Syne said:
Now you seem to be backpedaling. I already said all humans (including homosexuals, since you seem to need that explicit distinction) have the right to recognition of personhood.
Lets see how you are recognised as a person when who you are is compared to someone who has sex with animals, and then go from there. You might just get it.
Oh, you mean like being compared to racist bigots, violent homophobes, etc.? Those do not deny my personhood, and even if they did, they say more about the person making such exaggerated comparisons then they do me.
You were claiming that recognition as married was an intrinsic human right, even though people regularly fail to recognize even heterosexual marriage when they engage in adultery. Are adulterers bigots to heterosexual rights? At least the case could be made that they are violating the social contract of marriage. You have failed to make any case that civil unions with full spousal benefits/obligations would somehow infringe on some supposed right. Instead, you avoid the question.
Heterosexual adulterers can marry, no questions asked. Homosexuals are only now being granted the right to marry, which you said fine, but it does not mean that you should be forced to recognise their relationship or union. Get it now?
No, a heterosexual adulterer would run afoul laws against polygamy/bigamy if they sought to marry (as they would not be adulterers unless they were already married). But good news, polygamists are using the
human rights precedent set by gay marriage to change that as well.
Hey, if you really want to recognize gay, polygamous, animal marriages, etc., who am I to stop you? Have at it. But you still cannot legislate thought short of advocating totalitarianism. Is that what you are advocating?
Straw man. Making hasty generalizations and exaggerations about anyone who disagrees with your position is propaganda. And now you are implying I am just generally bigoted?
I think the arguments you have made and the generalisations and false and offensive stereotypes you have made about homosexuals does make you a bigot.
Detail these accusations. You know, quoting my words instead of making up some exaggerated propaganda. You know, intellectual honesty. If you cannot then you are only making a transparent attempt to poison the well.
What specific argument are you claiming would have been used "against blacks"? Seems you are doubling-down with the fallacies, poisoning the well.
Prior to the civil rights era, recognising blacks as human beings worthy of human rights garnered the response you are giving about homosexuals. Such as it would be an infringement on the freedom of people to expect them to recognise and accept them as equals.
Personhood and equal rights/obligations under the law are separate issues from recognition and acceptance. Full spousal benefits/obligations in civil union affords equal rights under the law, without assuming a totalitarian stance on thought.
Again, personhood is intrinsic, where circumstantial status is not. By definition, circumstantial status in extrinsic. Recognition by the State is only ever in terms of legal privileges and obligations, not any sort of cognitive acceptance. You seem to have naively conflated, or equivocated, the two uses of the word
recognition. The State only uses the word as "acknowledgment of legality".
Nowhere in that post did you make ANY mention of Christian fundamentalists, and you even explicitly said that "Christian Conservatives" both condemned and contributed to the issue in Uganda. No differentiation. Seems you are now just using the wording in some of those articles to backpedal.
Are you denying that they did not?
I am denying that Christian Conservatives, in general, both condemned and condoned the issue. It is very easy for a rational person to deny broad generalities.
Personally, I see any sort of fetishism or overt sexual behavior inappropriate in front of children. This would include bump and grinding, nudity, and other otherwise heterosexual behavior that makes things like Mardi Gras equally inappropriate for children. I have no double-standard on the matter, just a standard.
But you just seem to be bringing up the think of the children argument when it comes to homosexuality quite a bit. They aren't showing anything children would not see on a beach. Focusing solely on homosexuals and their lewd acts and bringing up Russia's stance on homosexuality as an example to back up your standard isn't a good look.
Could it be that this thread is expressly about homosexuality? Should I digress to an off-topic rant about EVERYTHING that may be inappropriate for children? Complete nonsense. Beaches are also subject to the same indecency laws, again whether hetero or homosexual. These laws are not inherently discriminatory, nor is my criteria of lewdness.
My use of Russia was rhetoric, intended to illicit a rebuttal. But no one has been able to tell me where the line between lewd behavior and what is morally inappropriate in front of a child lies. Do you consider that line to be so vague as to make it difficult to define?
You can't even define what you consider to be a lewd act. Bumping and grinding.. You better make sure children are barred from watching any TV as well. Your use of Russia says more about your stance than you may wish to convey. Declaring that perhaps they aren't crazy for laws that encourage rampant homophobia and bigotry, really Syne? It defies logic. We have said that the gay pride parades are not lewd and the article you linked defines that what is lewd when homosexuals do it is never defined as lewd when heterosexuals do it, hence the protest against the double standard.
Uh, you just quoted me as defining lewd behavior, so that is a demonstrable lie. Who said that everything on TV was appropriate for children?! Many shows even have parental disclaimers. Is your sense of what may be inappropriate for children so hazy that you cannot even recognize it when it has a disclaimer as warning?
And again, you continue to lie about that article, which never addressed straight lewd behavior, as it was solely about gay pride parades, including ONLY opinions from homosexuals. Do you get that? the LGBT community, itself, is divided on the issue, and I have expressed nothing about lewdness but what gays expressed in that article.
Your bias has completely blinded you, even to what gays themselves have said.
Inciting violence against any group is hate speech, deplorable, and does tend to indicate a level of feeling threatened that could justify calling it a phobia. Seems you are unable to make such a simple distinction.
I'm sorry, but homophobia is homophobia. Trying to pretty it up as "anti-gay" to protect the delicate sensibilities of people who have a problem with homosexuals and homosexuality is not my concern. Free speech and all that.
Like I said, propaganda. Easily dismissed as such and indicative of a lack of intellectual honesty.
Yet you STILL cannot define the line. Is your moral compass really that hazy? Here, I will repeat what I just said:
Personally, I see any sort of fetishism or overt sexual behavior inappropriate in front of children. This would include bump and grinding, nudity, and other otherwise heterosexual behavior that makes things like Mardi Gras equally inappropriate for children. I have no double-standard on the matter, just a standard.
What is your standard? Do you have one? Or are you too hell-bent on vilifying anyone who disagrees with you that you cannot even be bothered to justify your own position?
Now tell me why this is only applied to homosexuals? Get it yet?
Straw man. You made that up to suit your lies and propaganda. I have even given you straight examples, such as Mardi Gras.
Again, you say "social conservatives" when you supposedly mean Christian fundamentalists. You do not seem to be able to keep your own bullshit straight.
Who said homosexuals "hate children"?! Just another straw man attempt to poison the well. And who said "endanger"?! See how you consistently exaggerate the language your opposition uses? That is the definition of propaganda.
Forgot your own posts Syne?
I forget, anything that may portray homosexuality in a good light or defends their rights is propaganda.
Wow, you do not seem to have any clue what propaganda is. No wonder you employ it so freely. What posts? Quote where I ever said homosexuals "hate children" or "endanger" them. You cannot, because these are exaggerated lies (i.e. propaganda, as well as defamation).
I already said, in my last post, that personhood is an intrinsic, protected status. Nowhere do my views detract from the personhood of any homosexual. On the contrary, it is homosexuals who make their sexuality their primary defining identity.
They wouldn't need to if the world did not legislate against them.
Are you claiming that gays will become less visible (in proportion to their actual numbers in society) once these "rights" are established? Will they no longer feel the need for gay pride parades? You know, since you claim their sexuality is not their primary defining identity.
For example, Spain has the highest gay approval in 2013, per
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/.
Apparently not.
http://gaytravel.about.com/od/previewsofpridefestivals/qt/Madrid-Gay-Pride.htm
Really? Your sexuality defines you? Mine would not define me unless I were a sex addict or had some compulsive fetish or something. I am too much more than my sexual orientation for that to come anywhere near defining what or who I am. And again, you fail to define from what "intrinsic human rights" homosexuals are ostensibly separated. Vagary is no argument.
Your sexuality is part of you and is a part of what defines your identity and who you are.
So now you presume to tell me what defines my identity? Things like my orientation and the fact that I am a human are given, rarely considered when I think about my identity, and very far from primary.
iden·ti·ty
: who someone is : the name of a person
: the qualities, beliefs, etc., that make a particular person or group different from others
The quality that makes homosexuals "different from others" is their orientation. But you is your sexuality your primary identity?
Where did you answer the question?
You cannot read?
Lazy evasion.
Where? What article did you read? You are simply making up what you wish were there. Quite to the contrary, most views against such lewd behavior in that article are from homosexuals.
The parade is organized by the Dallas Tavern Guild, an association of gay bars. Its executive director, Michael Doughman, said the change this year did not involve any new rules – but rather a warning that existing rules would be more strictly enforced.
These rules, he said, were drafted to conform with the city's public nudity ordinance and the state's anti-obscenity law, which bars the parade from featuring sexual paraphernalia and "real or simulated sex acts."
"Most people abided by the rules – but we had some individuals who decided to push the envelope a little to see how far they could go," Doughman said of recent parades. "So we asked our police security officer to bring it up as a reminder."
"We aren't trying to stifle anybody's right to be gay or express themselves," he added. "We are trying to create a friendly environment for everybody. We can be gay without being naked."
...
"I got involved in gay politics 20 years ago in order to win the right to serve in the military, have a job, and get married, among others," he wrote. "It had nothing to do with public nudity... I'm open to a good explanation of how this links back to our civil rights, but I've not heard a good one yet."
...
The group's executive director, Gabriel Blau, says he and his husband marched earlier this year in New York City's pride parade with their 5-year-old son – even though there were parts of the parade they considered too risque for him to see. -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/16/gay-pride-parade-debate-_n_3936596.html
It was the gay organizers who "asked our police security officer to bring it up as a reminder". You cannot claim I am anti-gay for just agreeing with these homosexuals about the inappropriateness of some behavior in gay pride parades.
And where is this supposed comparable lewdness from straights that children are subjected to? I already said Mardi Gras is not generally appropriate for children, and I am sure any law enforcement would agree. You are demonstrably blinded by your bias.
Oh gee, no lewd behaviour was even reported and no one was arrested for that or nudity.
So backpedaling again. Since I showed you that it was the event organizers who asked the police to reiterate the law, and that many homosexuals objected to the lewdness, you think the fact that they got the message means something significant?
Again, why the initial outrage then? You never answered that, as all you did was lie about the content of that article.