What's new

So gay!!!

Sure ya do...remember this here:? "Let's say you like exploring caves." But like I said the question aint bout particular decisions or all the factors to begin with.

See, that's part of the problem, eh, Eric? Half the time ya "answer" some question ya aint even been asked, then think you've answered the question.

In fact, I often get the idea that, no matter what question is asked, you will tend to always "answer" the same (different from the one asked) one, i.e., give your answer to the "ultimate question," directly or (usually) indirectly.

That is to say that sometimes you tend to treat every question as though it were "do you think [insert issue here, say "gay marriage"] is right or wrong?"

In this case, after getting several evasive or non-responsive comments in reply, I went out of my way to say what I was NOT asking and what I was asking. What good did it do me? You still chose to answer a question I said I was NOT asking, and ignore the question I said I was asking.

This is so obviously ironic that it just has to be part of aint's whole performance art routine on these boards. Even aint isn't so oblivious he can't see how ridiculous it is to be pouting that another person isn't answering his questions directly, or being 'evasive,' or, my favorite, answering a question he was 'NOT asking.'
 
For a variety of subjective, personal reasons, I don't like homosexuality (well, except for BABES, mebbe). Since I don't "like" it, I can't say I "approve" of it. I would not want my children to grow up to be homos. I wouldn't want them to grow up to be criminals, psychotics, drug addicts, or, God forbid, bottom-feeders either. Just the way I am, ya know?

Would I disown my chillinz just cause they grew up to be what I didn't want them to be? Mebbe, mebbe not, that mght depend. Do I understand that, once they are adults, they are free to make their own choices, right or wrong, whether I approve or not? Sure. Still don't mean I like it, though.

I don't want my chillinz exposed to material or influences that tends to affirm, glamorize, glorify, advocate, or approve of criminal behavior, even though I realize they may grow up to be criminals anyway. What do I care if they're criminals? Well, if they in jail, I can't even hit em up for money, now and again, for just one thang.

I opened up a webpage for some mainstream newspaper a couple days back. It had a story about this gay marriage rulin. But, overwhelming all headlines, and everything else, was about a 3" x 5" color picture of two guys shovin their tongues down each other's throats with the caption: "Gays celebrate court ruling." I didn't care to see that, but the newspaper editors wanted me, and my chillinz, to see it, eh?
 
Last edited:
For a variety of subjective, personal reasons, I don't like homosexuality (well, except for BABES, mebbe). Since I don't "like" it, I can't say I "approve" of it. I would not want my children to grow up to be homos. I wouldn't want them to grow up to be criminals, psychotics, drug addicts, or, God forbid, bottom-feeders either. Just the way I am, ya know?

Would I disown my chillinz just cause they grew up to be what I didn't want them to be? Mebbe, mebbe not, that mght depend. Do I understand that, once they are adults, they are free to make their own choices, right or wrong, whether I approve or not? Sure. Still don't mean I like it, though.

I don't want my chillinz exposed to material or influences that tends to accept, glamorize, glorify, advocate, or approve of criminal behavior, even though I realize they may grow up to be criminals anyway. What do I care if they're criminals? Well, if they in jail, I can't even hit em up for money, now and again, for just one thang.

I opened up a webpage for some mainstream newspaper a couple days back. It had a story about this gay marriage rulin. But, overwhelming all headlines, and everything else, was about a 3" x 5" color picture of two guys shovin their tongues down each other's throats with the caption: "Gays celebrate court ruling." I didn't care to see that, but the newspaper editors wanted me, and my chillinz, to see it, eh?

I opened up this webpage today. It had posts by you in it. I didn't care to see that. I got over it.
 
"During the eighties, when gay activism first became a major cultural force, homosexual leaders launched a campaign that mirrored the civil rights movement. To claim their rights, homosexuals argued (without scientific evidence) that their orientation was a genetic inheritance, like race, and thus deserved the same kind of civil protections the nation had guaranteed to blacks. An inborn, unchangeable fact, after all, could not be subject to moral disapproval. There ensued a successful effort to normalize homosexuality throughout the culture, including a strong push for homosexual marriage, gays in the military, and other signs of civic equality....By the early nineties, many gay activists...began defending the “***** lifestyle” [rhymes with "steer] not as an ineluctable fate but as the result of a fully conscious choice.

Underlying this militant stance was a radical new academic ideology called “***** theory.” A mixture of the neo-Freudianism of counterculture gurus Norman O. Brown and Herbert Marcuse and French deconstruction, ***** theory takes to its extreme limit the idea that all sexual difference and behavior is a product of social conditioning, not nature. It is, in their jargon, “socially constructed.” For the ***** theorist, all unambiguous and permanent notions of a natural sexual or gender identity are coercive impositions on our individual autonomy—our freedom to reinvent our sexual selves whenever we like. Sexuality is androgynous, fluid, polymorphous—and therefore a laudably subversive and even revolutionary force.

It would be tempting to dismiss ***** theory as just another intellectual fad, with little influence beyond the campus, if not for gay activists’ aggressive effort to introduce the theory’s radical view of sexuality into the public schools. Leading the effort is the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educational Network (GLSEN, pronounced “glisten”), an advocacy group founded a decade ago to promote homosexual issues in the public schools. It now boasts 85 chapters, four regional offices, and some 1,700 student clubs, called “gay/straight alliances,” that it has helped form in schools across the country...it is, in fact, a radical organization that has clearly embraced the *****-theory worldview. It seeks to transform the culture and instruction of every public school, so that children will learn to equate “heterosexism”—the favoring of heterosexuality as normal—with other evils like racism and sexism and will grow up pondering their sexual orientation and the fluidity of their sexual identity.

One of the major goals of GLSEN and similar groups is to reform public school curricula and teaching so that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender—or LGBT—themes are always central and always presented in the approved light. GLSEN holds regular conferences for educators and activists with workshops bearing titles such as “Girls Will Be Boys and Boys Will Be Girls: Creating a Safe, Supportive School Environment for Trans, Intersex, Gender Variant and Gender Questioning Youth” and “Developing and Implementing a Transgender Inclusive Curriculum.” Every course in every public school should focus on LGBT issues, GLSEN believes.

As part of its effort to make the public schools into an arena of homosexual and transgender advocacy, GLSEN works assiduously to build a wide network of student organizers. It looks for recruits as young as 14, who in turn are to bring on board other students to form gay/straight alliances or other homosexual-themed student clubs at their schools. Glancing over the biographies of 2002’s student organizers reveals a uniform faith among them that experimenting with a range of homosexual behaviors serves the cause of civil rights.

At the urging of gay/straight alliances, schools across the U.S. have also created “safe” rooms for homosexual or sexually confused students, as if they might not be safe from “hate” and “intolerance” elsewhere in the school...Students who drop by for private discussion about their sexual confusion will often be referred—without parental knowledge—to local chapters of gay and lesbian organizations. If ***** theorists are correct that homosexuality is a free choice, then parents might be forgiven for thinking such advocacy a kind of recruitment.

GLSEN constantly emphasizes the need for tolerance for homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism, but if someone bucks the LGBT party line in a school that follows it, watch out...Chambers decided one day to express his values and wore to school a sweatshirt with the words STRAIGHT PRIDE emblazoned across the front and an image of a man and woman holding hands on the back. The school principal found this expression of support for heterosexuality unacceptable. He forbade Chambers from wearing the sweatshirt in school, explaining that another student had found it offensive.... the principal announced over the school public address system that...the sentiment of “straight pride” seemed intolerant toward homosexuality.

When the two members of the Parents’ Rights Coalition released their tape of the GLSEN-sponsored fisting workshop to the public, the Boston Globe denounced the whistleblowers as fomenters of “intolerance.” For schools to try to indoctrinate children in a radical, minority worldview like that promoted by GLSEN and its allies—a vision that will form those children’s values and shape their sense of selfhood—is a kind of tyranny, one that, in addition, intentionally drives a wedge between parents and children and, as ***** theorist Michael Warner boasts, “opposes society itself.” We must not let an appeal to our belief in tolerance and decency blind us to indecency—and to the individual and social damage that will result from it.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_queering_the_schools.html (More there. Believe it or not, the foregoing was a fairly "condensed" version of the article. If ya aint scared, and likes horror stories, click on that link for more, eh?)

So, ya see, Gay Pride parades down main street, with drag queens prancin and guys in underwear fondlin each other in public, is just fine but do not, NOT, I said, wear a straight pride shirt to school because it is "intolerant to homosexuality." Gays are not seeking "tolerance" they are seeking (demanding) affirmation and immunity from disapproval and will not "tolerate" anything less.

"Kevin Jennings, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, describes the impact of the booklet as "history-changing," and declares that gays "need to receive support from their schools. They need to receive affirmation." And there you have it. This is not about tolerance. It is about affirmation. Anyone who believes that homosexuality is to be tolerated but not encouraged is smeared as a bigot, and now the public schools, in the name of violence prevention, are to become cheerleaders for gay liberation."

https://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_7_16/ai_59643119/
 
Last edited:
At the risk of opening an epically large can of worms here, you have to understand that this is hardly the first phenomenon to have that "tolerance vs. validation" thing going for it.

I remember a few years ago (maybe a full decade now that I think of it) Bobby Knight mentioned that he wanted to start a "White Coaches Association," (or something similarly worded) and was roasted by the national media for having been unfair/impolite/intolerant/[insert appropriate word here] toward minority coaches out there.

As an aside, I would say that a "***** movement" is more about a lifestyle, not what is naturally programmed into homosexuals. I see a difference therein, maybe others won't.

And before it is levied against me...no, I do not believe in affirmation of groups. Tolerance, fine. Affirmation? No.
 
Robert Spitzer is a Columbia psychiatrist who spear-headed the removal of homosexuality from the category of mental disorder in 1973. For decades he was a hero to the gay community, praised and glorified by gay activists as a pillar of reason, enlightenment, and correct thinking. Then sumthin kinda happened. Even though, he says, he had always accepted the common view that homosexuality could not be changed, and still did, he decided to do a study on the question. To quote wiki:

"In 2001, Spitzer delivered a controversial paper at the 2001 annual APA meeting arguing that highly motivated individuals could successfully change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The APA issued an official disavowal of the paper...Two years later, the paper was peer reviewed and published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.[6] The publication decision sparked controversy and one sponsoring member resigned in protest."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(psychiatrist)

The gay community turned on him like a mad dog. For example: "[An] article in the Journal by Wayne Besen [said]: "In the end, however, the real loser is Dr. Spitzer. Whether he was an over-the-hill stage horse galloping toward the limelight or a court jester hood-winked by a scheming religious right is unimportant. What matters is that Spitzer's embarrassing travesty of scholarship will surely go down as his defining work, a professional pockmark that will indelibly taint his once splendid career." uch polemics were justified by the journal's editor, Jack Drescher, because they were said to be a "representative sample of the political reception" of the Spitzer study within the gay community."


What about the APA itself, though? In this here video Spitzer says: "There's a gay activist group that's very strong and very vocal and recognized officially by the American Psychiatric Association--there's nobody to give the other viewpoint...there may be a few who believe it, but they don't talk...I think [gays] have the feeling that in order to get their civil rights it's helpful to them if they can present the view that once you're a homosexual it can never change...they may be right that politically it does help them, but it may not be scientifically correct."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLSLX9Lh08I

So, zup wit dat, ya figure?
 
Last edited:
Sure ya do...remember this here:? "Let's say you like exploring caves." But like I said the question aint bout particular decisions or all the factors to begin with.

Why is that a reason to jump? I can expolore caves without jumping into a blind hole.

See, that's part of the problem, eh, Eric? Half the time ya "answer" some question ya aint even been asked, then think you've answered the question.

You mean, there might be a communication problem between two particular human beings, even when one of those humans is you? Perish the thought! It must be the problem of not-you, because you would never commuicate something insufficiently, eh?

In fact, I often get the idea that, no matter what question is asked, you will tend to always "answer" the same (different from the one asked) one, i.e., give your answer to the "ultimate question," directly or (usually) indirectly.

That is to say that sometimes you tend to treat every question as though it were "do you think [insert issue here, say "gay marriage"] is right or wrong?"

No, I was just answering the question of whether or not I would jump in the hole, outside of that persepctive. Still, I expect for people that are determined to portray their opponents as close-minded, it's much easier to make proclamations about what they are answering than to actually verify the intentions. Saves a whole bunch of time gathering knowledge and understanding, which I suppose those people don't really need or care for, y'know?

In this case, after getting several evasive or non-responsive comments in reply, I went out of my way to say what I was NOT asking and what I was asking. What good did it do me? You still chose to answer a question I said I was NOT asking, and ignore the question I said I was asking.

You asked if I would jump in the hole, I said I wouldn't because I had no good reason to do so. Before, I have said that when there were good reasons, I would jump. So, what questions are you really asking? Because you seem to be doing a poor job of asking them them.

To claim their rights, homosexuals argued (without scientific evidence) that their orientation was a genetic inheritance, like race, and thus deserved the same kind of civil protections the nation had guaranteed to blacks.

That's really poor logic. For example, minority religions have the same civil protections as racial minorities, and they seem to have no genetic component.

By the early nineties, many gay activists...began defending the “***** lifestyle” [rhymes with "steer] not as an ineluctable fate but as the result of a fully conscious choice.

I see no descrepancy being saying that an orientation is relatively fixed but a lifestyle is a choice. The author seems confused.

(More there. Believe it or not, the foregoing was a fairly "condensed" version of the article. If ya aint scared, and likes horror stories, click on that link for more, eh?)

I'm sure it's a great horror story, and from your condensed version, about as realistic as any horror movie you see.

So, ya see, Gay Pride parades down main street, with drag queens prancin and guys in underwear fondlin each other in public, is just fine but do not, NOT, I said, wear a straight pride shirt to school because it is "intolerant to homosexuality." Gays are not seeking "tolerance" they are seeking (demanding) affirmation and immunity from disapproval and will not "tolerate" anything less.

Similarly, don't wear shorts that say "White Pride". When you are in the culturally favored group, you don't need to protest.

This is not about tolerance. It is about affirmation. Anyone who believes that homosexuality is to be tolerated but not encouraged is smeared as a bigot, and now the public schools, in the name of violence prevention, are to become cheerleaders for gay liberation."

Good. Society is richer for the increased diversity that comes from encouraging differences.

Robert Spitzer is a Columbia psychiatrist who spear-headed the removal of homosexuality from the category of mental disorder in 1973. For decades he was a hero to the gay community, praised and glorified by gay activists as a pillar of reason, enlightenment, and correct thinking. ... The gay community turned on him like a mad dog. For example:

Many people in the gay community, most of whom did not seem to understand the results of the study but just the headlines, did. Many did not. Only the simple-minded act like there is some universal "gay community" thought or group.

So, zup wit dat, ya figure?

People being people, yknow?
 
One Brow said:
You asked if I would jump in the hole

I did? Where?

Heh, "as opposed to the practical consequences afterward?" That's what I'm callin a "pragmatic concern."

Are you sayin that "not knowin" how deep the whole is won't affect your decision to either (1) just jump or (2) not jump, Eric?

It aint a matter of "trustin" someone, and the question never was about "trust."

Nor is the question about ALL the factors that would influence a decision.

Or what decision you would make in any PARTICULAR circumstance.

The only question is this: Would the distance of the fall be a "pragmatic concern," whether you knew the distance or not?
 
That's really poor logic. For example, minority religions have the same civil protections as racial minorities, and they seem to have no genetic component.

Naw, it aint a matter of "logic," it's a matter of law, and, as Kicky has already pointed out in this thread, your statement about the law here is incorrect, if you mean to imply that gays are given the same degree of protection as minority religions and racial minorities (which is what the statement you called "illogical" said they were trying to get).

"The Supreme Court has seemed unwilling to extend full "suspect class" status (i.e., status that makes a law that categorizes on that basis suspect, and therefore deserving of greater judicial scrutiny) to groups other than racial minorities and religious groups....the Court has not extended suspect-class status to sexual orientation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause#Suspect_classes

As far as logic goes, of course there's a significant difference, logically. Skin color is unobjectionable and can in no way cause objectionable behavior. Flamers consciously choosing to ride down main street, beatin drums and playin loud-*** gay music while feelin each other up is deliberately chosen behavior.
 
I opened up a webpage for some mainstream newspaper a couple days back. It had a story about this gay marriage rulin. But, overwhelming all headlines, and everything else, was about a 3" x 5" color picture of two guys shovin their tongues down each other's throats with the caption: "Gays celebrate court ruling." I didn't care to see that, but the newspaper editors wanted me, and my chillinz, to see it, eh?

Some of the changes in school curiculum since gay marriage was ruled legal in MA.

https://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!
 
I did? Where?

Sorry, I did focus on the wrong thing.

No, the actual depth of the hole is not a pragmatic concern. The potential depth of the hole is a pragmatic conern.

Naw, it aint a matter of "logic," it's a matter of law, and, as Kicky has already pointed out in this thread, your statement about the law here is incorrect, if you mean to imply that gays are given the same degree of protection as minority religions and racial minorities.

I'm curious how you got that out of this, which has no mention of homosexuals at all.

For example, minority religions have the same civil protections as racial minorities, and they seem to have no genetic component.
 
Is the country better off if our laws bend to the desires of the minority? If the majority of the American people don't support gay marriage, then doesn't Democracy end if judges or "the minority" overrule the desires of the majority? The majority has proven to be wrong at times. But which "side" will lead us astray more oft, the minority or the majority? What happens to our society and country if the laws do not represent the desires or ideals of the majority?

What did the Founding Fathers intend?
 
Is the country better off if our laws bend to the desires of the minority? If the majority of the American people don't support gay marriage, then doesn't Democracy end if judges or "the minority" overrule the desires of the majority? The majority has proven to be wrong at times. But which "side" will lead us astray more oft, the minority or the majority? What happens to our society and country if the laws do not represent the desires or ideals of the majority?

What did the Founding Fathers intend?

Is the country better off if our laws bend to the desires of the minority? If the majority of the American people don't support interracial marriage, then doesn't Democracy end if judges or "the minority" overrule the desires of the majority? The majority has proven to be wrong at times. But which "side" will lead us astray more oft, the minority or the majority? What happens to our society and country if the laws do not represent the desires or ideals of the majority?

What did the Founding Fathers intend?


One word makes a big difference, eh? By the way, our Founding Fathers did intend the courts to overrule laws were unconstitutional, including those that oppressed religious minorities.
 
Sorry, I did focus on the wrong thing.

No, the actual depth of the hole is not a pragmatic concern. The potential depth of the hole is a pragmatic conern.
OK, that's an answer to the question, Eric, thanks.


I'm curious how you got that out of this, which has no mention of homosexuals at all.

Obviously I got it from the CONTEXT of your statement, Eric, not merely the statement itself. You were addressing a statement about methods gays were trying to use to get the same civil rights protections afforded racial minorities.

That context does not change just because you only partially quote the statement being made. The sentence immediately following the part you quoted, for example, says: "An inborn, unchangeable fact, after all, could not be subject to moral disapproval."
 
Last edited:
One word makes a big difference, eh? By the way, our Founding Fathers did intend the courts to overrule laws were unconstitutional, including those that oppressed religious minorities.

That's not so clear-cut, Eric, although that's the way the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution. For centuries since, many have argued (and still argue) that the founding fathers did NOT intend to give the Supreme Court the power to overrule duly-passed legislative enactments.
 
Back
Top