Baron Max said:
No, not comparing them ....hell, nothing's worse than homosexuality, especially in "men" (and I used that term very, very loosely!).
I merely point out that homosexuality is a sexual perversion as is such things a goat/sheep fucking, fucking dead bodies, fucking holes in trees, ...., or any and all kinds of other strange, odd, weird sexual perversions.
That's a cheap answer, Baron. You're not comparing them ... (
chortle!) You'll throw them all into the same category, suggest the idea of zoophiles and pedophiles marching or parading like gays, but you're not comparing them?
Such hateful comparisons also refuse to acknowledge consent.
A 15-year old girl has the intelligence to consent to sex, yet you've stated many times that it's illegal or wrong ....and you give long, long, involved bullshit explanations as if it's okay to prevent one group from having consentual sex, yet you use the same consent argument to give validity to homosexual sex.
Don't try to crucify me with your opinion, Max. I've long acknowledged the fact of age of consent, and, frankly, find sixteen a better notion than, say, ten. Perhaps you'd like to propose a new age of consent? Maybe throw it all the way back to ten?
Your argument is so narrowly-construed, Max, that it overlooks other correlations. You don't get to drive until you're 16 at least. You don't get to vote until you're eighteen. You can't consume liquor until you're twenty-one. In fact, you can't be sentenced to death for a crime you committed under the age of eighteen. The U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the Missouri State Supreme Court, recognized the assertion that decision-making processes in children are different from those in adults. This was one of its key criteria for overturning itself on the death-penalty issue. Now, at what point do those processes evolve from one classification to another? That's a hard thing to pinpoint, and won't be uniform among people. So a line is drawn that is not entirely arbitrary.
The idea that you're invoking children in order to justify persecution of adults is a little ridiculous.
A masochist can and does give his/her consent to be whipped, beaten, sexually abused in every way, yet society has laws against giving consent to the very things that she enjoys. Odd, huh?
See, that's the weird thing.
Bowers v. Hardwick, the infamous Georgia decision in the 1980s, came about because a police officer happened to find himself in a situation in which he suspected that two men were having sexual contact within the privacy of a home. If a police officer in similar circumstances chooses to arrest someone for the appearance of S&M, we'll have that one out in court.
The only thing that's odd about it is that you think it has
anything to do with an issue of gender discrimination and equal protection.
I don't know why you continue to use that "fear" phrase?
Because that's about the only thing that explains it. I've put up with this bullshit comparison of homosexuality to bestiality and even necrozoophiliac rape for ... at least fifteen years. In all that time, I've yet to hear someone give a proper explanation for the comparison and its refusal to acknowledge consent. Though you get half-credit for trying, complaining that we can't have sex with fifteen year-old girls just doesn't meet the standard.
It's not about fear, it's about the same thing that prevents society from allowing abortion or sado-masochist abuse or the consent of underage people, etc, ...we in society simply don't think it's "right" to allow it.
It's not up to superstition to declare right and wrong. The fact that homophobes continue to cling to superstition and demand the right to decide what's right and wrong for other people is the kind of "equality" that has yet to be properly explained. You know, the whole, "We're not equal unless I'm superior!" argument?
I don't think it's "right" to warp children's minds with religious superstitions, but others disagree. You can throw the Constitution in there, but that's the point in the gay fray, too: the Constitution demands equal protection under the laws, and the question of gender may finally be settled by the homophobes' rush to demand the right to approve of who gets to be married.
Ain't got nothin' to do with fear.
Got everything to do with fear, Max. If it had nothing to do with fear, the argument against would be rational. Instead, all it comes down to is ridiculous comparisons of homosexuality and various forms of rape (pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia), the occasional invocation of incest (which there are scientific arguments against), and polygamy (a matter of numbers, not any fundamental human condition like gender). It comes down to superstition (e.g., what "God" says). It comes down to supremacist assertions (e.g. "We get to decide what's 'right' for everyone."). On the one hand, I would say it's about ignorance, but these issues have been afoot long enough that anyone who's paying attention has no excuse save will for not knowing what's going on.
I think it's so funny ....all these homosexuals who get caught in the act, then try to claim that they're not gay ......as if gay is the worst disease known to man. Oopps, wait a minute, ...maybe it is the worse disease known to man!
There's a humorous aspect to it, yes. But, mostly, it's sad. (Recall that the majority of humor is invested in cruelty.) The closet compels people to behave strangely at best. When you happen to be a social-conservative Republican homosexual, though, it seems exponentially tougher. These people not only build their own walls, but chip away at them at the same time. It's not like they think they're fooling God, right? I mean, maybe, but I figured the believers would at least believe. But for many, there comes a point where they realize they're trapped: everything they have is contingent on a set of principles that rejects what one realizes they are. Other conflicts of this sort don't necessarily have the same impact; if one day a rich, heartless capitalist realizes he's been looking at the poor wrongly, it's easy to change, and if his friends don't like his new conscience, it's not the end of the world. But if a staunch moralist homophobe realizes he's
gay ... for some reason, it really does look like the end of the world.
I mean, think about it. "Gay" is now an all-purpose insult and condemnation. It would be one thing to accuse someone of being gay for enjoying the movie their girlfriend wanted to see. At least there's a thin correlation there: feminine = effeminate = gay. But the idea that a casino is charging too much for the house's share at a poker table is also "gay". There is no real correlation: high rate = bad = gay. Facism, terrorism, taxes ... gay, gay, and
really gay. The height of this colloquialism is embodied in an old
Simpsons joke when Nelson kisses Lisa (
#4F01, "Lisa's Date With Density"):
Dolph: (to Nelson) Oh, man! You kissed a girl!
Jimbo: That is so gay!
I feel badly for the guy. Years of self-loathing, and in the end, ironically, it is the closet itself that finally brings him down. I'm starting to think he can save his political reputation, although probably not his career as an Idaho politician. But we'll have to see whether he undergoes reconditioning, or finally decides to give the love and respect he owes himself. Either way, it will be difficult, but only one way will be honest.