[quote]JR249 wrote:
What does incense me, however, is that those who throw up the traditional marriage card the loudest are often quick to ignore other more pressing threats to marriage in western cultures, specifically divorce, adultery, family violence, etc., and all are treated with equal condemnation in Judeo-Christian teaching.
[/quote]
I hate to be the pedant here, especially when you were doing so well, but I think it’s a stretch to say that Judeo-Christian teaching puts divorce and family violence on an equal footing with adultery.
Adultery: If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. (Deuteronomy 22:22)
Family violence:
Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him. (Proverbs 13:24)
No objections here. I’m a teacher. I can think of a lot of boys who could use a bit more rod in their lives. However, if the rod doesn’t put the fear of God into a boy, public execution just might:
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
That’s right. God says if your kid won’t behave, you might try having him killed.
So now we get to divorce. Condemned by God?
Divorce: If a man marries a woman and she does not please him because he has found something offensive in her, then he may draw up a divorce document, give it to her, and evict her from his house.(Deuteronomy 2:1)
Guess not.
Granted, once we get around to the New Testament we have Jesus stating on several occasions that divorcing one’s spouse and marrying another was tantamount to committing adultery. Hard to pin down what his stance on polygyny was. Supposedly it had already gone out of fashion (or else was illegal under Roman law) by the time Jesus began his ministries, so it wasn’t a big deal. In any case, having more than one wife was not only allowed, it was REQUIRED:
If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. (Deuteronomy 25:5)
Nothing in there says “unless her husband’s brother already has a wife”. No, you are obligated to marry the woman, and if she bears you a son, that’s legally your dead brother’s son. Don’t want to do it? Then your sister-in-lay gets to pull off your shoe and spit in your face. And forever after, everyone who walks by your house has to refer to it as “the house of the guy who got his shoe pulled off.”
I don’t know. Compared to all that, the idea of two people with matching genitalia getting married and raising a family together doesn’t sound all that weird.
I hate to be the pedant here, especially when you were doing so well, but I think it’s a stretch to say that Judeo-Christian teaching puts divorce and family violence on an equal footing with adultery.
[/quote]
Well, I guess that is debatable, I probably should have clarified that I was raised Catholic, though no longer practicing, and the church teachings at that time equally condemned all such practices. How it is treated in scripture is certainly another matter, as you pointed out, but I typically don’t see churches or pulpits condemn these other practices with the same ferocity.
I always agree to disagree about everything with everyone. And about letting the topic rest; yes I’m tired of getting half a dozen different people posting long comments full of stuff I’ve covered before and sprinkled with pejoratives; bigot, hater, homophobe etc. Although from what I remember you’ve been pretty respectful. But I’m still going to post comments relating to gay marriage at times when it’s relevant or something is in the news. It’s not a no go area. For one thing the media and the homosexual lobby have put it front page and centre themselves and there are laws being brought in and rulings made that are of interest and concern to me. I’m not sure why you want the subject to be rested but I will not try to maliciously vilify gay people or anything. I know there are a lot of heterosexual child molesters too. I’m not saying gay people are inherently evil or anything(not moreso than anyone else - but I do think it’s a pretty sleazy and debauched scene). I shouldn’t have to keep pointing this out but as I said people like to accuse me of being a hater because I won’t sign on to every aspect of the agenda.[/quote]
Well, you won’t see me resort to ad hominem, and I am gay. I certainly don’t think that presenting respectable, albeit opposing opinions is grounds to be labeled a bigot or homophobe, and this is one area where I think the orthodox gay activists have sometimes gone to far in painting those who have tried to present respectable, differing opinions as “bigots” or “homophobes.” There is a proper application of those terms, and there is no shortage of people who fit them, but painting everyone who has an opinion about protecting traditional marriage as some cliche pejorative term is not what civil society should be about.
I’m not the forum police, so it’s not for me to say it’s a “no go” area, BUT you did just say you were sorry for bringing up the topic, and now you’re saying you are going to continue to opine on it. That’s fine, but I have a rhetorical question - what does everyone gain from continuing to waste time on a message board by rehashing his or her same opinions over and over again, page after page, with nothing but moving goal posts from thread to thread? I don’t see anyone’s opinions changing, and it always ends in the same predictable manner. In the end, the SCOTUS is looking to issue a ruling in June that is going to end the legal debate, and all sides will be forced to live with it. I suspect it will be on the magnitude of the Loving v. Virginia decision, but I’ll avoid a prediction of the outcome because I think it will be a split decision and Kennedy’s vote could actually matter in this one, but that’s another topic. Then again, we may all be surprised.
[quote] Sex Machine wrote:
But being a liberal and tolerant person . . .
[/quote]
You, sir, redefine the meaning of the words “liberal” and “tolerant” by making discriminatory statements like:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I know there will always be a gay segment of society. We can’t snuff it out so to speak. So gay people do have a place in society by virtue of their continued presence. I don’t have any problem with them dominating certain professions like hair dressing, acting and so on.
[/quote]
You do realize that there are gay lawyers, doctors, research scientists, etc. Be honest and own your opinion: you’re a homophobe.
[quote] Sex Machine wrote:
But being a liberal and tolerant person . . .
[/quote]
You, sir, redefine the meaning of the words “liberal” and “tolerant” by making discriminatory statements like:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I know there will always be a gay segment of society. We can’t snuff it out so to speak. So gay people do have a place in society by virtue of their continued presence. I don’t have any problem with them dominating certain professions like hair dressing, acting and so on.
[/quote]
You do realize that there are gay lawyers, doctors, research scientists, etc. Be honest and own your opinion: you’re a homophobe. [/quote]
Are you serious? I’m a bigot now because I made a generalisation? That’s like saying it’s bigoted to say Chinese are good at maths or something. Seriously, pull your head in. Stop being a PC wowser.
Well, you won’t see me resort to ad hominem, and I am gay. I certainly don’t think that presenting respectable, albeit opposing opinions is grounds to be labeled a bigot or homophobe, and this is one area where I think the orthodox gay activists have sometimes gone to far in painting those who have tried to present respectable, differing opinions as “bigots” or “homophobes.” There is a proper application of those terms, and there is no shortage of people who fit them, but painting everyone who has an opinion about protecting traditional marriage as some cliche pejorative term is not what civil society should be about.
[/quote]
I do have an aversion to homosexuality and I think most if not all heterosexual men find the idea disconcerting to put it mildly, and that’s often misconstrued as “hate”. Of course I don’t hate or have animosity towards gay people. It’s just something I see as an inevitable part of society, and therefore needs to be brought to terms, but at the same time recognised as not a desirable thing. As I’ve said before, the one thing of serious concern to me is the radical LGBT stuff being taught in schools and on social media sites. They target pre-pubescent children and tell them all about homosexuality and also all the crazy gender stuff about multiple genders and being trapped in the wrong body and that nonsense. And these kids who don’t know anything about their own sexuality because they’re pre-pubescent, are “choosing” a gender and claiming they’re “genderqueer” or something. It’s like a phase kids go through where they think they’re a “skater” or a “goth”. Only this is sexualising children, warping their minds and could lead to devastating outcomes - suicide, unwanted sex change surgery/hormones, getting mixed up with/molested by weirdos in the “LGBT community” or whatever. This is a serious concern and the public face of the gay community; the gay activists, are the ones who are behind this and who are pushing to get into schools under the pretence of “anti-bullying” and sex ed. It’s hard to have any kind of positive attitude towards the gay community when the only time you see them or hear about them they’re doing something sexually provocative and inappropriate, they’re pushing some radical agenda or they’re parading down mainstream naked in a Stetson hat straddling a twenty foot long phallus at a “pride” parade or something. So I’m sure you’ve detected a little hostility in some of my posts but I can assure you that’s meant for these elements of gay society and not every individual who happens to be gay.
[quote] Sex Machine wrote:
But being a liberal and tolerant person . . .
[/quote]
You, sir, redefine the meaning of the words “liberal” and “tolerant” by making discriminatory statements like:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I know there will always be a gay segment of society. We can’t snuff it out so to speak. So gay people do have a place in society by virtue of their continued presence. I don’t have any problem with them dominating certain professions like hair dressing, acting and so on.
[/quote]
You do realize that there are gay lawyers, doctors, research scientists, etc. Be honest and own your opinion: you’re a homophobe. [/quote]
Are you serious? I’m a bigot now because I made a generalisation? That’s like saying it’s bigoted to say Chinese are good at maths or something. Seriously, pull your head in. Stop being a PC wowser.[/quote]
Sexy, you told me in the past hypothetically you’d disown your own son if he turned out gay because homosexuality is an “abomination.” I didn’t think your dislike of homosexuals was a secret.
[quote] Sex Machine wrote:
But being a liberal and tolerant person . . .
[/quote]
You, sir, redefine the meaning of the words “liberal” and “tolerant” by making discriminatory statements like:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I know there will always be a gay segment of society. We can’t snuff it out so to speak. So gay people do have a place in society by virtue of their continued presence. I don’t have any problem with them dominating certain professions like hair dressing, acting and so on.
[/quote]
You do realize that there are gay lawyers, doctors, research scientists, etc. Be honest and own your opinion: you’re a homophobe. [/quote]
Are you serious? I’m a bigot now because I made a generalisation? That’s like saying it’s bigoted to say Chinese are good at maths or something. Seriously, pull your head in. Stop being a PC wowser.[/quote]
Sexy, you told me in the past hypothetically you’d disown your own son if he turned out gay because homosexuality is an “abomination.” I didn’t think your dislike of homosexuals was a secret.
[/quote]
I’d disown my own son? Bullshit! Where did I say that?
[quote] Sex Machine wrote:
But being a liberal and tolerant person . . .
[/quote]
You, sir, redefine the meaning of the words “liberal” and “tolerant” by making discriminatory statements like:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I know there will always be a gay segment of society. We can’t snuff it out so to speak. So gay people do have a place in society by virtue of their continued presence. I don’t have any problem with them dominating certain professions like hair dressing, acting and so on.
[/quote]
You do realize that there are gay lawyers, doctors, research scientists, etc. Be honest and own your opinion: you’re a homophobe. [/quote]
Are you serious? I’m a bigot now because I made a generalisation? That’s like saying it’s bigoted to say Chinese are good at maths or something. Seriously, pull your head in. Stop being a PC wowser.[/quote]
Sexy, you told me in the past hypothetically you’d disown your own son if he turned out gay because homosexuality is an “abomination.” I didn’t think your dislike of homosexuals was a secret.
[/quote]
I’d disown my own son? Bullshit! Where did I say that?[/quote]
Goddamn it, now you are going to make me hunt. If I’m wrong, I’m sorry, but I swear I remember that’s what you told me.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
You do realize that there are gay lawyers, doctors, research scientists, etc. [/quote]
Not to mention judges, politicians, police officers, members of the armed forces, and of course, the clergy.[/quote]
Of course there are. But it’s also true they dominate certain professions like acting. How in the hell is it bigoted to say there are a lot of gays in theatre or in hairdressing or whatever? Seriously, some people are just desperate to try to find something un-PC to complain about.
I do have an aversion to homosexuality and I think most if not all heterosexual men find the idea disconcerting to put it mildly, and that’s often misconstrued as “hate”. Of course I don’t hate or have animosity towards gay people. It’s just something I see as an inevitable part of society, and therefore needs to be brought to terms, but at the same time recognised as not a desirable thing. As I’ve said before, the one thing of serious concern to me is the radical LGBT stuff being taught in schools and on social media sites. They target pre-pubescent children and tell them all about homosexuality and also all the crazy gender stuff about multiple genders and being trapped in the wrong body and that nonsense. And these kids who don’t know anything about their own sexuality because they’re pre-pubescent, are “choosing” a gender and claiming they’re “genderqueer” or something. It’s like a phase kids go through where they think they’re a “skater” or a “goth”. Only this is sexualising children, warping their minds and could lead to devastating outcomes - suicide, unwanted sex change surgery/hormones, getting mixed up with/molested by weirdos in the “LGBT community” or whatever. This is a serious concern and the public face of the gay community; the gay activists, are the ones who are behind this and who are pushing to get into schools under the pretence of “anti-bullying” and sex ed. It’s hard to have any kind of positive attitude towards the gay community when the only time you see them or hear about them they’re doing something sexually provocative and inappropriate, they’re pushing some radical agenda or they’re parading down mainstream naked in a Stetson hat straddling a twenty foot long phallus at a “pride” parade or something. So I’m sure you’ve detected a little hostility in some of my posts but I can assure you that’s meant for these elements of gay society and not every individual who happens to be gay.[/quote]
Where is this coming from?
You’ve posted a few articles of some isolated incidents that came from sources that have a bias, though that doesn’t mean they were wrong per se. Nevertheless, I have worked in public education for 13 years and I do not know of any schools where this is going on.
Most teachers only go as far as teaching younger kids that they shouldn’t target, discriminate or otherwise bully other kids or people who are members of social minority groups, i.e., all humans have a right to basic dignity, but that’s hardly the same as what’s being alleged here and I do not see this a widespread agenda being played out in K-6 classrooms nationwide, even if it has happened in the classrooms of a few teachers and happened to somehow make headlines. There is no national core curriculum agenda that involves infusing a pro-gay curriculum into the classroom as you have mentioned, so in those instances where it has happened, if it happened as you say, it’s more than likely an individual teacher using his or her limited ability to employ some small degree of academic freedom into some sort of an anti-hate or tolerance curriculum, but most teachers completely avoid discussions of these topics in the classroom until high school.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
You do realize that there are gay lawyers, doctors, research scientists, etc. [/quote]
Not to mention judges, politicians, police officers, members of the armed forces, and of course, the clergy.[/quote]
Of course there are. But it’s also true they dominate certain professions like acting. How in the hell is it bigoted to say there are a lot of gays in theatre or in hairdressing or whatever? Seriously, some people are just desperate to try to find something un-PC to complain about.[/quote]
I don’t think it is at all bigoted to state an obvious truth that one can easily find examples of homosexual actors or hair stylists. Let’s take a closer look at what you actually wrote.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I know there will always be a gay segment of society. We can’t snuff it out so to speak. So gay people do have a place in society by virtue of their continued presence. I don’t have any problem with them dominating certain professions like hair dressing, acting and so on. [/quote]
A few inferences can be reasonably made from this statement, or at least your choice of words.
Part of you would like to see the gay segment of society snuffed out. If not, why mention snuffing out an entire population at all?
You see acting and hair dressing as acceptable professions for homosexuals. One can reasonably infer from this statement that you believe homosexuals do not belong in other professions.
When you consider the words you’ve used in this thread alone, can you blame anyone for stating the rather obvious notion that you really don’t like gay people at all?
I’d also like to point out that homosexuals in other professions have neither the same incentive to “come out” nor the same media presence that homosexual actors do, so it is likely that they will escape your notice.
I worked with a gay engineer for years before I realized he was gay when I saw him out for dinner with his boyfriend and it was obvious that they were intimate. At work he simply did his job without any sort of fanfare about what he likes to do with his penis, just like I and most other professionals happen to do.
In conclusion, perception is important. I’m sure many homosexual professionals understand this, which is why they keep their sexual preferences private. I’m sure many heterosexual people with unusual fetishes realize this too, which is why you don’t often hear a discussion about the joys of fisting, the merits of different types bondage material, or logistical issues surrounding scat play by the water cooler at work.
You should realize the importance of perception as well. If you don’t want to be considered bigoted in a discussion like this with the stances you take, you should put more care into the selection of your words.
[quote] Sex Machine wrote:
But being a liberal and tolerant person . . .
[/quote]
You, sir, redefine the meaning of the words “liberal” and “tolerant” by making discriminatory statements like:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I know there will always be a gay segment of society. We can’t snuff it out so to speak. So gay people do have a place in society by virtue of their continued presence. I don’t have any problem with them dominating certain professions like hair dressing, acting and so on.
[/quote]
You do realize that there are gay lawyers, doctors, research scientists, etc. Be honest and own your opinion: you’re a homophobe. [/quote]
Are you serious? I’m a bigot now because I made a generalisation? That’s like saying it’s bigoted to say Chinese are good at maths or something. Seriously, pull your head in. Stop being a PC wowser.[/quote]
Sexy, you told me in the past hypothetically you’d disown your own son if he turned out gay because homosexuality is an “abomination.” I didn’t think your dislike of homosexuals was a secret.
[/quote]
I’d disown my own son? Bullshit! Where did I say that?[/quote]
Goddamn it, now you are going to make me hunt. If I’m wrong, I’m sorry, but I swear I remember that’s what you told me.
[/quote]
Ok. I guess I went to far. Here is what I was remembering.
I don’t think it is at all bigoted to state an obvious truth that one can easily find examples of homosexual actors or hair stylists. Let’s take a closer look at what you actually wrote…
[/quote]
Okay. But I hope this isn’t going to be some witch hunt to scrutinise every comment I post for signs and warnings and prognostications of the antifas thought police. Not buying any. If that’s what’s in your duffle bag then roll up your swag and wander off yonder away from the serious people. Maybe say hi to the fool on the hill on your way past; moonwalk like quicksand with the takers and the tokers; the clowns and provocateurs. I’m not saying you’re necessarily a fool by the way. I’m just stating that this thread has turned into a PC witchhunt again with the thought police scrutinising my every word; misconstrued and twisted or sometimes discomfort portrayed as animosity. An unwillingness to accept all points on the agenda gets you labelled a bigot; an undesirable person. The law has been drastically altered throughout the Western world after the 1960’s to extend positive rights to people who “identify”(whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) to homosexuals. The gay “rights” lobby piggy backed off an authentic and legitimate civil rights movement and they portray homosexuals as a highly vulnerable target of “homophobes” when in reality, homosexual activity has almost always been “legal” by virtue of the fact that sodomy laws were never enforced. They(gays) even developed a network of bathhouses and bars and were quite free to go about their business. Of course there’s always some incident out of the blue occasionally where some maniac goes out and targets and murders a gay person. And the vice squad would sometimes throw a homosexual in prison overnight for public indecency or something like that if they(gays) started taking their clothes off in public like they do at the pride parades and Stonewall. So my point is it’s not a legitimate civil rights issue and frankly it’s pretty low in my opinion to paint it as one and accuse much of the rest of society of being bigoted.
So sure, there are legitimate things gays should be able to organise themselves and work towards; say, to help law enforcement by directing them towards people threatening or condoning violence against gays and so on. And if there were people and organisations who unfairly treated gay people then by all means gays should organise and protest if they like. Those are legitimate civil rights issue. Changing marriage and recognition of gays as “married” partners is not a damn civil rights issue and I wish people would stop playing like it is. There are plenty of posters who have come along and just insisted that it is and that it’s discriminatory. I explain concisely and precisely how it’s not a civil rights issue; how gays are not specifically targeted by any law; gays have equality before the law already. There is no meaningful amount of discrimination towards gays. As I said, a crazy lunatic every now and then; some kids call another kid a “fag”, obviously gay man gets a dirty look from a heterosexual man - that’s about it. We’re not talking about some hated underclass here. Look at the average income of a gay man. Every sitcom and movie and all the cultural bubblegum that shapes our minds portrays homosexuals in an exceedingly positive light. Women think gay men are “fun” and “funny” and “so much fun to be around” - heterosexual men must go through a purging stage for the sins of their cis-privilege, then the message in the story(being gay is awesome! Gays are awesome! Hate the haters!). There is no meaningful discrimination against gays. Want to know where there is? Saudi Arabia, Gaza - places like that. But of course the gay activists are radical leftists - that’s why at gay “pride” parades you’ll see flags of Karl Marx with a rainbow beard or “Free Palestine” and all kinds of other radical and subversive tentacles of the left.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
A few inferences can be reasonably made from this statement, or at least your choice of words.
Part of you would like to see the gay segment of society snuffed out.
[/quote]
Nope. I don’t want any people harmed obviously. And I’ve said I know there will always be homosexuals in society. My very point was a concession. I was trying to be reasonable and realistic. I don’t know why or how you have misconstrued me. You have taken a negative(don’t want to snuff) and you’re now trying to suggest some underlying subconscious desire to do the opposite. All I can say is, no. Sorry Freud. I don’t want to snuff anyone. When I said “we can’t snuff” homosexuality out I simply meant there is no getting rid of it. And that I don’t support the “pray it away” or the “cures”. This puts me in the realistic and reasonable camp away from the fringe on my side of the issue. You seem to show signs of being reasonable and maybe moderate. As I’ve said before, I’ve known gay guys who were very much uninterested in the whole gay “rights” movement and dressed and acted ordinary and so on. But I have also known gays who were extremely theatrical and obsessed with sex. The very “open” type of gay man is a personality type I really dislike. No ill will towards anyone as I keep stressing but I admit I don’t like gay “culture” or whatever you want to call it, in general.
And again, as I’m tolerant and liberal and rah rah rah I accept that people like that exist and have a place in society but there needs to be some restraint and bounds here. For example, I don’t care if my hairdresser is openly and ostentatiously gay. I don’t care if he has a little pencil moustache and a polo neck shirt and keeps making sexual innuendos about homosexual sex and keeps flirting with me and other heterosexual men who he knows aren’t interested. Okay, maybe I don’t like it; and I don’t like him. But it’s something I might reasonably expect to encounter. But an ostentatious and openly gay school teacher? That doesn’t sit well with me. It’s not just a fear of children being molested(although that’s significantly more likely with gays) - no that’s not the only thing. The fact is that being “openly” gay for the most part means being an “exhibitionist” to a certain extent: it entails sexualising everything. If a heterosexual man behaved like that he’d get fired. If a heterosexual man went around flirting and making sexually provocative comments to female coworkers he’d be fired. But a “fabulous” and ostentatious gay man can get with(and I’ve seen it a lot) really creepy unsolicited flirting with other men they know are heterosexual and not interested. This has been my experience with a number of openly gay men I’ve worked with. The worst part is some heterosexual guys were flattered and thought it hilarious and encouraged it. It got to the point with one guy I worked with where he was actually touching up some straight guys and like cornering guys and forcing them to give him a “hug” which would inevitably transition to a “hands sliding down back and over buttocks” and the victim would pull away awkwardly but then laugh and it was all a big joke all around. Can you imagine a guy getting away with doing shit like that to several different women in the office?
And just to try to cut short some of the replies: no I’m not saying all gay men are sexual predators. I’m saying that some are(like many heterosexuals) and that the ones that are can get away with it when it’s adults they’re touching Inappropriately. And the fault also lies with the sickening leftists who encourage this sort of behaviour. Personally, if another guy tried to touch me inappropriately I’d place him in a nikyo hold or hit him or something. I’m sure the Greek guy I used to work with sensed as much because he never approached me. Or maybe I’m just unattractive to gay men. I certainly hope so.
Again, I didn’t mean snuff out people and it was something I only mentioned in order to negate it. “It” being we can’t get rid of homosexuality. We can’t “cure” it or punish homosexuals until they stop engaging in homosexuality. The reason I brought it up is because that’s what some people on the fringe of “my” side advocate. Not killing anyone. But they advocate “curing” homosexuality to get rid of it entirely. I was merely saying I do not advocate such things. Please don’t try to read anything sinister in what I said. I most certainly do not desire to snuff anyone…well maybe just a few people but that’s personal and I have good reason and none of them are gay as far as I know…actually one of them might be.
All professions should be open to homosexuals. But some professions I would expect gays to “tone down” the homosexual behaviour. Same as I’d expect from a heterosexual man. I don’t want my pilot to be wearing a Hooters T-shirt and talking in a sleazy voice and making jokes about sex all the time and so on. So basically, yes I have a problem with the behaviour of some - perhaps most - homosexuals and although the professions should be open to anyone the behaviour of many homosexuals(and heterosexuals too) is inappropriate especially in positions in which the community has an expectation of trustworthiness and reliability and professionalism and so on. Many gay men behave in a way that is inappropriate for a professional setting. I thought “don’t ask; don’t tell” was a very good policy in the US military. I have mixed feelings about homosexuals serving on the frontline but I know there will always be gays in the military and the best tactic for everyone is if they just keep their sex life private and everyone mind their own business. I don’t see anything wrong with that and I think that’s probably the best way to deal with this thing. Keep it in the bedroom and tone down the agitation and the indoctrinating kids.
Geez, here we go. I thought you were a moderate and reasonable kind of a guy. And now you’re picking through my posts and trying to paint everything I say in a sinister light. No, I don’t think homosexuals should be barred from any professions. My comment was actually supposed to be a positive comment. Many gay men are drawn to the theatre for example and excell in their profession and I was merely saying it’s good that many gay men are very talented in that field and find a place in society where they can thrive and so on. Really, stop trying to read between the lines and read my subconscious and so on because you’re not doing a very good job. As I said, I was making a positive comment about homosexuals not a negative one. You know; olive branch, compromise, acceptance and so on. So no, I do not want to bar homosexuals from any professions.
Fair point. I’d like people to understand where I’m coming from though and understand that I don’t have animosity towards gay people. If anything, I’d admit to feeling perhaps a bit of pity. Of course I know that’s not a good thing. No one wants to be pitied. But I’m just being honest here. I think you’ll find a lot of people feel the same way I do but they’re scared to say how they really feel. Well, I’m being completely open and honest about my motivations and where I’m coming from on this issue. It’s always been my way to be honest and realistic and to stand my ground on the things I think matter; try to negotiate on grounds of less importance; try to reach a compromise with those who have different beliefs. I’m not an extremist; I’m not advocating anything extreme; and I’m not “hating on” gay people or trying to demonise them. Really I get sick of saying this but it looks like that’s what you’re up against if you don’t support gay marriage; if you’re not on the team you’re a “hater”. That’s a mindset is really take issue with and it’s the gay marriage side of the argument that is going to extremes. Think about it logically; there’s no one in America or my country or any other Western country calling for targeting homosexuals in any way. Besides the occasional homicidal maniac(on the gay side too: see link at bottom of page) and some kids calling others “fags” and so on - besides that which could happen to anyone(nerds get picked on too. Maniacs target all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons etc). So basically, I have a hard time seeing any gay “rights” grievances in Western countries. On the contrary I see a highly permissive society that even esteems and promotes homosexuality. That’s why I find it very crude and inappropriate to try to link gay marriage to the (authentic) civil rights movement.
So you’re saying gays aren’t overly represented in certain professions like the theatre? I say they are and the numbers prove it. Anyway, I don’t know why we’re going on about it. Another poster said it was bigoted to say gays are heavily represented in the theatre. If someone thinks that’s a bigoted statement then that person is an idiot and not really worth my time responding to.
And that’s how these things should be dealt with. Someone’s sex life should not be a topic of interest or concern in the workplace. Not for heterosexual or homosexual people.
Agree. Details of an employee’s sex life is neither relevant nor appropriate in the workplace for anyone. And if no one knows you are gay then no one can “discriminate” against you in any way. Not that they would in all likelihood in a Western country like the US. Again, Western countries are extremely permissive and accepting of homosexuality. There really aren’t any legitimate civil rights grievances beyond the few everyday sorts of incidents I mentioned above. For example, you could walk through the streets of New York City in a pink tutu with make up on and it’s highly unlikely anyone would bat an eyelid. But try walking around in a kippah(yarmulke) and you better be looking over your shoulder because the numbers show you’re a target.
My point is to go after real issues such as the treatment of gays in Muslim countries for example. But too many gays are focused on attacking Christianity of all things. A harmless preacher somewhere says he believes sodomy is a sin and he thinks it’s immoral. And this is what these civil rights shysters home in on. Some old fashioned kind of guy; maybe a Southern Baptist or Evangelical: some harmless, quaint guy who’s never so much as harmed a fly in his life; hates violence; gives time, labour and money to charity and helping people. And this is who they are targeting because he believes and says things that gays find objectionable. If I could have a penny every time someone says something I find objectionable I’d be a billionaire. I don’t want to go around silencing people I disagree with or people who say things I find objectionable. But this is how many of these left-wing activists in general operate. A common tactic they use is to blast their megaphones to stop people from being able to speak; they blockade university auditoriums to prevent academics speaking they’ve labelled as “haters”.
So I’m not the radical here. I’m the moderate. And I’m even willing to try to come to terms with the gay community but they make it very hard with their maximalist demands, they’re antagonism of Christians and traditionalists, they’re sexualisation of everything and public indecency, their indoctrination of children - even using them to agitate by refusing to speak all day at school on “Day of Silence” day and so on. It’s one thing after another with this LGBT crowd and there will never be an end to any of it. Give in on one thing then it’s on to the next demand and slowly, inexorably they gnaw away at the fabric of society; always agitating; always antagonising - Jesus in a jar of piss as a work of art and a “statement” or whatever. And yet I don’t advocate targeting people who produce “art” like this and so on. I just put up with it as just one of the costs of living in a relatively free society.
I was pulled up before for using the term “Gaystapo” but I stand by it. Obviously I’m not suggesting any level of organisation to control things behind the scenes or whatever. I’m not a nut. What I am indicating by using such terms is the fascistic-like tactics of radical gay activists. I’ve detailed the sort of stuff I’m talking about on thus forum in depth: physical attacks on church goers, screaming obscenities in public, physically blockading lecture rooms to stop people talking and so on. There was even a gay maniac who was incited by the Southern Poverty Law Centre(who even provided him with the address and aap) to attempt a homocidal rampage at a family values think tank. Fortunately, someone overpowered the guy before he could begin his rampage. He was armed to the teeth and he’s brought along Chic-Fil-A wrappers he said he was going to use to desecrate the bodies of his victims(Chic-Fil-A once donated money to an organisation that has been defacto blacklisted by the gay rights lobby).
So it’s not my side with the nuts. No one I know about is advocating any change in the law or targeting gay people and so on. And no incidence of a traditional marriage activist going into a gay bar and trying to murder a bunch of people. It is the pro-gay marriage side that needs to take a look at itself and purge themselves of the extremists and lunatics. That whole camp is rotten to the core. This is another reason it’s hard to see anything positive in the gay community. They really don’t send the kind of message or present the sort of front that would endear me to anything they had to say.
They used to but T-Nation closed down the SAM thread.
[quote]
You should realize the importance of perception as well. If you don’t want to be considered bigoted in a discussion like this with the stances you take, you should put more care into the selection of your words. [/quote]
Fair enough. I think it’s fair to say some of my words betrayed a certain amount of dislike of the homosexual lifestyle. But there is no hate, vindictiveness or animosity. I merely don’t like it, think it’s unnatural but I realise it will always be an element of society, I feel uncomfortable around overtly homosexual men, find them off putting, have had dealings with more private and conservative gay men and found them a bit easier to deal with. So that’s my honest feelings about this. I guess you could use the word “bigot” to describe me but I prefer the term “chauvinist” myself. Anyway, not comfortable around/don’t think it’s natural or healthy but willing to accept its existence/tolerate it. Yes, I suppose I’m a bit of a chauvinist but I don’t see anything wrong with that. Hate, animosity, spite, vindictiveness - those are feelings I most certainly do not have towards homosexuals. If I had to choose any negative phrase for what I feel it would be pity not hate.
So once again: SexMachine = moderate, reasonable, fair >> One world >> one love >> one life >> we get to carry each other carry each other wooooooo…hoooooo…
Sorry, that was just my U2 impersonation.
Edited - wow that was a really long post. These discussions go on forever.
SM - I am a moderate and reasonable kind of guy, which is why I took the trouble to point out how someone might read the post you wrote and draw those rather reasonable inferences from it. None of those conclusions are a rhetorical stretch. Unfair to you? Perhaps, but that’s a limitation of communication and the point of my last sentence, which you took quite well.
Perception matters, and you have to realize that you are siding with an increasingly unpopular position that has a deep significance to some that goes well beyond your personal problem of being uncomfortable around homosexuals.
That said, I admire your willingness to explain yourself.
