It's ba-ack.
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Mooncat,
Heterophobia: Fear of heterosexuals? With all the talk regarding gay bashing and intolerance towards gays, I think there is plenty evidence of heterophobia on the part of homosexuals. The extremes which are demanding change in our society is caused, in large, by fear. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">
------------------
It's all very large.
Heterophobia: Fear of heterosexuals? With all the talk regarding gay bashing and intolerance towards gays, I think there is plenty evidence of heterophobia on the part of homosexuals. The extremes which are demanding change in our society is caused, in large, by fear. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">
------------------
It's all very large.
MC--
re: Heterophobia--I'm not sure, but it sounds like an AWM-equivalent attempt to legitimize ones own fears by equating the value of one person's right to be equal with another person's "right" to make other people unequal.
Unfortunately, I don't think it was meant as a joke. To the other hand, no, it doesn't make sense.
Shana
Are you a comedian, as well?
Specifically, we see a statistical aberration (obesity) which has endured the same three-pronged attack from its detractors as homosexuality: will, psych disorder, disease. In all three cases, the goal is to "cure" the aberration. In all three cases, any outsider's participation in the resolution of that statistial aberration (losing of weight) is a conscious choice to assert will over another person on any level. In a perfect world, an obese person would decide to lose weight or not without myriad proddings from the rest of society.
Homosexuality has been thought to be genetic; so has obesity. Homosexuality has been thought to be a psychiatric response to childhood trauma; so has obesity. Homosexuality has been accused of being a selfish, personally-corrupting choice; so has obesity. Homosexuality is accused of being detrimental to the greater community; so has obesity.
But the size of one's trousers usually has little, if anything, to do with whom you choose to have sex. How you found that handle to fly off is beyond me, and to assume would only be to paint an uncomplementary picture of you.
I generally agree about anyone in society; obviously, however, you missed the link to the National Association for the Advancement of Fat Acceptance; a public-interest group whose agenda includes revisions to or revocation of the federal seat-belt law.
Technically, gay people generally don't need an association to feel accepted; it's just a nice thing to have when the ballot is asking the public whether or not you're qualified to participate in society based on the gender of your sex partner.
I was going to say, But we do! and then I saw another line in there:
I agree. But, as I was going to mention that we covered obesity in my health classes, you've beaten me to the punch.
The only problem with your statement is Mabon's Madness. We now, as an issue of the ballot measures in question throughout this thread, must consider how gay-related issues are presented in Sex Ed. By Mabon's standards, the school would be required to describe homosexuality in negative terms.
In that sense, I ask you, What if the only mention of obesity in health class is when the teacher is required by law to condemn obese persons as immoral, detrimental to society, and dangerous to others?
Simply noting that homosexuality exists, without any disclaimer against it, creates the appearance of sanction, which would be against the law according to Mabon. That is, "Studies show that between two and ten per cent of the population engages in homosexual intercourse regularly," would be an illegal statement in and of itself not because it openly endorses gay sex, but because it fails to condemn it. This is the line we're arguing over.
You write wisely. You should let Mabon know.
There's a full-blown explosion on this same subject over in World Affairs, called Another Round in Oregon, should you find it worth your time; the present thread is almost a sequel to that.
In the meantime, I hope that's enough to answer at least a couple of your points. Let me know ....
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
re: Heterophobia--I'm not sure, but it sounds like an AWM-equivalent attempt to legitimize ones own fears by equating the value of one person's right to be equal with another person's "right" to make other people unequal.
Unfortunately, I don't think it was meant as a joke. To the other hand, no, it doesn't make sense.
Shana
Are you a comedian, as well?
Specifically, we see a statistical aberration (obesity) which has endured the same three-pronged attack from its detractors as homosexuality: will, psych disorder, disease. In all three cases, the goal is to "cure" the aberration. In all three cases, any outsider's participation in the resolution of that statistial aberration (losing of weight) is a conscious choice to assert will over another person on any level. In a perfect world, an obese person would decide to lose weight or not without myriad proddings from the rest of society.
Homosexuality has been thought to be genetic; so has obesity. Homosexuality has been thought to be a psychiatric response to childhood trauma; so has obesity. Homosexuality has been accused of being a selfish, personally-corrupting choice; so has obesity. Homosexuality is accused of being detrimental to the greater community; so has obesity.
But the size of one's trousers usually has little, if anything, to do with whom you choose to have sex. How you found that handle to fly off is beyond me, and to assume would only be to paint an uncomplementary picture of you.
I generally agree about anyone in society; obviously, however, you missed the link to the National Association for the Advancement of Fat Acceptance; a public-interest group whose agenda includes revisions to or revocation of the federal seat-belt law.
Technically, gay people generally don't need an association to feel accepted; it's just a nice thing to have when the ballot is asking the public whether or not you're qualified to participate in society based on the gender of your sex partner.
I was going to say, But we do! and then I saw another line in there:
I agree. But, as I was going to mention that we covered obesity in my health classes, you've beaten me to the punch.
The only problem with your statement is Mabon's Madness. We now, as an issue of the ballot measures in question throughout this thread, must consider how gay-related issues are presented in Sex Ed. By Mabon's standards, the school would be required to describe homosexuality in negative terms.
In that sense, I ask you, What if the only mention of obesity in health class is when the teacher is required by law to condemn obese persons as immoral, detrimental to society, and dangerous to others?
Simply noting that homosexuality exists, without any disclaimer against it, creates the appearance of sanction, which would be against the law according to Mabon. That is, "Studies show that between two and ten per cent of the population engages in homosexual intercourse regularly," would be an illegal statement in and of itself not because it openly endorses gay sex, but because it fails to condemn it. This is the line we're arguing over.
You write wisely. You should let Mabon know.
There's a full-blown explosion on this same subject over in World Affairs, called Another Round in Oregon, should you find it worth your time; the present thread is almost a sequel to that.
In the meantime, I hope that's enough to answer at least a couple of your points. Let me know ....
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
"re: Heterophobia--I'm not sure, but it sounds like an AWM-equivalent attempt to legitimize ones own fears by equating the value of one person's right to be equal with another person's "right" to make other people unequal.
Unfortunately, I don't think it was meant as a joke. To the other hand, no, it doesn't make sense."
AWM-equivalent? American White Male? Don't you mean "homophobe," Tiassa? Forgive my observation of what we can do with labels. If we want to examine the fear of one group as opposed to another...whose fear is greater and more deserving of a label.
I suppose I could give more precise meaning to the word "heterophobia" by adding more prefixes, but I don't believe it is necessary.
------------------
It's all very large.
Unfortunately, I don't think it was meant as a joke. To the other hand, no, it doesn't make sense."
AWM-equivalent? American White Male? Don't you mean "homophobe," Tiassa? Forgive my observation of what we can do with labels. If we want to examine the fear of one group as opposed to another...whose fear is greater and more deserving of a label.
I suppose I could give more precise meaning to the word "heterophobia" by adding more prefixes, but I don't believe it is necessary.
------------------
It's all very large.
Bowser--
Once again, you have it wrong. AWM describes a phenomenon generally described as "Angry White Male" syndrome. In which people demand to be treated "equally". Affirmative Action is one of AWM's sensitive spots; I agree that AffAct has largely outlived itself, but that's imho because of the AWM's. It isn't that the interpretation of AffAct as "quotas" is an incorrect interpretation, but the result that the complaining whites rested on two specious perspectives: That whites were victims of conspiratorial racism; and that the need for Affirmative Action--that is, the circumstances which compelled us to enact such a plan in the first place--don't exist. Perhaps AffAct is a dinosaur; it's a convenient coincidence, though, for the AWM.
AWM surfaced in the mid-nineties for a while; I seem to recall arguments about school prayer and moments of silence. I also seem to recall the idea that not allowing organized prayer of any sort was a violation of Christians' rights specifically.
How it pertains to the present is simply this: The critical fault of an AWM declaration is that it compares itself to what it opposes in an effort to achieve a resolution without losing face. In the case of AffAct: In order to not admit personal bias against minorities, the idea came up that it was whites, in fact, who are the victims of systematic bigotries.
In the present situation, you're offering the word, "heterophobe," which people I'm quite sure exist in society. However, you are trying to attach to it a number of sentiments in order to demonstrate a point. That's where the AWM declarations fall through.
Your right to dislike homosexuality does not in any manner license the actualization of those sentiments in law. Your right to dislike homosexuality is in no way superlative to a homosexual person's right to participate in society like anyone else. Yet you assert heterophobes among the people who are trying to secure what they're already entitled to, giving you the appearance of another angry dissenter who is upset that these people that you choose to have a problem with are achieving that which you would seek to deny them: civil rights.
I guess we could make it ASM, for Angry Straight Male, but since the labels are as false as the rhetoric that goes into those conditions, there's no need.
It's what you sound like, Bowser.
Show me how a gay person is hurting you. Not hurting your feelings, lest we make most people in this country illegal. But how that gay person is hurting you enough to award you the right to remove his or her constitutional, civil, and human rights.
Now, if that gay person is hurting your feelings by harassing you for your heterosexuality, then we've got an issue to deal with there. But in the meantime, I give you the same advice I would give Mabon: Disagreeing with your assessment of your social superiority is a person's right.
Angry, indeed. That you have to imagine people are scared of you for whom you sleep with. No, Bowser, what scares people is your support for bigoted, unconstitutional law, and the fact that your hatred of gay people would apparently motivate you to suspend human rights based on your own personal sentiment.
You're right: I can't imagine what's so wrong with that that people would take issue with it.
What right is being taken away when you're not allowed to suspend by law another person's civil and human rights based solely on your personal prejudice?
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
Once again, you have it wrong. AWM describes a phenomenon generally described as "Angry White Male" syndrome. In which people demand to be treated "equally". Affirmative Action is one of AWM's sensitive spots; I agree that AffAct has largely outlived itself, but that's imho because of the AWM's. It isn't that the interpretation of AffAct as "quotas" is an incorrect interpretation, but the result that the complaining whites rested on two specious perspectives: That whites were victims of conspiratorial racism; and that the need for Affirmative Action--that is, the circumstances which compelled us to enact such a plan in the first place--don't exist. Perhaps AffAct is a dinosaur; it's a convenient coincidence, though, for the AWM.
AWM surfaced in the mid-nineties for a while; I seem to recall arguments about school prayer and moments of silence. I also seem to recall the idea that not allowing organized prayer of any sort was a violation of Christians' rights specifically.
How it pertains to the present is simply this: The critical fault of an AWM declaration is that it compares itself to what it opposes in an effort to achieve a resolution without losing face. In the case of AffAct: In order to not admit personal bias against minorities, the idea came up that it was whites, in fact, who are the victims of systematic bigotries.
In the present situation, you're offering the word, "heterophobe," which people I'm quite sure exist in society. However, you are trying to attach to it a number of sentiments in order to demonstrate a point. That's where the AWM declarations fall through.
Your right to dislike homosexuality does not in any manner license the actualization of those sentiments in law. Your right to dislike homosexuality is in no way superlative to a homosexual person's right to participate in society like anyone else. Yet you assert heterophobes among the people who are trying to secure what they're already entitled to, giving you the appearance of another angry dissenter who is upset that these people that you choose to have a problem with are achieving that which you would seek to deny them: civil rights.
I guess we could make it ASM, for Angry Straight Male, but since the labels are as false as the rhetoric that goes into those conditions, there's no need.
It's what you sound like, Bowser.
Show me how a gay person is hurting you. Not hurting your feelings, lest we make most people in this country illegal. But how that gay person is hurting you enough to award you the right to remove his or her constitutional, civil, and human rights.
Now, if that gay person is hurting your feelings by harassing you for your heterosexuality, then we've got an issue to deal with there. But in the meantime, I give you the same advice I would give Mabon: Disagreeing with your assessment of your social superiority is a person's right.
Angry, indeed. That you have to imagine people are scared of you for whom you sleep with. No, Bowser, what scares people is your support for bigoted, unconstitutional law, and the fact that your hatred of gay people would apparently motivate you to suspend human rights based on your own personal sentiment.
You're right: I can't imagine what's so wrong with that that people would take issue with it.
What right is being taken away when you're not allowed to suspend by law another person's civil and human rights based solely on your personal prejudice?
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
Tiassa,
That was very good.
"What right is being taken away when you're not allowed to suspend by law another person's civil and human rights based solely on your personal prejudice?"
Civil and human rights for a few at the expense of others. Where does the rights of a homosexuals sexuality end and the rights of others who disagree begin. Being an American White Male, should I have the right to avoid homosexuality, to regard it as a bad thing. If many American White Males choose to gather without the presence of homosexuality, is that their right. Are homosexuals prevented from gathering within their own groups or excluding others. If an institution chooses not to include homosexuality within its ranks, should it have the right to make that decision.
Civil and human rights are protected by law, Tiassa. They cover everyone where physical harm is concerned. Freedom of speech: that is questionable when dealing with the developement of children and their education. I think there are limits to what a child can be taught, limits based on the perceptions of the general population, limits based on what is considered right and wrong. The percieved civil and human rights of a minority come second to the rights of so many more. More specific, civil and human rights are life, liberty, and justice--the last being determined by all.
Do homosexuals have life? Do they have liberty? Do they have a right to tip the scale of justice?
In my opinion, they are a bunch of intolerant bigots. The attack on the BSA is just one example of heterophobic intolerance. Here's a thought...GBSA. Here's another: AWGM. I wouldn't oppose such a thing. Certainly they would have a following.
Yeah, people are angry, but that's because others won't keep their queer noses out of the morality of ohters. They are not satisfied with those rights available to all or those rights which are given by public consent. Their sense of right and wrong weighs so much heavier on the scales of justice, so much more that the rights of all others simply disappear in their eyes.
------------------
It's all very large.
[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited January 24, 2001).]
That was very good.
"What right is being taken away when you're not allowed to suspend by law another person's civil and human rights based solely on your personal prejudice?"
Civil and human rights for a few at the expense of others. Where does the rights of a homosexuals sexuality end and the rights of others who disagree begin. Being an American White Male, should I have the right to avoid homosexuality, to regard it as a bad thing. If many American White Males choose to gather without the presence of homosexuality, is that their right. Are homosexuals prevented from gathering within their own groups or excluding others. If an institution chooses not to include homosexuality within its ranks, should it have the right to make that decision.
Civil and human rights are protected by law, Tiassa. They cover everyone where physical harm is concerned. Freedom of speech: that is questionable when dealing with the developement of children and their education. I think there are limits to what a child can be taught, limits based on the perceptions of the general population, limits based on what is considered right and wrong. The percieved civil and human rights of a minority come second to the rights of so many more. More specific, civil and human rights are life, liberty, and justice--the last being determined by all.
Do homosexuals have life? Do they have liberty? Do they have a right to tip the scale of justice?
In my opinion, they are a bunch of intolerant bigots. The attack on the BSA is just one example of heterophobic intolerance. Here's a thought...GBSA. Here's another: AWGM. I wouldn't oppose such a thing. Certainly they would have a following.
Yeah, people are angry, but that's because others won't keep their queer noses out of the morality of ohters. They are not satisfied with those rights available to all or those rights which are given by public consent. Their sense of right and wrong weighs so much heavier on the scales of justice, so much more that the rights of all others simply disappear in their eyes.
------------------
It's all very large.
[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited January 24, 2001).]
Bowser ....
What civil and human rights, at the expense of whom?
Like anyone else, when the behavior in question is shown to be harmful to another individual.
You do have those rights.
Yes. You are correct again. I'll spend the few seconds to note that this is true within the scope of private property.
It's happened before; I remind you of the parade organizers in Boston who called off a parade instead of letting gay people participate; it would have been okay to ban gays, except that city money, personnel, and streets went to support the parade, which made it at least slightly public domain.
Furthermore, it's what Mabon asked in '92; gays, by that right, would not have the right to use city, county, or state-owned or funded property to gather. Community centers, college lecture halls, &c.
Furthermore, it's what Mabon asked in '00, as far as educational institutions were concerned. Colleges, too, Bowser.
You are correct again. Just like the BSA. However, we find that their private policy is coming into conflict with the public policies of the facilities they use, much like what happened in LA and in North Carolina.
Yes, they are.
I'll work with this definition. Of course, it's just limited enough that denying someone employment based solely on skin color, creed, sexuality, &c., is not a violation of rights.
I'd like a broader definition of harm, but it's a good, tangible one with boundaries we've got for now.
First, I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. I heard the same thing about Twisted Sister.
Secondly, and more seriously, I think that taste, duty, and other abstract concepts come into play. But in the end, it's still exactly what it says, Freedom of Speech. Take the 2nd Amendment: The first part, about militia, is generally ignored these days, especially by the people who want guns. But the 1st, which has no such limitations, is extremely constricted. Like I said, taste and duty--it should be my right to broadcast "Debbie Does Dallas" during cartoon-time on Saturday morning, but even if CBS coughed up the airtime, the FCC would probably get in the way. Taste and duty generally tell me that, no matter how bad network TV gets, though, bad porn is not the ratings cure.
Translated: limits based on fear.
I only assert this because, as I remind, it has been "wrong", during my short lifetime, for a person with dark skin to share their love physically or emotionally with a person of light skin.
How do you regard the idea of lying to children because it makes them better people by helping them avoid reality? (I'm deriving Spooner again.)
That's so wrong I don't know where to start.
All that is, except for the ones you don't include because they disagree with you? Justice is not the idea of making you feel better by accosting someone's livelihood. It is not the idea of protecting your rights by stripping others' arbitrarily of theirs.
Yes.
Presently, yes, though not as much as others. Of course, I don't consider tax breaks a liberty, more of a privilege, as it seems to go.
1. Yes, as every once in a while, Blind Justice can't see where her scales hang. Ask it about any minority. We wouldn't have the Miranda Act if John Law hadn't tried to mow down Ernesto Miranda for the crime of being Hispanic in Florida.
2. No. The scales of justice should hang the same for everyone.
Poor you ... you just can't stand a world which doesn't hold sexuality up as a qualifier, divider, or moral lever.
Demonstrate, please, heterophobic intolerance. Who's been beaten to death for being heterosexual? Who's been fired for being heterosexual? Who's been evicted, censored, or whatnot, sheerly for being heterosexual?
What cadre has tried to make it illegal for you to be heterosexual? What all-American sentiment looks to five hundred year-old law codes from British sentiment for direction on how to regard heterosexuality? What religion is demanding respect in the form of abolition of heterosexuality?
Quit whining.
Okay ... whatever. Where I'm encountering difficulty is the idea that a gay person's being alive is apparently a transgression against another's morality. We keep hearing lines like the above from Mabon's bunch, but what morality is at stake here? What morality are queers messing with?
I'm going to reprint that one yet again, with a boldface:
* They are not satisfied with those rights available to all or those rights which are given by public consent.
Would you define "given by public consent"? I don't wish to assume badly, but the stench of it is quite suggesting.
Or perhaps I should ask what the difference is between a right available to all, and a right available by public consent.
Smoke and mirrors, dust in the wind? Bowser, wake up one morning and find your job threatened for the mere reality of whom you sleep beside. Get beat up on the street someday because of whom you sleep beside.
Wake up one day and find that you and your closest associates are on the public ballot, to be made illegal in several ways, to have your constitutionally guaranteed rights stripped, and to be targeted for harassment.
In the meantime, rest easy in your majorityhood. Or should we spill out our minority sides?
I can't imagine how it is your right to make your personal sentiment into law transcends the right of another human being to take part in society.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
What civil and human rights, at the expense of whom?
Like anyone else, when the behavior in question is shown to be harmful to another individual.
You do have those rights.
Yes. You are correct again. I'll spend the few seconds to note that this is true within the scope of private property.
It's happened before; I remind you of the parade organizers in Boston who called off a parade instead of letting gay people participate; it would have been okay to ban gays, except that city money, personnel, and streets went to support the parade, which made it at least slightly public domain.
Furthermore, it's what Mabon asked in '92; gays, by that right, would not have the right to use city, county, or state-owned or funded property to gather. Community centers, college lecture halls, &c.
Furthermore, it's what Mabon asked in '00, as far as educational institutions were concerned. Colleges, too, Bowser.
You are correct again. Just like the BSA. However, we find that their private policy is coming into conflict with the public policies of the facilities they use, much like what happened in LA and in North Carolina.
Yes, they are.
I'll work with this definition. Of course, it's just limited enough that denying someone employment based solely on skin color, creed, sexuality, &c., is not a violation of rights.
I'd like a broader definition of harm, but it's a good, tangible one with boundaries we've got for now.
First, I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. I heard the same thing about Twisted Sister.
Secondly, and more seriously, I think that taste, duty, and other abstract concepts come into play. But in the end, it's still exactly what it says, Freedom of Speech. Take the 2nd Amendment: The first part, about militia, is generally ignored these days, especially by the people who want guns. But the 1st, which has no such limitations, is extremely constricted. Like I said, taste and duty--it should be my right to broadcast "Debbie Does Dallas" during cartoon-time on Saturday morning, but even if CBS coughed up the airtime, the FCC would probably get in the way. Taste and duty generally tell me that, no matter how bad network TV gets, though, bad porn is not the ratings cure.
Translated: limits based on fear.
I only assert this because, as I remind, it has been "wrong", during my short lifetime, for a person with dark skin to share their love physically or emotionally with a person of light skin.
How do you regard the idea of lying to children because it makes them better people by helping them avoid reality? (I'm deriving Spooner again.)
That's so wrong I don't know where to start.
All that is, except for the ones you don't include because they disagree with you? Justice is not the idea of making you feel better by accosting someone's livelihood. It is not the idea of protecting your rights by stripping others' arbitrarily of theirs.
Yes.
Presently, yes, though not as much as others. Of course, I don't consider tax breaks a liberty, more of a privilege, as it seems to go.
1. Yes, as every once in a while, Blind Justice can't see where her scales hang. Ask it about any minority. We wouldn't have the Miranda Act if John Law hadn't tried to mow down Ernesto Miranda for the crime of being Hispanic in Florida.
2. No. The scales of justice should hang the same for everyone.
Poor you ... you just can't stand a world which doesn't hold sexuality up as a qualifier, divider, or moral lever.
Demonstrate, please, heterophobic intolerance. Who's been beaten to death for being heterosexual? Who's been fired for being heterosexual? Who's been evicted, censored, or whatnot, sheerly for being heterosexual?
What cadre has tried to make it illegal for you to be heterosexual? What all-American sentiment looks to five hundred year-old law codes from British sentiment for direction on how to regard heterosexuality? What religion is demanding respect in the form of abolition of heterosexuality?
Quit whining.
Okay ... whatever. Where I'm encountering difficulty is the idea that a gay person's being alive is apparently a transgression against another's morality. We keep hearing lines like the above from Mabon's bunch, but what morality is at stake here? What morality are queers messing with?
I'm going to reprint that one yet again, with a boldface:
* They are not satisfied with those rights available to all or those rights which are given by public consent.
Would you define "given by public consent"? I don't wish to assume badly, but the stench of it is quite suggesting.
Or perhaps I should ask what the difference is between a right available to all, and a right available by public consent.
Smoke and mirrors, dust in the wind? Bowser, wake up one morning and find your job threatened for the mere reality of whom you sleep beside. Get beat up on the street someday because of whom you sleep beside.
Wake up one day and find that you and your closest associates are on the public ballot, to be made illegal in several ways, to have your constitutionally guaranteed rights stripped, and to be targeted for harassment.
In the meantime, rest easy in your majorityhood. Or should we spill out our minority sides?
I can't imagine how it is your right to make your personal sentiment into law transcends the right of another human being to take part in society.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
I've been trying to find a way to work this article in. It cracks me up. Oh, well. It seems I'm left manufacturing jokes.
http://www.hydeparkmedia.com/bonobo.html
My good stars ... okay, if I could be fed and bathed and cared for just for the privilege of whacking off in front of a bunch of girl scouts ... fill in your own blanks here, because I'm laughing too hard over here.
These, according to that sinister cadre of people called evolutionists, are our closest relations among the apes. At least they know what a uniform's worth.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
http://www.hydeparkmedia.com/bonobo.html
My good stars ... okay, if I could be fed and bathed and cared for just for the privilege of whacking off in front of a bunch of girl scouts ... fill in your own blanks here, because I'm laughing too hard over here.
These, according to that sinister cadre of people called evolutionists, are our closest relations among the apes. At least they know what a uniform's worth.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
Ah, yes, the Bonobos monkeys. Humans could learn something from these gentle critters, hum? "Make love, not war" never found a better poster-creature.
Bowser, I wonder how you would feel if I said all men were dirty, disgusting creatures?
They like pornography, they cause most crime, they are violent, they rape and kill... I don't want men in public schools, I don't want my children taught by men, I don't want the men in history to be touted as heroes.
I want the true dirty side of men taught to my children, that all men are creepy and to be avoided. If a teacher or school employee is caught defending men, they should be fired.
Men shouldn't be allowed out in public looking like men, they should be dressed like the decent folk, the women. I don't want the men killed, but if we could just round them up and put them in concentration camps the rest of us could walk down the street at night again without fear... I don't want sex taught either, as that involves men. Artificial insemination should be mandated for the procreaton of the species, and if the baby is found to be male an abortion is socially acceptable. Religious groups shall begin offering public grants to people unfortunate enough to be born into a man's body to help them get the surgery and counselling they need to correct this awful fate. Any man foolish enough to be proud of his disgusting gender really does deserve to be beaten to death or close to it, even though technically there are a couple silly laws against such thing. We know the law will look the other way...
Preposterous, isn't it? Disgusting attitude, isn't that? Thank goodness I'm not nearly so narrow-minded and hateful...
Also- I might point out that any gay person fearing being beaten to death or near it by a hetero has every reason to feel that way, and that's not a phobia. That's a legitimate fear. Phobias are unreasonable fears, such as people fearing gay people just because they have different sexual preferences. ("Oh my god, he's gay! Quick, cover little Bobbie's eyes so he won't see that horrible, horrible man!" Puh-lease.)
Bowser, I wonder how you would feel if I said all men were dirty, disgusting creatures?
They like pornography, they cause most crime, they are violent, they rape and kill... I don't want men in public schools, I don't want my children taught by men, I don't want the men in history to be touted as heroes.
I want the true dirty side of men taught to my children, that all men are creepy and to be avoided. If a teacher or school employee is caught defending men, they should be fired.
Men shouldn't be allowed out in public looking like men, they should be dressed like the decent folk, the women. I don't want the men killed, but if we could just round them up and put them in concentration camps the rest of us could walk down the street at night again without fear... I don't want sex taught either, as that involves men. Artificial insemination should be mandated for the procreaton of the species, and if the baby is found to be male an abortion is socially acceptable. Religious groups shall begin offering public grants to people unfortunate enough to be born into a man's body to help them get the surgery and counselling they need to correct this awful fate. Any man foolish enough to be proud of his disgusting gender really does deserve to be beaten to death or close to it, even though technically there are a couple silly laws against such thing. We know the law will look the other way...
Preposterous, isn't it? Disgusting attitude, isn't that? Thank goodness I'm not nearly so narrow-minded and hateful...
Also- I might point out that any gay person fearing being beaten to death or near it by a hetero has every reason to feel that way, and that's not a phobia. That's a legitimate fear. Phobias are unreasonable fears, such as people fearing gay people just because they have different sexual preferences. ("Oh my god, he's gay! Quick, cover little Bobbie's eyes so he won't see that horrible, horrible man!" Puh-lease.)
A quick anecdote, then, about a little girl, a hetero-mommy, a hetero-daddy, and--should we honor stereotypes--the dyke aunt.
I'm walking through Bourbon Street, N.O., in the middle of December, and there's a fair-size party taking place at one end; a bunch of college students having a miniature T&A festival in the street.
As I'm stumbling pleasantly along, my eye is caught by the form of a 12 year-old girl standing with her back to the wall, craning her neck to get a better view of what's going on. Two parents stand 'twixt her and the general crowd, which had its back to them, surveying the scene in horror. Beside them stood a woman--the aunt--with her amusedly shaking head pointed into a tourist book. She looked up as we walked by, and I nodded and we both just laughed.
What were the parents thinking? Let's take the family to dinner on Bourbon Street!
But, yeah ... the scene wouldn't have been quite the same without those horrible men hooting for flesh, now, would it?
You should take that one to the clubs, MoonCat ... it's better than the professional fare. (You have my quiet, laugh-quivering grin )
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
I'm walking through Bourbon Street, N.O., in the middle of December, and there's a fair-size party taking place at one end; a bunch of college students having a miniature T&A festival in the street.
As I'm stumbling pleasantly along, my eye is caught by the form of a 12 year-old girl standing with her back to the wall, craning her neck to get a better view of what's going on. Two parents stand 'twixt her and the general crowd, which had its back to them, surveying the scene in horror. Beside them stood a woman--the aunt--with her amusedly shaking head pointed into a tourist book. She looked up as we walked by, and I nodded and we both just laughed.
What were the parents thinking? Let's take the family to dinner on Bourbon Street!
But, yeah ... the scene wouldn't have been quite the same without those horrible men hooting for flesh, now, would it?
You should take that one to the clubs, MoonCat ... it's better than the professional fare. (You have my quiet, laugh-quivering grin
)thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
MoonCat,
"Bowser, I wonder how you would feel if I said all men were dirty, disgusting creatures?"
Most of us men are dirty, disgusting creatures. Count the mirrored sun glasses next summer when your at the lake. Watch the heads pivot when a young female walks past.
"My good stars ... okay, if I could be fed and bathed and cared for just for the privilege of whacking off in front of a bunch of girl scouts ..."
The above does speak for for many of my gender. Its only redemption is the natural animal need to procreate. I can understand those base animal reflexes which cause males to act like dirty, disgusting creatures when given an opportunity. It's our nature. It is natural. Now, what to think when that male animal associates procreation with another male animal. Has the dirty, disgusting creature lost the one redeeming fact of nature which might explain those desires?
Homosexuality has no proper place in human sexuality. It is an aberration. I can't ignore that fact anymore than I can ignore Darwin.
"I want the true dirty side of men taught to my children, that all men are creepy and to be avoided."
Did your mother ever warn you about us?
"If a teacher or school employee is caught defending men, they should be fired."
Men or...heterosexuality?
"Men shouldn't be allowed out in public looking like men, they should be dressed like the decent folk, the women."
You prefer your man in a dress?
"I don't want the men killed, but if we could just round them up and put them in concentration camps the rest of us could walk down the street at night again without fear..."
But you can't, not without the strength of another man, that is.
"I don't want sex taught either, as that involves men."
Fortunate for men, most woman are dirty, disgusting heterosexual creatures too.
"Artificial insemination should be mandated for the procreaton of the species, and if the baby is found to be male an abortion is socially acceptable."
That's an interesting thought. What if they do find a gay gene? Would a parent choose to abort their child based on its sexuality? I'm sorry. your statement just opened another issue.
"Religious groups shall begin offering public grants to people unfortunate enough to be born into a man's body to help them get the surgery and counselling they need to correct this awful fate."
Niether of us have any control over the policies and beliefs of others. I'm certain some would like to mandate such things.
"Any man foolish enough to be proud of his disgusting gender really does deserve to be beaten to death or close to it, even though technically there are a couple silly laws against such thing. We know the law will look the other way..."
But closer to reality...no one has a right to harm another. Despite all claims of injustice regarding their irrational fears regarding gay bashing, they are protected by the same laws that protect us. The "We know the law will look the other way..." attitude is part of their phobia.
"Preposterous, isn't it? Disgusting attitude, isn't that? Thank goodness I'm not nearly so narrow-minded and hateful..."
Well, you just described a feminist. I agree.
"Also- I might point out that any gay person fearing being beaten to death or near it by a hetero has every reason to feel that way, and that's not a phobia. That's a legitimate fear."
BS. You're feeding on delussions of homocide. It appears that there are greater risks for abuse among their own kind than from heterosexuals:
"Silence is being broken about the gay / bisexual youth risk for being sexually abused / coerced and raped in gay communities. Tremblay and Ramsay (2000) summarize the situation and report on the Mutchler (2000) study. The Seal et. al. (2000) study reveals that GB male youth problems are multidimensional in nature and helping these youth will require a multidimensional approach. The American Gay Men's Health Movement (The Gay Men's Health Summits) are a step in the right direction, with much work still to be done. Generally, the welfare of adolescent gay and bisexual males continues to be ignored in gay communities, and especially the fact that many of these teenagers will be relating sexually with males often more than twice their age. Tremblay and Ramsay (2000) report information indicating that it has been very difficult for gay / bisexual teenagers to experience love from older gay males. As a rule, these youth report being used in much the same way as teenage male prostitutes are also used."
I think I would prefer a beating over rape or sexual abuse.
"Phobias are unreasonable fears, such as people fearing gay people just because they have different sexual preferences. ("Oh my god, he's gay! Quick, cover little Bobbie's eyes so he won't see that horrible, horrible man!" Puh-lease.)"
That's not fear. It's a reaction to abnormality: ("Oh my god, he's humping that monkey! Quick, cover little Bobbie's eyes so he won't see that horrible, horrible man!")
<hr>
Tiassa,
I was working on a reply to your post last night, but my computer locked. It offers a challenge and I hope to reply with a rebuttal.
------------------
It's all very large.
"Bowser, I wonder how you would feel if I said all men were dirty, disgusting creatures?"
Most of us men are dirty, disgusting creatures. Count the mirrored sun glasses next summer when your at the lake. Watch the heads pivot when a young female walks past.
"My good stars ... okay, if I could be fed and bathed and cared for just for the privilege of whacking off in front of a bunch of girl scouts ..."
The above does speak for for many of my gender. Its only redemption is the natural animal need to procreate. I can understand those base animal reflexes which cause males to act like dirty, disgusting creatures when given an opportunity. It's our nature. It is natural. Now, what to think when that male animal associates procreation with another male animal. Has the dirty, disgusting creature lost the one redeeming fact of nature which might explain those desires?
Homosexuality has no proper place in human sexuality. It is an aberration. I can't ignore that fact anymore than I can ignore Darwin.
"I want the true dirty side of men taught to my children, that all men are creepy and to be avoided."
Did your mother ever warn you about us?
"If a teacher or school employee is caught defending men, they should be fired."
Men or...heterosexuality?
"Men shouldn't be allowed out in public looking like men, they should be dressed like the decent folk, the women."
You prefer your man in a dress?
"I don't want the men killed, but if we could just round them up and put them in concentration camps the rest of us could walk down the street at night again without fear..."
But you can't, not without the strength of another man, that is.
"I don't want sex taught either, as that involves men."
Fortunate for men, most woman are dirty, disgusting heterosexual creatures too.
"Artificial insemination should be mandated for the procreaton of the species, and if the baby is found to be male an abortion is socially acceptable."
That's an interesting thought. What if they do find a gay gene? Would a parent choose to abort their child based on its sexuality? I'm sorry. your statement just opened another issue.
"Religious groups shall begin offering public grants to people unfortunate enough to be born into a man's body to help them get the surgery and counselling they need to correct this awful fate."
Niether of us have any control over the policies and beliefs of others. I'm certain some would like to mandate such things.
"Any man foolish enough to be proud of his disgusting gender really does deserve to be beaten to death or close to it, even though technically there are a couple silly laws against such thing. We know the law will look the other way..."
But closer to reality...no one has a right to harm another. Despite all claims of injustice regarding their irrational fears regarding gay bashing, they are protected by the same laws that protect us. The "We know the law will look the other way..." attitude is part of their phobia.
"Preposterous, isn't it? Disgusting attitude, isn't that? Thank goodness I'm not nearly so narrow-minded and hateful..."
Well, you just described a feminist. I agree.
"Also- I might point out that any gay person fearing being beaten to death or near it by a hetero has every reason to feel that way, and that's not a phobia. That's a legitimate fear."
BS. You're feeding on delussions of homocide. It appears that there are greater risks for abuse among their own kind than from heterosexuals:
"Silence is being broken about the gay / bisexual youth risk for being sexually abused / coerced and raped in gay communities. Tremblay and Ramsay (2000) summarize the situation and report on the Mutchler (2000) study. The Seal et. al. (2000) study reveals that GB male youth problems are multidimensional in nature and helping these youth will require a multidimensional approach. The American Gay Men's Health Movement (The Gay Men's Health Summits) are a step in the right direction, with much work still to be done. Generally, the welfare of adolescent gay and bisexual males continues to be ignored in gay communities, and especially the fact that many of these teenagers will be relating sexually with males often more than twice their age. Tremblay and Ramsay (2000) report information indicating that it has been very difficult for gay / bisexual teenagers to experience love from older gay males. As a rule, these youth report being used in much the same way as teenage male prostitutes are also used."
I think I would prefer a beating over rape or sexual abuse.
"Phobias are unreasonable fears, such as people fearing gay people just because they have different sexual preferences. ("Oh my god, he's gay! Quick, cover little Bobbie's eyes so he won't see that horrible, horrible man!" Puh-lease.)"
That's not fear. It's a reaction to abnormality: ("Oh my god, he's humping that monkey! Quick, cover little Bobbie's eyes so he won't see that horrible, horrible man!")
<hr>
Tiassa,
I was working on a reply to your post last night, but my computer locked. It offers a challenge and I hope to reply with a rebuttal.
------------------
It's all very large.
Bowser,
Not true. No animals apart from humans have the intellectual ability to associate the sex act with procreation. Animals have sex for no other reason than for pleasure. Animals do not choose to procreate. Procreation is not an instinct it is an effect.
Most animal males in nature are territorial and defensive. An approach by another male would be usually seen as a threat. I.e. survival is the most dominant instinct in nature. This effectively prevents animal homosexuality.
Human intellect has other ways to recognize whether something is threatening or not. Once a lack of threat is recognized then the natural pleasure instinct can kick in. If for whatever reason one human (regardless of gender) is sexually attracted to another (regardless of gender) and no threat is apparent then the natural instinctive action would be to obtain pleasure, and the most potent form is sex.
Sex is purely about pleasure. Gender is irrelevant. It is a natural instinct. Natural actions are not aberrations.
[This message has been edited by Cris (edited January 25, 2001).]
Not true. No animals apart from humans have the intellectual ability to associate the sex act with procreation. Animals have sex for no other reason than for pleasure. Animals do not choose to procreate. Procreation is not an instinct it is an effect.
Most animal males in nature are territorial and defensive. An approach by another male would be usually seen as a threat. I.e. survival is the most dominant instinct in nature. This effectively prevents animal homosexuality.
Human intellect has other ways to recognize whether something is threatening or not. Once a lack of threat is recognized then the natural pleasure instinct can kick in. If for whatever reason one human (regardless of gender) is sexually attracted to another (regardless of gender) and no threat is apparent then the natural instinctive action would be to obtain pleasure, and the most potent form is sex.
Sex is purely about pleasure. Gender is irrelevant. It is a natural instinct. Natural actions are not aberrations.
[This message has been edited by Cris (edited January 25, 2001).]
Bowser,
You claim homosexuality is an aberration because it cannot result in procreation.
This means that if heterosexual partners use any form of contraceptive then by your definition that must be a form of sexual abberation, since procreation could not be a result.
You claim homosexuality is an aberration because it cannot result in procreation.
This means that if heterosexual partners use any form of contraceptive then by your definition that must be a form of sexual abberation, since procreation could not be a result.
But Cris, neither condom nor pill nor rhythm are complete guarantees that contraception will not occur. In that sense, I find all recreational sex to be more than a little like having sex Vegas-style. Jackpot or bust?
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
Bowser--
I'll chime in here to say, Nice rebuttal to MoonCat.
You wrote very well.
You wrote according to schedule.
You walked into it.
You made 2 mistakes. The first, actually, was attempting a rebuttal; the only reason for this is that by rebutting, you are choosing to step into a role that isn't unlike that of a homosexual amid Mabon's worst political jokes. Essentially, you found yourself trying to rebut absurdity.
Your second mistake was to mention homosexuality. Yes, it is obviously intended to serve as an analogy; but you seem to be leaping from the one question to the other conclusion which is wholly appropriate in and of itself, but serves your argument none to essentially duck the analogy.
Oh, and a third error, I suppose: Neither of us have any control over the policies and beliefs of others .... That is exactly the point. The argument you're rebutting with that wise-crack is hardly a logical stretch when applied to homosexuality. The sentiment exists already in the world, and at Exosci--and, specifically, within these debates about homosexuality--that homosexuals need to be "fixed" somehow--made heterosexual.
Oh, and a fourth error about irrational fears and gay bashing. "We know the law will look the other way" not only feeds the homophobes, as you've noted, but is what homosexuals are trying to change about society. But this, apparently, is a violation of the homophobes' rights. The idea that the law should not look the other way is what homophobes seem to fear. Maybe the idea that they are actually doing something wrong?
But I suppose I'm nitpicking at this point.
I will mention that if the welfare of adolescent gay and bisexual males is being ignored, it's because treating those problems responsibly pisses off enough people that it becomes a ballot measure. What do you think the counseling resources Mabon doesn't like are for? To help these "ignored" persons.
Oh, and That's not fear .... You're right. It is a reaction to a person's idea of abnormality. And that's all it is: Someone reacting to something they don't understand, and therefore fear. If you have to cover Bobby's eyes, why?
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)
I'll chime in here to say, Nice rebuttal to MoonCat.
You wrote very well.
You wrote according to schedule.
You walked into it.
You made 2 mistakes. The first, actually, was attempting a rebuttal; the only reason for this is that by rebutting, you are choosing to step into a role that isn't unlike that of a homosexual amid Mabon's worst political jokes. Essentially, you found yourself trying to rebut absurdity.
Your second mistake was to mention homosexuality. Yes, it is obviously intended to serve as an analogy; but you seem to be leaping from the one question to the other conclusion which is wholly appropriate in and of itself, but serves your argument none to essentially duck the analogy.
Oh, and a third error, I suppose: Neither of us have any control over the policies and beliefs of others .... That is exactly the point. The argument you're rebutting with that wise-crack is hardly a logical stretch when applied to homosexuality. The sentiment exists already in the world, and at Exosci--and, specifically, within these debates about homosexuality--that homosexuals need to be "fixed" somehow--made heterosexual.
Oh, and a fourth error about irrational fears and gay bashing. "We know the law will look the other way" not only feeds the homophobes, as you've noted, but is what homosexuals are trying to change about society. But this, apparently, is a violation of the homophobes' rights. The idea that the law should not look the other way is what homophobes seem to fear. Maybe the idea that they are actually doing something wrong?
But I suppose I'm nitpicking at this point.
I will mention that if the welfare of adolescent gay and bisexual males is being ignored, it's because treating those problems responsibly pisses off enough people that it becomes a ballot measure. What do you think the counseling resources Mabon doesn't like are for? To help these "ignored" persons.
Oh, and That's not fear .... You're right. It is a reaction to a person's idea of abnormality. And that's all it is: Someone reacting to something they don't understand, and therefore fear. If you have to cover Bobby's eyes, why?
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)