So gay!!!

[One Brow]

That argument was not, and is not, illogical, even though the attempt by gays has failed, to date. Religion has nothing to do with the argument which you portrayed as "illogical."

Irrational thinkers do not change their minds based on rational arguments. In fact, recent research shows that if you argue rationally with an irrational thinker, they will tend to harden their opinion. So, any attempt to appeal to bigots based on rational grounds is an illogical approach. Also, it is ilogical to say that it is necessary, or even helpful, for homosexuality to be gentic in order to acquire a protected status, as other groups can achieve protected status for non-genetic attributes.

Your attempt to make it part of the argument you were trying to criticize was misplaced.

Thanks for your opinion. I disagree.

In effect, you were trying to blow down a straw man by suggesting that the argument you were criticizing was that "Gays can get the same civil rights protections as blacks ONLY IF homosexuality is innate." That was NOT the argument. Any insistence to the contrary is simply a resort to the "straw man" fallacy.

I didn't use anything relating to that particular fallacy. In fact, until you just made that statement, it would have never occurred to me that someone would think that.

There is a vast difference between not saying anything negative vs. having assemblies, introducing transvestites, handing out pamphlets, etc. They are not just treating gay marriage as if it is normal, they are essentially promoting it.

So, following years of oppression, they decide to have an event that makes clear the oppression was misplaced, and that's too much for you?

This is not just a teacher that casually mentions or talks about their partner.

No, it's a teacher talking about sex in a sex education class.

They are having school wide assemblies to introduce their partners and promote their lifestyle.

One per school, right?

When was the last time you've ever heard of a school assembly celebrating heterosexuality and had members of the community profess their love to their heterosexual partner on stage in front of the entire school?

I had teachers regularly portray their love for their spouse in an open forum over many years of grade school and high school. I'm supposed to begrudge homosexuals a chance to make up for all the times they could not say such things, for fear of their jobs?

I'd argue that if a school did hold such an assembly school officials would be blasted for using the education system to promote an anti-gay agenda.

What would the purpose of such a forum be? Why hold a special forum to say what the teachers have been saying all along, many of them for decades?

I have to reiterate that they are basically promoting homosexuality.

The problem with this being?

I'd argue that sex mechanics shouldn't be taught in school at all. Go ahead and discuss pregnancy, abstinence and protection but the mechanics of it should not even be on the table, gay or straight.

You think you can meaningfully discuss pregnancy/disease prevention without discussing the mechanics of sex?

Are you hinting that this parent got loud, verbal and abusive? I would too if the school told me I had no business in my child's "education".

I've never been but in jail for being loud, verbbal, and abusive.

If your child's school started teaching creationism I suspect that you would have a different take on what the school's duty is.

Since creationism is a scientifically invalidated doctrine, absolutely. I'd also have a different take if they taught the earth was flat and that apples fell up from apple trees.

Not so much brain washing as it is indoctrination.

Children spen much more time out of school than in. Parents have more than enough opportunity to put in their viewpoint. YOur claims of indoctrination ring hollow.

Well, I'm glad ya put "normal" in scare-quotes, at least, eh, Chem? Statistically speakin, it aint normal, it's abnormal and deviant (from the "norm").

Except, "normal" means more than "unusual". "Normal" implies there is some sort of standard to be met. Yes, I read the definitions you provided, and the "standard to be met" part is stated or implied in definitions 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8; 5, 6, and 9 refer to technical applicaitons. Homosexuality is unusual and normal.

 

[TroutBum]

This thread makes baby Jesus weep.

 

[One Brow]

I wasn't around at the time but somehow I don't think they paraded interracial couples accross the stage at school,

This probably depends on the state. At the time of Loving vs. Virginia, only 12 states still had miscegenation laws, IIRC.

made books about interracial relationships manadatory reading,

My kids have read such books in school.

handed out pamplets showing interracial couples the best way to pleasure each other

Because that would be different for interracial couples?

and I don't think a single city council published a book showing white men what clubs to frequent to get anonymous black nookie.

Probably not needed.

I'll say it again, there is a vast difference between teaching tolerance vs promotion of an idea. In Mass they are promoting gay relationships.

Please describe why this is a problem.

"... a uniform faith among them that experimenting with a range of homosexual behaviors serves the cause of civil rights."

So, I guess I git it, then, eh? If ya don't "experment with a range of homosexual behaviors," then you're just a bigoted, reactionary, facist who don't wanna "serve the cause of civil rights," eh?

Are you saying the claim is that this is portrayed as the only way to serve civil rights, or just letting out some bigoted snark?

Well, Chem, ya know, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest (see Socarides, 1995). The A.P.A. was strongly motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of social oppression. The desire to "reduce social oppression" is admirable, but the rest of the world didn't really agree. The psychiatric manual used by other nations, i.e., the International Classification of Diseases, kept homosexuality on it's list of mental illnesses until 1992.

So, somehow the APA's judgment was later confirmed by other organizaitons, and this means the APA did act appropriately? Interesting conclusion, there.

Since then, more recent research indicates that homosexuals have an abnormally high rate of certain types of mental problems.

Any theory on the connection which does not rely on social stigma (you know, the type of thing that would be alleviated by affirmaiton, as opposed to tolerance)?

To the extent they have been "persecuted" it is for their behavior, not their country of origin, religion, or sex. Child molestors like members of NAMBLA consider themselves to be "persecuted" too, and maybe they are, but...

I have no problems with pedophiles who have sex with adults, even if the adults look like children. However, the issue of consent means that pedophiles can't have sex with children, they can only rape them.

Assuming that you are willing to "tolerate" child molestors, because they are a "persecuted group," Chem, do you think they should be willing to "settle" for that? Or should they, as a traditionally persecuted group, be entitled to demand more, i.e., affirmation of their behavior?

A child molestor is a rapist. I think toleration of rape, much less affirmaiton of it, is a mistake.

 

[chemdude1232]

Sorry Hopper, I tried getting that Archives journal article at work...apparently only British universities have free access to it. I don't really want to pay $30 to find out that the social stigma of being gay adds to the incidence rate of emotional crumbling among homosexuals, so we'll have to leave that article alone. I'm not being snarky here, but it would behoove you to be able to read the entire article before you start quoting it haphazardly.

And no, molestation of children is not to be condoned, for reasons that others have listed above. To me there is an impassable gap between rape of a child and informed consent of adults, no matter what the genders of the participating parties are.

 

[Beantown]

This thread makes baby Jesus weep.

Thats not a very BYU Cougar thing to say.

 

[TroutBum]

Thats not a very BYU Cougar thing to say.

Shut it, gay flap.

 

[Hopper]

Also, it is ilogical to say that it is necessary, or even helpful, for homosexuality to be gentic in order to acquire a protected status, as other groups can achieve protected status for non-genetic attributes.

This is the statement that's illogical, Eric. It's like saying thay "because Spud Webb (5' 6") can dunk a basketball, it doesn't "help" to be 7' 3," if you want to dunk." Needless to say, extremely few 5' 6" people can dunk, and it takes almost superhuman jumping ability to do so at that height.

And, of course, no one said it was NECESSARY, except you to the degree you are trying to interpret the claim that way for straw man purposes.

 

[Hopper]

"... a uniform faith among them that experimenting with a range of homosexual behaviors serves the cause of civil rights." So, I guess I git it, then, eh? If ya don't "experment with a range of homosexual behaviors," then you're just a bigoted, reactionary, facist who don't wanna "serve the cause of civil rights," eh?

Are you saying the claim is that this is portrayed as the only way to serve civil rights, or just letting out some bigoted snark?

This is my (facetious) version of the straw man argument you were using, Eric. Of course it is not the ONLY way to serve civil rights. But it is not merely "snarky." There's a serious underlying point, which point has been given some elaboration in my prior statements/quotations about Marcuse, ***** theory, and "political correctness."

 

[Hopper]

And no, molestation of children is not to be condoned, for reasons that others have listed above. To me there is an impassable gap between rape of a child and informed consent of adults, no matter what the genders of the participating parties are.

Well, Chem, let me play devil's advocate here (I won't be able to do it well, but I'll try) and try to argue as a NAMBLA member might (recall that NAMBLA had the support of gay rights groups until they were faced with the loss of a lot of cash and prestige if they didn't disassociate themselves from NAMBLA):

Your use of the term "rape" is merely indicative of a bigoted, persecutorial attitude that is a "construct" of a sexually repressive society. Ancient greeks, and many other historical cultures, did not impose prejudical restraints on adult/child sexual activity, precisely because they were not narrow-minded bigots. We are NOT advocating "rape" of children. All of our interactions with children are strictly consensual. They don't object. In fact, as is natural and to be expected, they like, or more accurately, LOVE receiving our attentions and affections.

 

[One Brow]

This is the statement that's illogical, Eric. It's like saying thay "because Spud Webb (5' 6") can dunk a basketball, it doesn't "help" to be 7' 3," if you want to dunk." Needless to say, extremely few 5' 6" people can dunk, and it takes almost superhuman jumping ability to do so at that height.

If attaining civil rights were the same process as dunking a basketball, and having a genetic cause were the same as adding height, sure. However, those are still rational arguments, and rational arguments are ineffective on people who believe for non-rational reasons.

 

[Hopper]

If attaining civil rights were the same process as dunking a basketball, and having a genetic cause were the same as adding height, sure.

And if it's not THE EXACT SAME THING, then "no," Eric? Is that what you're trying to suggest?

However, those are still rational arguments, and rational arguments are ineffective on people who believe for non-rational reasons.

I'm really not sure what you mean by this, or what you think the significance of the clam is. Are you saying that the gays would be stupid to make a rational argument for their case because "irrational" people wouldn't buy it anyway? That's my best guess as to what you intend.

This appears to be just another display of fallacious "all-or-nothing" reasoning, if that's what you mean. The argument is not designed to persuade "irrational" people, but rather presumably rational people, such as judges.

 

[TheItinerantSon]

i wish a dinosaur would eat you.