you stick your d!ck into another man's mouth or a$$ you have a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. Is it so hard to get activists to at least admit to a jumping off point for understanding the language? You can be gay just once. You can be gay for a lifetime. You can be gay however you want. So, we're not talking about my views on what "gay" means. We're talking about the dictionary and allowing a fair basis for understanding the same meaning. In no way does gay mean that a man would have an aversion to having sex with a woman anymore than being straight means by definition that you have a sexual aversion to another man. Simply put, gay means having a sexual orientation toward the same sex and having sex with the same sex is by definition gay. Duration is up to you to decide. Christ, I hate this type of argument where you can't even get basic understanding of a word before you have to argue. Further, at no point have I used the word "liberal" in this thread to describe you. I have called you an activist. And I've questioned your intelligence which is not a sign of weakness in my argument, but, really, is a sign of your lack of intelligence when you refuse to even allow yourself to understand what the word "gay" means. It can mean a bunch of things. But, if it can also mean what it's defined as in the dictionary then it can be used to describe a man having sex with a man, can't it? If you feel "liberal" that's on you. But, I haven't said that. You did. You used the world liberal to describe your belief that I have let myself ignore the liberal media portrayal of the gay gene. You used the word liberal. I did not. So, keep your argument straight -- no pun intended. As for your date tonight, have fun. If it helps, tell her, "I was born with the desire to love you tonight." Hope it works . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 Originally posted by RiggoDrill A lot of straight people into equally kinky or perverted things, but people don't go out of there way to ridicule or persecute them. Look here, RiggoDrill. There's no need to start picking on me. What I do in the privacy of ...... oh ... nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 My personal opinion about the institution of homosexuality can be summed up in the Latin phrase, contra natura - which means "against nature." Sex is more than just physical gratification. Sex, of course, is a procreative act. Sexual orientation, as Art illustrated, is really sexual preference. One chooses, as a preference, to be gay. With that said, why not just take the premise of thhis thread's original point of contention - to moderate "homophobic" comments - and logically extend it to other matters of behaviorial preferences? It's ridiculous to even attempt such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Gay bashing is bigotry IMO. Get into whether you're born with it, this that or whatever it doesn't matter .. the fact of the matter is the words are very offensive to some and extremely hurtful to people who are gay. I'm not gay, I won't ever completely understand it .. but I think to act as if the words are completely benign is naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 You don't need to put it in quotes, OSF. Homophobia is not a pretend word. Oral sex serves no procreative purpose either, by the way, which would make it against nature as well. Haven't seen many anti-BJ slurs lately. Then again I wouldn't expect consistancy to get in the way of bashing someone else's personal life on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlitzFiftySix Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Can't we just keep the postings on this board for what it is meant for. REDSKINS. There are other places to post your feelings re: Politics, Racial Opinions, etc. GO SKINS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Originally posted by BlitzFiftySix Can't we just keep the postings on this board for what it is meant for. REDSKINS. There are other places to post your feelings re: Politics, Racial Opinions, etc. GO SKINS. People here develop relationships with other fans as they post and talk about the Skins .. so why is it wrong to discuss other issues (oo .. exotic) with them? If you want only skins talk, just visit the 'FedEx Field' forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Originally posted by Henry You don't need to put it in quotes, OSF. Homophobia is not a pretend word. Oral sex serves no procreative purpose either, by the way, which would make it against nature as well. Haven't seen many anti-BJ slurs lately. Then again I wouldn't expect consistancy to get in the way of bashing someone else's personal life on this board. Context Henry, context. The quotes were used to emphasize the missuse of the term homophobia and to suggest that in, many instances, it is a misnomer. As to your second comment, it's very well implied in my post that I was suggesting that sex is both physical and procreative. I don't think any reasonable person will argue that sex isn't primarily procreative and is the fundamental reason it exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 this is getting interesting...we have drifted from physiological/deterministic considerations to the traditional arguments over the expression and emotion of language. a few random thoughts/declarations: 1) I view this as a free speeh matter. actually, I see it as a contest between free speech and good taste. since, like Augusta Country Club, this is a privately owned/run web site, I see no conflict in "management" exercising whatever standards it feels are appropriate to regulating the ebb and flow of conversation on this board. If I don't like it....I can go someplaced else! in fact, I relish the notion that our liberal friends are willing to support such "principles" when it suits their political objectives. So, let's all agree that whether it's gay bashing, the N word, or whatever holy grail of the moment is to be protected, we all support some standards on this board. we can further agree that we do this as a matter of taste and dignity. then, we can get to the fun part: consistency, accountability and discussion about the foundations for these standards! 2) the form of expression notwithstanding (i.e., a separate issue for the moment), I have never heard pro-gay activists answer a key question: if, as they aver, sexual orientation is inherited or congentitally determined, how do you know that the viscereal reaction many individuals have against it isn't inherited or congenitally predetermined? separate this matter from the expression of the idea or acting on the reaction. why is the former always a matter out the individual's control but the latter always a matter of ignorance? I concede that actions are distinct from ideas. i'm simply looking at the sources for a moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muskrat Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 I grew up in a military family, my father is a 30 year career Marine(retired). My older brother is gay, we realilzed this when he was Junior in HS...A JUNIOR! There is NO reason on Earth he would CHOOSE this lifestyle, especially at that time in life. I honestly don't think it's a choice in most poeple. Oh, and Art, the word 'gay' was in use long before it bacame synonymous with homosexuality, it meant 'happy'. I think gay cam to be used because most 'gay' people appear 'happy'(even if they are not)...of course that's just my theory. In any event, I don't think there's so much a 'gay' gene as there may be a chemical imbalance in the brain causing this behavior. Sort of like how people who have addictive personalities are more likely to become addicted to drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. This is also not the issue. The question is: "Gay bashing deserving of the same taboo as racism?" My view is 'yes'. Saying someone is 'gay' isn't gay bashing, describing HOW they are 'gay' is...at least in my view. Using the term 'midgets' to refer to the Giants isn't a slur against little people, it's an oxymoron. Giants/midgets....get it? Not so with the use of the word 'gay'. If there was a team called the 'straights', then calling them 'gay' would be in the 'midget' vein, but it's not. More often, 'gay' is used to describe a team, player, idea, whatever..that someone doesn't agree with or doesn't like. It's all in the 'context' and as such I sort of equate it with the way 'pr0n' is looked upon: "I know it when I see it". You can use the word gay and not be a bigot, you can use the word '******' and not be a bigot. It depends on how it's used and why. In my experience on this forum, 'gay' is being used to denegrate players and teams in a way that other words aren't(including the word 'midget'). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 I rest my case. this is all about the pejorative uses of language. It is about controlling the expression of ideas or the expression of intent that is unacceptable to some. again, I can support this as a matter of taste and human dignity - and expect the same in a good many other areas: not just sacred cows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Midgets is seen as offensive to people who are small. Members of cults will be made fun of here. There will be shots made about any number of people and all sorts of groups. I'm not going to put gay people into the same protected group as blacks. As of now they are in the same grouping as cult members and short people and fat people and dumb people and I don't know why we're having this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Kurp just because that Somoan came out after his football days were over......... You liberal PC types might as well click the ignore setting when it comes to viewing my posts. Being black is not the same as being a butt pirate or carpet muncher. I tire of hearing this BS when they try to equate this to women If you expect me to accept the perverted behaviour of homosexuality as norm get back with me after the next ice age. WE are supposedly not enlightened because we dont aggree with two people of the same sex getting married and using our tax dollars for their benefits. We have a sexual disease that is given civil rights status because the majority of cases are found in the gay community. Putting it another way, when it comes to needs of mankind(procreating) they are of no use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 So if they are born gay, then we should consider them to be suffering from a birth defect and look for a cure. Yet the people who were cured of this defect have be scorned by those in the gay comunity. Imagine if there is a gay gene and tests can show in the fetus a high probability of the kid having sapphic or greek leanings. You'd see act up with pro lifers at abortion clinics. How ironic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muskrat Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Homosexuality is an interesting concept, in a way. Some people CHOOSE to be gay, they do, it happens...usually, it seems to be with women who have been trashed by one man too many, but there ARE those who simply do CHOOSE this lifestyle. At the same time there are many more(I beleive) that do not choose this, with them I think it is something they do not and cannot control. As was stated previously, why choose a lifestyle that invites public scorn and ridicule, not to mention the very REAL chance that someone might beat the bejesus out of you for choosing that lifestyle? It doesn't make sense. This might invite a backlash among any homosexual forum members, but I am starting to think of being 'gay' almost like an addiction. Humans would not naturally take drugs, in fact, I would venture to say that most drugs have been discovered 'accidentally'(although now we have people developing them in labs...but I digress). At the same time, it is not natural that a human would choose to 'mate' with someone with whom they have no chance of reproducing with(this would even apply to men and women who are unable to have children). This brings up the question of homosexuality being a chemical imbalance, much like those who suffer from 'psychological' disorders. Is being an addict genetic? I don't know, but I have heard arguments for both sides. When you look at the lifestyles of many(if not most) homosexuals, they appear to be more likely to do drugs and to engage in anonymous sex with multiple partners(to the point becoming 'problematic')...two behaviors that have been linked to addictive personalities in some studies. I also think that after a while, the individual comes to embrace the 'this is who I am' mentality that the majority of gays have(good for them! ). This attitude might very well be adopted by drug users if not for their use of drugs being illegal. Heck, people who have been determined to be addicted to sex have often simply said "I like to have sex", although it is later proven that it is a compulsion that they have no control of. Wow, this got a little deeper than I anticipated. Any feedback? As for the 'bashing' on the forums..it's all about 'context', period. Sort of like when I was younger and I would make sarcastic comments trying to be funny. My older brother would make similar comments and be thought funny, I would make them and be yelled at, not for the comments themselves, but for the WAY I said them. It's all in the apparent meaning, tones, phrasing etc...things you generally learn as you get older. I beleive that is the difference between being 'funny' and being considered 'intolerant' or a 'bigot'. Unfortunately, there is no way to 'regulate' this in any kind of matter, except by saying that one 'cannot' use certain phrases or word, which becomes censorship by anyones definition...which I definitely am against. Now, if we could just kill stupid people, that would solve all of our problems, but then, how do we define 'stupid'.....ack!!!! I've gone crosseyed!!!!:twitch: :twitch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muskrat Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 The problem that many 'gays' have with people who have 'reverted' back to the hetero-side is that these people may support the idea that homosexuality CAN be controlled, which most definitely do not want to consider. Now, homosexuals can be JUST as intolerant as anyone else, that being potentially one such occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Can we still call French people "Stinkin' Frogs"? My view is that Homosexuality is one of confusion. I dont understand it. I also think it's none of my business. I agree that we should not allow bashing of ANYONE (blacks, gays, women, conservatives, liberals (well, maybe a bit) or anyone else. Do what you want in the privacy of your own home (within the law), just dont expect special treatment for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Special treatment like not getting fired because of it? Or not getting beat up for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 How about not getting special status for it. If someone is fired for being Gay, that company or employer deserves to be prosecuted. If someione is beat up for any reason, the perpetrator should pay the price. But let's stop short of trying to determine what was on somebodies mind while they beat up the person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Smoot Fan Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 I think companies should have a right to fire gays. If I'm a business owner and I don't like fruitcakes why should I HAVE to keep them on the job? Its my business, my money and at the end my decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 Because it's descriminatory. Job performance should be the only standard used for promotions and or hirings. This works both ways. No quotas either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.