What if words are not enough?

Forum posts

• 25 March 2005, 05:11

  hmmmmmmm. interesting.........
  I have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a lot like mullets [the haircut]
  There is a choice involved.
  Once chosen, the result gets much attention, but it is high maintainance, flamboyant, with a very low utility quotient and essentially a pointless waste of time.
  There are differences of course.
  Having your hair cut in a mullet does not immediately confer upon one a taste for bad Broadway show tunes, a talent for interior decoration, put one at high risk for A.I.D.s and other S.T.D.’s or make one the mayor of New York City.
  Concomitantly, not all homosexuals look like John Travolta or Billy Ray Cyrus [although most probably wish they did].
  Not that homosexuals have not contributed to the advancement of society and human culture.
  1. They have done yeomans work toward lowering human birth rates though not through their own sexual practices as much as their constant talk about sex, sex, sex. As a result they have succeeded in what just a few short years earlier would have been considered impossible: they have made sex boring. 2. Lesbianism has given ugly girls something to do with their time that does not involve cluttering up straight pickup bars and occupying barstools that would otherwise be occupied by some hetero hottie. 3. Their predilection for contracting killer S.T.D.’s has made them into the guinea pig replacement of choice of the medical community. 4. They have been in the vanguard of development of interesting and profitable sex accessories such as dental dams, impenetrable beryllium plate condoms [with reservoir tip] , fascinating drug cocktails and depleted uranium anal suppositories. 5. They give pathetic has been old hags like Barbra Streisand and Liza Minnelli a reason to live. 6.They have turned whining into a new form of performance art.
  The reson homosexuals only make up about 3.5% of the population is Darwinian in it’s uncluttered crystalline logic: They are biologically unneccessary. Homosexuality is a form of pre death extinction, for all their frenetic, desperate, compulsive "sexual" activity, they are neuter, null and void.

  • 30 March 2005, 21:33

    To the author of the previous comment:

    Based on your statements, I am strongly persuaded that you do not know enough about the subject matter to present an informed opinion.

    Homosexuality is a choice? This sweeping statement is commonly asserted by people who want to appear open-minded, but inwardly have already made up their minds. Trust me, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, but I won’t bore you with details if you prefer to ignore them anyway.

    Based on your faulty premise, you go on promoting your bias, along with the stereotypes you have adopted that support it, thinly disguising your uneducated opinion as humor, perhaps so that you don’t have to back up your statements. I will back up mine, however. The premise is faulty not because homosexuality is NEVER a choice, but because it cannot be ASSUMED to be a choice. Most heterosexuals have a strong aversion to homosexual behavior; likewise, most homosexuals have a strong aversion to heterosexual behavior. (Whether this value is culturally instilled is another matter entirely, but suffice to say that the evidence is strong to the point of conclusive that it IS.) Is it a choice as a heterosexual not to ENGAGE in homosexuality? For most heterosexuals, the answer is "Yes". Is it your choice not to BE homosexual? No. You must grant the converse of this to the homosexual population, or you are applying a double standard.

    Regarding your subsequent slandering and mudslinging, may I suggest to you that perhaps it is inappropriate to characterize a phenomenon by the most extreme examples of it you can find or contrive? I know it makes for a less exaggerated opinion piece, and therefore less suited for today’s soundbite society, but do you really crave validation so badly that you will distort or ignore reality to get it? (If yes, well, you’re far from alone — but shame on you anyway.)

    And to the editor of this webpage:

    As I write this I see the statement, "caution : we will erase messages with caractere defamatory, abusive, xenophobe, sexist, the threats, politic and commercial advertising..."

    Am I to understand, then, that the previous post was NOT abusive, does NOT contain character defamation, is NOT xenophobic or sexist?

    Where I come from, twisting the truth to make a person or group seem ridiculous and worthy of humiliation is considered abuse and defamation of character. And it is usually perpetrated by xenophobes. In this case, since it is sexual orientation that is under the microscope, xenophobia equates also to sexism.

    There is no character defamation or abuse, however, in acknowledging that a person is uninformed, or in exposing his or her duplicity. I denounce willful ignorance and deception, for these things are anathema to a civilized society, but I support and encourage the impulse to correct these things and to become better than we are, individually and collectively.

• 31 March 2005, 02:57

  from the author of the previous comment;
  sir, or madam [as the case may be]; Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Friedrich Nietzsche, Gerhardt Rossbach, Edmund Heines, Ernst Rohm, Oscar Wilde and Ann Heche [Ellen De Generes found out the hard way] are numbered among the many millions who consider it a choice. The Homosexual activists that are expending a great amount of political capital and hysterical energy trying to invade the management of the Boy Scouts of America also know it is a choice. They see the Boy Scouts as the ultimate recruiting opportunity. The membership of N.A.M.B.L.A. [North American Man- Boy "Love" Association] know it is a choice, their presence and recruiting banners trumpet their knowledge and their intentions annually at every major "Gay Pride" gathering in North America.
  Face facts kid, it’s a habit, much like smoking cigarets but more annoying and much more dangerous.
  I was expecting a response like yours [see #6 above]. You people are nothing if not predictable.
  Also, I was not surprised by your appeal to the webmaster: everyone should be censored except thoe with whom you agree. SEIG HEIL!!!!
  But seriously now, have a nice life, and get straight..........you’ll be better for it.

  love & kisses
  Mike with the tinfoil hat

  • 1 April 2005, 22:14

    Mike,

    I appreciate that you took the time to present some background information to support your opinion. However, there are many things you have not considered.

    You state that, with respect to homosexuality, "Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Friedrich Nietzsche, Gerhardt Rossbach, Edmund Heines, Ernst Rohm, Oscar Wilde and Ann Heche [Ellen De Generes found out the hard way] are numbered among the many millions who consider it a choice. "

    A thing is not true because many people consider it so. The earth is not flat and the sun does not revolve around it, gravity does not make heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, etc. Further, you seem to overlook the fact that philosophers present alternative ways to think about things, not absolute answers. They are not experts on human behavior; that is not why they are valued by society. And the science of psychology is in its infant stages. So whatever Aristotle, Nietzsche, Freud, etc. may have thought, this still only amounts to anecdotal evidence.

    Additionally, I never contradicted the notion that homosexuality MAY be a choice. I said that one cannot ASSUME it to be a choice. If you want to adhere to the notion that it IS a choice in every case (or even most), it’s going to take quite a bit more than "so-and-so said so" to build a solid case, no matter how famous "so-and-so" is. Aristotle (and many others you mentioned) was demonstrably wrong about a great many things. All of the people you mentioned had the capacity to err, and did so. And for every source you may care to name that asserts that homosexuality is a choice, there is another one waiting in the wings that says it is not. So that’s a very weak argument.

    As to your subsequent assertion that it is not only a choice, but a habit as well, you seem to be confusing the concept of a BEHAVIOR PATTERN with that of a sexual orientation. This goes to the point I made in my first post, which was that whether or not to engage in a sexual practice CAN be considered a choice, but it says nothing at all about whether the impulse to engage in that act is related in any way to choice. Heterosexual behavior, then, is a habit too — and it has the same inherent dangers associated with it as homosexual behavior, plus a few of its own. We can discuss why a few of these dangers are statistically greater for homosexuals, if you like.

    You also state, "You people are nothing if not predictable," and "But seriously now, have a nice life, and get straight..........you’ll be better for it," thereby engaging in YOUR repeatedly demonstrated dangerous habit of making sweeping assumptions. I am not homosexual, and have no desire to engage in homosexuality, though I don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong with it. I merely operate from the premise that individuals are worthy of basic respect without regard to sexual orientation (or race, religion, country club membership, etc.). You have to EARN my disrespect (or increased respect) and you may do so only by your own actions.

    I don’t believe you should be censored, as you falsely assert. I DO believe, however (and millions would agree — I understand that you give credence to a point that is backed up by that fact) that it is a morally flawed practice to denigrate individuals because of an opinion of the group to which they belong, ESPECIALLY (but certainly not only) when membership in that group may not be by choice.

    As for the political landscape, I agree wholeheartedly that there is quite a bit of ethically unsound behavior going on with regard to homosexuality. But it has to be taken in context. Homosexuals are a group of people who HAVE BEEN and CONTINUE TO BE discriminated against. And, the United States is a "free" country. So, the combination of getting pushed and being legally allowed to push back leads to the current situation. If discriminatory practices were legally rendered null and void, the push back would lessen dramatically. But there are, in fact, complex and delicate ethical issues associated with these questions, and there are no simple solutions except brutal and unenlightened ones. Also, there are many "special interest" groups (i.e. NAMBLA) that hitch a ride on the equal rights bandwagon in order to promote their agenda, even when theirs is really a separate issue. For example, NAMBLA has the whole "consenting adults" matter to deal with. If it were NAMGLA or NAWGLA instead, dealing with adult sex with juvenile girls, it would still get hung up on the same moral issue: sex with minors. And that doesn’t even scratch the surface of the political aspects, but it should be remembered that political issues are not the same as ethical and moral issues, even though there may be some overlap.

    You have to be able to discern what is actually going on in order to deal with it, even to the point of forming your opinions, in a mature and responsible way. You have to be willing to ferret out your own assumptions (which are not always obvious to yourself), and explore the limits of their validity, and truly accept that it is better to seek out the truth of a matter than to cling to a belief system in the face of contradictory evidence. And it is quite honorable to present your opinion, whatever it may be, with the caveat that you may be wrong or not entirely right. If you don’t leave yourself any wiggle room for doubt, then you have closed your accounts with reality and can no longer be considered a rational person.

    Personally, unlike a great many people, I am not afraid of a world that is not cast in black and white. I would rather be wrong, and find out about it, than be wrong and refuse to admit the possibility. And I am fully willing to engage in the process of shaping it to the betterment of society. This cannot be done unless we respect the individuals that comprise it.

  • 2 April 2005, 04:30

    My friend, your assumptions and my assumptions carry equal weight.
    Discrimination against homosexuals has been a universal characteristic of every human society since the beginning of recorded history, and for good reason.
    Their revolutionary character and the corrosive and destructive effect they have had on every society in which they have gained ascendance is historically axiomatic; From classical Greece to Belle Epoche Germany, politically and societally they corrupt and destroy everything they touch, for they are spiritually, emotionally, and ethically self alienated and self isolated. Truth to them is relative, and because of this, real logic of thought is unattainable. They live for the gratification of their senses. The ultimate narcississts, they will not turn away from the mirror long enough to seek any abstract or real weltanschauung.
    Discrimination is a virtue.
    We must discriminate between milk and poison.
    We must discriminate between noise and music
    We must discriminate between lies and truth.
    Man’s ability to discriminate, in partnership with self discipline, has been the creator and preserver of civilization for eighty centuries.
    Without the ability to discriminate we would be nihilistic beasts enslaved to and driven by icthyphallic lust in the same way a small man is dragged by a large leashed dog.
    It is right and good that homosexuals should be discriminated against.
    When a society cannot, or, will not defend itself, it will most assuredly collapse into nihilistic chaos. When this happens, everyone will suffer. Even homosexuals.

  • 2 April 2005, 19:55

    I can see that this discussion is on the verge of descending into semantic issues and leaving the original subject by the wayside. I will attempt to nip this in the bud.

    Discrimination does, indeed, have a meaning like the one you describe in your "Discrimination is a virtue" aside toward the end of your post. Another word for that sense of discrimination is discernment.

    However, we don’t "discern against" — the very notion is nonsensical — although we may "discriminate against", which is the context in which the word was introduced to this discussion. The dictionary definition of this type of discrimination is: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice." My meaning was quite clear, but you veered away from it. Whether this was inadvertant or intended to create confusion in a discussion that you perhaps feel is not going your way, let’s acknowledge your mistake, clear the air, and get back to the real point. Your statements about discernment are valid on their own, but they are incongruent with the discussion already in progress. If you intend to introduce a new point, you would do well to make a clean break from the old one. Use different language, or at least plainly state that you are using a different meaning of the language already in use. That way, you will not run the risk of appearing disingenuous or naïve.

    Now, to respond to the relevant part of your post....

    You state that "your assumptions and my assumptions carry equal weight," (and then promptly abandon the point you raise). Perhaps your statement is true, perhaps not. This depends on what the assumptions are, and whether they are based on observation, ideology, emotional reflex, etc. An assumption that is based on a repeatable observation carries more weight than one that is contained in an abstract and untestable ideology, or one that emerges from an unexamined emotional bias. Any assumption may be wrong enough to lead to incorrect conclusions, but only one of the types mentioned can be shown to be based on something REAL, and can therefore be re-evaluated and improved based on REALITY. But why stop there? Help me out, friend; illuminate me. Follow through on your statement. As far as I’m aware, I have made precious few assumptions, and you certainly didn’t mention any. So while any assumptions I make may be wrong, I cannot hope to evaluate them if I don’t know what they are. I did you this courtesy, but somehow your reciprocation seems more like backbiting than constructive input.

    You go on: "Discrimination against homosexuals has been a universal characteristic of every human society since the beginning of recorded history, and for good reason."

    This is patently false. I don’t know the basis of your assumption here, but I do know that it is wildly inaccurate. If you wish to disabuse yourself of this ignorance, one way is to read the book, "Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia", edited by Gilbert H. Herdt. It is available for purchase through the University of California Press, at:

    http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/1812.html

    A summary of the book is available at:

    http://www.nathanielwandering.net/Wandering%20Melanesia.htm

    This only took me about 5 minutes of web-surfing to discover. If you are genuinely interested in non-relative truth, as you imply when you state that "Truth to [homosexuals] is relative, and because of this, real logic of thought is unattainable," you must be willing to admit your errors, at least to yourself, and correct them. (Public apology for spreading misinformation is optional.)

    Discrimination against homosexuals is neither universal among the world’s societies (past or present), nor in all probability universal within any given one. As another example, from http://www.gettingit.com/article/56, "Spartan soldiers were carnal tent-comrades when they conquered Greece in the Peloponnesian War. They believed genital bonding between buddies enhanced battlefield loyalty and valor. The warlike Romans — Mediterranean masters for 500 years — were also a pederastic people. Catullus’ poems reveal that men seeking boys’ bottoms were not regarded as sissies; the habit was at least as ’studly’ as pursuing women."

    A few other well-researched articles on the role and incidence of homosexuality in society may be viewed at:

    http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/MARINDANIM.HTM
    http://members.aol.com/hopemaledotcom/prevent.html
    http://www1.chapman.edu/wilkinson/socsci/sociology/Faculty/Babbie/e211/Ch04-Sexuality.html

    You may be surprised to discover that homosexuality in THIS (United States) society is often strongly linked to the poor parenting practices of socially and intellectually immature heterosexual couples. (There’s no shortage of THOSE traits.) Still, this doesn’t mean that homosexuality only results from errors. In many, many other cultures (and even within some subcultures of this one) homosexuality is not deviant, but normal, and accepted, and expected. And the possibility that the trait may emerge independently of environmental factors has never satisfactorily been resolved either way.

    The HARD FACTS (which I trust in your ability to discern to separate from the authors’ assumptions) effectively invalidate the remainder of your CHARACTER-DEFAMATORY AND XENOPHOBIC statements about homosexuals, namely:

    "Their revolutionary character and the corrosive and destructive effect they have had on every society in which they have gained ascendance is historically axiomatic,"

    "...politically and societally they corrupt and destroy everything they touch, for they are spiritually, emotionally, and ethically self alienated and self isolated,"

    "They live for the gratification of their senses. The ultimate narcississts, they will not turn away from the mirror long enough to seek any abstract or real weltanschauung."

    History does not show that Sparta fell because of homosexuality. Moreover, the Melanesian cultures referenced above have not failed at all, except by external interference. Their societies and cultural mores have been stable for many, many centuries. And the homosexuality that is part and parcel of these cultures is not narcissistic in nature, but is considered a rite of passage into manhood.

    I understand that I have presented many ideas that are very different from the cultural values you hold. Don’t be afraid. You don’t have to become gay to realize and admit that it is a natural form of human expression. It may not be natural to you or me, but we are hardly the standard by which the human race measures itself. In fact, there are myriad standards, and the "correctness" of the standards is measured by how well they work for the people who hold them. Moreover, if the standards cause their adherents to do harm to other peoples simply because they have different standards, then from a more universal standpoint that acknowledges that the human race is all one extended family, or society, the standards DON’T work.

    I know that this conflicts with the ever-popular dichotomistic models by which simplistic thinkers prefer to reduce this overwhelmingly diverse world to absolute notions of "good" and "bad" elements, but such people would do well to realize that they CREATE social problems with this world view. The "discernment" at work here pivots on the grand assumption that their ideology is "the correct one".

    Now, will you continue to suppress realities that challenges your beliefs, and remain safely swaddled in a cocoon of ignorance that you share with so many others? (Safety in numbers, after all. The larvae all murmur assent.) Or will you finally discover within yourself TRUE courage, that runs deeper than your hand-me-down convictions, and emerge from the static, filtered world of black and white to engage in the greater world as a strong and capable individual, unafraid of a diverse and dynamic world, and unencumbered by the mental clutter that causes cascading errors in judgement to propagate endlessly?

    Be bold. Don’t stagnate. Be willing to face your fears, discover your errors, and undergo the metamorphosis. Emerge from your ignorance, don’t hide beneath it and dream that you are free. Become a new and better creature.

    That is to say, grow up.

  • 3 April 2005, 00:47

    Well the Catholic church has thrived on homosexuality which totally disproves your "theory" about history and homosexuality. Few people know this about the dead pope, he used to be an actor on stage, and not to defame all actors, but many of them are of the homosexual persuasion, and the fact that JPII defended the child rapes and the rapists by saying that the first time offenders should get a slap on their limp wrists is just another subtle message about his own "Persuasion" if the truth could be known, it is my guess that JPII’s long time campanion "secretary" was also a live-in lover. But of course like the Vatican itself, this will be a tightly guarded secret and never be revealed. However, studies that have been published reveal that more than half of all candidates to the seminary are homosexual and that this does not "disqualify" them in anyway. They must stipulate celebacy as a condition of priesthood, but who is enforcing this promise....obviously no one.

  • 3 April 2005, 06:41

    My friend, I must keep this brief...........First, it strikes me that you are the victim of your religion.
    It seems that you mostly seek out and study only sources that affirm your particular weltanschauung. My particular view is that , ever since the propagandistic debacle of Margaret Mead’s "Coming of Age in Samoa" ,simply out of self defense and a desire not to waste precious time, I am forced to totally dismiss all such similar writings as the work of crypto ideologues with an agenda to push. Your comments about Sparta are for the most part correct, but it was a small state, and it’s energies were quickly dissipated after the wars against the Persian empire and the Pelopponesian wars; Sparta, being a slave state where all the real work was done by the "helot" slave underclass possibly left the boys with too much time on their hands. Also, Xenophon, in his "Anabasis" makes comments that would lead one to believe that homosexuality at that time was rather uncommon and noteworthy, although, not particularly worthy of censure. As to your Roman reference it has been my experience that for every Roman worthy that makes approving or accepting reference to homosexuality, you will find a Roman moralist who disapproves. It is becoming obvious that we are both students of history, and honesty compells us to admit that no matter how much time we invest in study, we will never know the whole truth about the ancient world. Perhaps back then, like today every city, every "polis" had its own mores and attitudes. If I recall correctly Corinth and Ephesus were notorious for sexual profligacy. Ancient San Francisco’s if you will. Time impinges, and I must go, but before I do I would like to admit a certain glad satisfaction in finding an opponent that keeps the discourse reasonably high and does not lower himself [herself?] to the kind of "screw you, eat crap" discourse that I so frequently find on this website.
    Bonne chance..............God bless. Mike

  • 3 April 2005, 07:55

    Sir, I will speak plainly.

    When a man seeks to be a Roman Catholic priest he agrees to a lifetime of celibacy.
    When and if he breaks this contract, he, de-facto, ceases in essence to be a priest.
    The problem in the Roman Catholic church is not a priest problem, it is a lying, predatory homosexual problem. Homosexuals, wrapping themselves in the cloth of the church as camoflage [in the same way they would wrap themselves in Boy Scout uniforms] in order to aid them in their stalking pursuit of vulnerable, naieve young men. The only sin of the church has been the sin of compassion, in that when these predators are exposed, in stead of abandoning them to their fate, the church tries to rehabilitate them. Your ad-hominem slander against the late Pope reveals that it is not an objective search for truth that animates you, but a visceral reflexive hatred of both homosexuals and Roman Catholics. Hatred is a cancer that consumes its bearer. Rid yourself of it before it consumes you.