Anti-gay speaker booed off stage at - CPAC?

[rudder]

Millions of Republican bigots on one side of the scale and one Democrat on the other and this blithering idiot is looking for a happy medium.

California cut your med allocation again? Really.. surely you have something more to interject into the discussion other than making across the board assumptions and calling people names. Perhaps a little too much of dmcowen674 has rubbed off on you.

I will simply replace all of your responses in the future with democratsgoodrepublicansbadooompfwaahhh.txt

 

[umbrella39]

Intolerance of intolerance does not make a bigot, but your post makes you one and a poor speller too.

Very well played and spot on. This tired argument is only brought up from those that feed near the bottom.

 

[cwjerome]

I don't know anything about CPAC, but these people may be on the road to realizing that homosexuality is a moral issue and not easily amenable to compromise... you can't properly say "it's sorta ok, but..." Any prejudice publicly challenged by a new consciousness is doomed, and the sooner these people see that the better.

 

[Modelworks]

Homosexuality is a natural condition. It exists in many ways outside of the human species, and is perfectly "normal" in "biologic terms". Normal does not necessarily have to mean common.

I have yet to see what people mean when they refer to "promoting" homosexuality.

While it does exist in other species it is not predominant because it would lead to lower numbers of births which would hurt that species long term survival. Any species that becomes completely homosexual would likely cease to exist. Some argue that humans have the intelligence that they would arrange matings to continue the species, but we can't even manage what we already have , nowhere near the type of social structure that would make a homosexual human race possible.

Promoting homosexuality for me is in things like tv programs where someone tells someone they are gay and the person responds like that person just won a gold medal for saying they are gay. I don't believe we should encourage either heterosexual or homosexual but leave it like when someone says their preference it doesn't become the point of the conversation.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think your rather universal points have some validity. I would, however, point out that tolerance of homosexuality lags behind tolerance for other differences because of a certain particularity - that it is bound up with sex and sexuality, which brings up its own set of insecurities and issues.

- wolf

For those with insecurities and issues.............

 

[mattpegher]

Bigotry is interesting because unlike prejudice it strongly crosses the psychology of hatred. From an anthropologic analysis, hatred of a group of other humans for whom you have no personal experience, may have some advantages in tribal society. Humans are by nature, as are all living things, competitive against their own species and other species that occupy the same niche. In order to compete for resources that would likely lead to the demise of the competition, humans have developed a mechanism by which they develope an emotional reason to desire the death of this competition. The easiest means is to focus on difference that make your enemy unlike you and thus not human and not deserving of tolerance ie sharing of resources.
The irony is that this psychologic mechanism is not rational and can often be counter-productive. So when you are looking for rational arguments from someone proposing intolerance and unfair treatment, you are unlikely to find any. This is why the judiciary is charged with protecting the one from the many, a role that seems to be difficult for them to adhere to.

 

[Moonbeam]

California cut your med allocation again? Really.. surely you have something more to interject into the discussion other than making across the board assumptions and calling people names. Perhaps a little too much of dmcowen674 has rubbed off on you.

I will simply replace all of your responses in the future with democratsgoodrepublicansbadooompfwaahhh.txt

If all you are going to offer yourself is blithering idiocy of the type you have now posted twice, there isn't much to inject but to reaffirm you're a blithering idiot and now twice over.

 

[woolfe9999]

While it does exist in other species it is not predominant because it would lead to lower numbers of births which would hurt that species long term survival. Any species that becomes completely homosexual would likely cease to exist. Some argue that humans have the intelligence that they would arrange matings to continue the species, but we can't even manage what we already have , nowhere near the type of social structure that would make a homosexual human race possible.

Promoting homosexuality for me is in things like tv programs where someone tells someone they are gay and the person responds like that person just won a gold medal for saying they are gay. I don't believe we should encourage either heterosexual or homosexual but leave it like when someone says their preference it doesn't become the point of the conversation.

While homosexuality isn't predominant in any species, bi-sexuality is actually quite prevalent. Male animals will generally **** anything that moves, and when a female of the species isn't on hand, it doesn't seem to matter too much if they substitute a male.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you're referring to here, about a species that is predominantly homosexual. It seems like a strawman, since zsdersw was only saying that it is natural, not that it is predominant.

Can you give me a concrete example about promoting homosexuality in the way you describe in the media? I'm a bit fuzzy as to whether I've ever seen such a thing.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

For those with insecurities and issues.............

If you subscribe to the notion that a large number of people have at least some element of same-sex attraction, then we're talking about potentially quite a few.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

While it does exist in other species it is not predominant because it would lead to lower numbers of births which would hurt that species long term survival. Any species that becomes completely homosexual would likely cease to exist. Some argue that humans have the intelligence that they would arrange matings to continue the species, but we can't even manage what we already have , nowhere near the type of social structure that would make a homosexual human race possible.

Promoting homosexuality for me is in things like tv programs where someone tells someone they are gay and the person responds like that person just won a gold medal for saying they are gay. I don't believe we should encourage either heterosexual or homosexual but leave it like when someone says their preference it doesn't become the point of the conversation.

Your post started out like a young child's view of hmosexuality, and then got worse.

You need to reduce your ignorance before you vote on this issue or speak on it. Nearly all homosexuality is innate, and it occurs universally in human socities at a small percent, perhaps about 3%.

You're arguing with nature. Why are their albinos, why are some people born impotent, or dwarf, or redhead, or blind?


Do you spend time on not 'promoting' being born impotent and the worrisome implications of if everyone was?

If everyone was born gay - that's not going to happen. That's not the condition of nature and there's nothing suggesting it will change from human history where it's remained pretty constant.

If it did, we'd have a problem with reproduction. That would be solvable by gays participating in reproduction for its sake - whether naturally or artificial insimination. But we don't need more growth in population.

You should realize the overwheming idiocy and ignorance in your post. You are discussing the rights of a group of people who are unjustly being treated prejudicially in politics by raising irrelvant discussions of what there's no danger of, some 'universal homosexuality' we could deal with even if it did happen. That's not rational.

You use phrases that show the ignorance - 'promoting homosexuality'. That's like 'promoting being black' - it implies homosexuality is like choosing coke over pepsi. You could hang 'Gay' banners ar ballparks all day with Coke logos and slogans and not increase homosexuality, because it's a natural attribute, not some choice. How do y ou 'promote homosexuality'? By telling the truth about it and saying bigotry is wrong - not to kill, jail, discriminate against gays?

What's this delusion you have about a tv program telling people they're gay? Do you not get interested in the opposite sex in puberty until a tv program says you are not gay?

Your big closing point sounds so reasonable to you on 'not pushing people to be either way' - except that it promotes the falsehood that it has to do with how people are 'encouraged' - It doesn't - and 'not making it part of conversation - which sounds like 'stay in the closet'. So is the topic of relations with the opposite sex going to stay out of your conversations? When gays are unjustly discriminated against, it should be talked about and changed.

Your tolerance for bigotry against a group is disgusting. You need to be more moral and stop the discrimination. If CPAC has morals, they'd condemn the comments against gays.

 

[Craig234]

I don't know anything about CPAC, but these people may be on the road to realizing that homosexuality is a moral issue and not easily amenable to compromise... you can't properly say "it's sorta ok, but..." Any prejudice publicly challenged by a new consciousness is doomed, and the sooner these people see that the better.

Homosexuality isn't a moral issue. Discrimination against homosexuals is a moral issue.

 

[Atreus21]

Intolerance of intolerance does not make a bigot, but your post makes you one and a poor speller too.

Intolerance of intolerance makes you intolerant.

Bigotry towards bigots makes you bigoted.

I don't know how you can get out of that. I begin now to understand what Moonie means by self-hatred.

 

[Craig234]

Intolerance of intolerance makes you intolerant.

Bigotry towards bigots makes you bigoted.

I don't know how you can get out of that. I begin now to understand what Moonie means by self-hatred.

You're wrong.

Let's say you value human life and oppose threats to it.

Then does supporting the killing of a person shooting others with guns if that is the only way to save lives change that? No.

Your comments just show you don't understand what bigotry is.

There's a reason it's discussed as 'unjustified discrimination' - opposing bigots is justified discrimination.

 

[MJinZ]

Intolerance of intolerance makes you intolerant.

Bigotry towards bigots makes you bigoted.

I don't know how you can get out of that. I begin now to understand what Moonie means by self-hatred.

How many people are intolerant of intolerance?

Being intolerant of bigots makes you intolerant, it doesn't make you a bigot. You can't be a bigot of a bigot, go learn what the word means.

Intolerance is perfectly acceptable as a normal person. Being intolerant of waste, inefficiency, incompetence, etc is all part of being a part of our society.

 

[Modelworks]

Nearly all homosexuality is innate, and it occurs universally in human socities at a small percent, perhaps about 3%.

Where did I argue otherwise ?

You're arguing with nature. Why are their albinos, why are some people born impotent, or dwarf, or redhead, or blind?

Where did I say it was not natural for someone to be born different ? I only said it is not normal for the species.

Do you spend time on not 'promoting' being born impotent and the worrisome implications of if everyone was?

I spend no time at all promoting any issue relating to sex, creed , or color. Each individual is unique and I respect that.

If everyone was born gay - that's not going to happen. That's not the condition of nature and there's nothing suggesting it will change from human history where it's remained pretty constant.

If it did, we'd have a problem with reproduction. That would be solvable by gays participating in reproduction for its sake - whether naturally or artificial insimination. But we don't need more growth in population.

If you read what I wrote I addressed that issue and it was hypothetical.

You are discussing the rights of a group of people who are unjustly being treated prejudicially in politics by raising irrelvant discussions of what there's no danger of, some 'universal homosexuality' we could deal with even if it did happen. That's not rational.

Nowhere did I say any of what you suggest.

You use phrases that show the ignorance - 'promoting homosexuality'. That's like 'promoting being black' - it implies homosexuality is like choosing coke over pepsi. You could hang 'Gay' banners ar ballparks all day with Coke logos and slogans and not increase homosexuality, because it's a natural attribute, not some choice. How do y ou 'promote homosexuality'? By telling the truth about it and saying bigotry is wrong - not to kill, jail, discriminate against gays?

Again, you fail at comprehension.

What's this delusion you have about a tv program telling people they're gay? Do you not get interested in the opposite sex in puberty until a tv program says you are not gay?

Again fail at comprehension.

Your big closing point sounds so reasonable to you on 'not pushing people to be either way' - except that it promotes the falsehood that it has to do with how people are 'encouraged' - It doesn't - and 'not making it part of conversation - which sounds like 'stay in the closet'. So is the topic of relations with the opposite sex going to stay out of your conversations? When gays are unjustly discriminated against, it should be talked about and changed.

Where are you getting all this stuff that I never said ? You are making up stuff.

When people do not make sexual preference a big deal in the conversation it goes away as a topic used for discrimination. If someone tells me they are gay and I just act like they told me the sky is blue that means it is a non issue for me, which is how it should be. If someone tells me they are gay and I tell them how great it is they are gay that makes them separate from the majority not part of it. The same effect asking someones race on a job application has.

Your tolerance for bigotry against a group is disgusting. You need to be more moral and stop the discrimination. If CPAC has morals, they'd condemn the comments against gays.

What bigotry? Have you volunteered with disabled or Aids victims who some of which were gay ? I have. Is two of your uncles gay ? Mine are and good friends to me, but that must mean I'm a bigot unlike you who thinks they are helping the issue by condemning anyone who disagrees instead of trying to understand and change their thinking . The same thing that those who hate gay people are doing. The two of you need to get together in a room and beat the crap out of each other, yeah that will fix things.

 

[Mursilis]

So, do you believe it's a choice?

To me, that's completely irrelevant to the issue of how gov't and the law should treat it. Choice or not, as long as it involves only consenting adults, the law need not be involved.

Good for the CPAC audience. Maybe we'll see a return to classic conservatism after all.

 

[Mursilis]

Homosexuality isn't a moral issue.

Of course it is. It doesn't have to be immoral to be a moral issue.

 

[zsdersw]

If you read what I wrote I addressed that issue and it was hypothetical.

You said the following:

While it does exist in other species it is not predominant because it would lead to lower numbers of births which would hurt that species long term survival.

That does not read as hypothetical.

 

[Modelworks]

Anyway, I'm not sure what you're referring to here, about a species that is predominantly homosexual. It seems like a strawman, since zsdersw was only saying that it is natural, not that it is predominant.

I was just bringing up a discussion I was reading on the topic from both sides last month and one of the arguments were what would happen if the human race were to switch from heterosexual to homosexual. A lot of the counter arguments were that we would organize it so births would still occur. I disagree with that because right now the way we handle social issues is pretty bad and implementing something like that just wouldn't work for now.

Can you give me a concrete example about promoting homosexuality in the way you describe in the media? I'm a bit fuzzy as to whether I've ever seen such a thing.

- wolf

It often occurs in programs where they make being gay the focus of the conversation where when someone says they are gay the whole topic shifts to that person being gay. Maybe promoting is the wrong word as I don't mean they are making people want to be gay by discussing the topic but that they are making the topic stand out as something that makes the person unusual from other people.

 

[Craig234]

Of course it is. It doesn't have to be immoral to be a moral issue.

Of course it isn't. The mistake common against people who support discrimination against gays - which would already be a problem even if they were right - is that it's 'a choice'. Generally, it isn't.

Is being born albino a moral issue? Born short? Born of a certain race?

Admittedly, some issues are treated as 'moral issues' wrongly - but are often corrected and then no longer views as 'moral issues'.

Also admittedly, moral issues aren't the same as immoral - that's why they're issues.

But if you see someone say all dark skinned people are immoral because they're marked by their skin for immoral behavior, that's not a 'moral issue' of being dark skinned.

And homosexuality is generally an innate nsatural trait - which lacking the human free choice morality is about, means it is not a moral issue.

 

[Modelworks]

You said the following:

While it does exist in other species it is not predominant because it would lead to lower numbers of births which would hurt that species long term survival.

That does not read as hypothetical.

hypothetical - (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.


I am all for wishing that the human race would do the right thing if it were to happen , but history shows otherwise.

 

[zsdersw]

hypothetical - (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.

Perhaps you should've availed yourself of that definition before using the word.

 

[Mursilis]

Of course it isn't. The mistake common against people who support discrimination against gays - which would already be a problem even if they were right - is that it's 'a choice'. Generally, it isn't.

Is being born albino a moral issue? Born short? Born of a certain race?

Admittedly, some issues are treated as 'moral issues' wrongly - but are often corrected and then no longer views as 'moral issues'.

Also admittedly, moral issues aren't the same as immoral - that's why they're issues.

But if you see someone say all dark skinned people are immoral because they're marked by their skin for immoral behavior, that's not a 'moral issue' of being dark skinned.

And homosexuality is generally an innate nsatural trait - which lacking the human free choice morality is about, means it is not a moral issue.

We're clearly using different definitions of what defines a moral issue, and I'm going to just leave it at that, since most debates on semantics are pointless.

Regarding choice, and the highlighted paragraph, I personally don't consider whether an action is a "choice" when I consider whether it's also "moral" or not. For example, I've read studies suggesting a link between genetic factors and tendencies toward violence. Even if murderers may have little 'choice' in their explosive dispositions, I still consider murder to be immoral. Likewise, many pedophiles have claimed they've had sexual attraction toward children since birth; i.e., it's not a choice. That may be true, but sexual conduct with a child should still remain a crime.

Regarding homosexuality, as I already discussed above, we as a society need not concern ourselves with whether it's "moral" or "immoral" - if it only involves consenting adults, the gov't and the law need not be involved, or need only be neutral in their treatment of it. To me, it's similar to divorce, which some religions prohibit, but the law does (and should) not. If Joe Citizen considers divorce immoral, Joe and Sally Citizen should stay married, but not prohibit John and Jane Doe from separating if they decide their marriage is not longer working. The Doe's divorce doesn't affect the Citizen's marriage at all.

 

[woolfe9999]

Regarding homosexuality, as I already discussed above, we as a society need not concern ourselves with whether it's "moral" or "immoral" - if it only involves consenting adults, the gov't and the law need not be involved, or need only be neutral in their treatment of it. To me, it's similar to divorce, which some religions prohibit, but the law does (and should) not. If Joe Citizen considers divorce immoral, Joe and Sally Citizen should stay married, but not prohibit John and Jane Doe from separating if they decide their marriage is not longer working. The Doe's divorce doesn't affect the Citizen's marriage at all.

This. And I would add: nor does the marriage of JOHN and LARRY DOE affect the marriage of JOE and SALLY CITIZEN.

- wolf

 

[Mursilis]

This. And I would add: nor does the marriage of JOHN and LARRY DOE affect the marriage of JOE and SALLY CITIZEN.

- wolf

Logically, yes, that seems to follow. Which is why I don't oppose gay marriage.