posted
When I first typed it, it was KarlEd is people! Then I thought about soylent green and decided to reword it. I guess I should have reworded it even more!
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently, we're not the only board with this thread....
(Edited by KACard to remove the link. Don't care if you refer to it and I'm not deleting the quotes from this site - for now - but I don't have to open a window to other people's garbage in Hatrack. I think you did it with the best intentions, Pat, to show that it could be MUCH worse than here -- but I'm not comfortable with it leaking in.)
posted
Well, yeah, they're a lot cruder than posters here... but it's an interesting read.
quote:What's most interesting about this is how Card's making the tragic mistake that his characters always make in his own books. The Ender series is largely about the violence caused by the inability to understand the Other - the Buggers in Ender's Game are depicted as That Which Will Bring Ruin To Our Way Of Life. Ender leads a slaughter of them, only to encounter their Queen and learn that the creatures are sentient and the war's predicated on fear of the unknown.
quote: No. Really. I've read many of Card's books. The theme of child abuse runs through most of them. And following his main characters leaves me with the impression that many are homosexual. I seriously think this quote is autobiographical.
"The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally."
Card is speaking about himself here.
Try this - Reread the entire article, or better yet one of Card's books, such as "The Lost Boys", and imagine it is written by a man who is struggling with the abuse he suffered as a child and his own homosexual yearnings.
Think about it. Card is obviously a very intelligent person. and yet the article is filled with assertions given as fact which are so ridiculous that we can't even believe we're reading them. This is a man who wants to be caught. And wants to be outed. Don't read it as the ranting of a crazy man, but as a cry for help from so deep inside that Card himself doesn't even see it.
I think if you read it again in that light you'll see what i mean. posted by y6y6y6 at 4:06 PM PST on February 26
posted
That, of course, is the flip-side to the "homosexuals must have been molested" drivel. The "homophobes must be secretly self-hating homosexuals" drivel.
Dagonee Edit: to make both sides equally drivelous.
posted
It's also interesting that OSC has changed the column title to "Civilization Watch". IS that just a one-off title, Geoff, or is this a new permanent title?
posted
It isn't the first one that has been titled civilization watch. I think he started using it when is 'war watch' topics started drifting away from the subject of international politics.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally...I wish he wouldn't spend so much time on "War Watch" and/or "Civilization Watch" and instead work on a new "Pastwatch".
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, that other forum had some pretty interesting opinions. The only difference I see between it and here is the rampant use of obscenities. They don't really seem less informed, just a group of people who are, unlike here, not brought together out of a mutual respect for Card's writing.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I'm finally going to begin posting in this thread. I'm going to do a chapter-by-chapter breakdown of OSC's article, but first I'll dedicate this post to Dagonee and his contention that anti-homosexuals are not, in fact, bigots, since so many of them wrap their homophobia (or anti-homosexuality, if that's a preferable term) in the mantle of religion.
First, let's start out with the essential definition of a bigot. Rather ironically, the term stems from "by God."
quote:big•ot n. 1. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
While these definitions essentially make the case for me, I'll elaborate further. Bigots are often characterized by their pre-determination of another group, be that group recognized by its socio-economic class, race, sex, or sexuality. Determining that all blacks are criminals, for example, is an obviously bigoted statement -- clearly, not all black people are criminals, and the person declaring thus lacks the experience and/or tolerance to back up his/her unreasonable beliefs. Or so I'd assume; if there are reasons to believe all black people are criminals, I'm open to hearing them, though my personal experience alone disproves the claim's sweeping generalizations.
I hope we can all agree, at least, that making such a pre-determination of any group, be it racial or sexual, is a bigoted act. Is it any less bigoted if you wrap that bigotry in religious context? If I were to claim I believe God believes all blacks are criminals, am I any less a bigot? (I've never heard of a case in which a person disbelieved something his/her god(s) believed -- however, to be politically correct, I'll throw in the disclaimer that most, if not all, religious zealots believe what they believe their god(s) believe. That is, I somehow doubt many people practice a "I believe God believes this, but I’ll believe that" philosophy.)
Now, let's switch the focus of this bigotry from black people to homosexual people. If I believe all homosexuals are sinful or indecent or wrong, am I a bigot? If I put that in religious terms, and declare that my God hates fags (or any euphemism thereof), am I a bigot? Or if I utilize a common cop-out and declare that God doesn't hate fags, only faggoty actions -- that is, homosexuals who dare love someone they're attracted to -- am I any less a bigot?
It's rather important to note that since the only distinction between a heterosexual and a homosexual is homosexual attraction, declaring that God hates homosexual (faggoty) actions is the equivalent of declaring that God hates homosexuals (fags). Claims that homosexuals can avoid a life of sin by never acting on their attraction to the same sex are little more than an attempt to stamp out homosexuals by suppressing homosexuality (or vice versa, if it’s preferable -- both amount to the same bigoted pre-judgment). By pressuring the homosexual into a life of non-offensive celibacy or false heterosexuality -- by removing the homosexual person from his/her love life, even if it means condemning that person to a life of loneliness and/or misery (especially if the homosexual person suppresses his/her sexual needs to the point of marriage to a heterosexual of the opposite gender, which extends and amplifies that loneliness and misery to the target’s spouse and possible children). By stamping out homosexuals’ homosexuality, the homophobe (or anti-homosexual, if it’s a preferable term) can effectively stop hating the target, since the target’s no longer an active or proud homosexual person. Is this not bigotry? Is this active persecution of homosexuals and their loves not active bigotry? To reiterate what I’ve said above, by condemning homosexuals and/or homosexuality (which amount to the same identity) without knowing them, their lives, their partners/spouses, or even their identities, am I a bigot? If I actively persecute the breeding of black people as I do homosexuals, am I more of a bigot since it’s clearly wrong to judge all black people and their loves as unworthy of consummation and marriage due to their shared trait of black ancestry – but clearly not wrong to judge all homosexual people and their loves as unworthy of consummation and marriage due to their shared trait of loving people whose genetalia don’t meet an arbitrary standard?
It’s stunning how few homophobes/anti-homosexuals are willing to acknowledge that their stances are, in fact, bigoted. If actively condemning/persecuting a huge number of the population without ever knowing who they are or what they’ve done to merit unworthiness of equality isn’t bigotry, what is? Ever since the civil rights movement for racial minorities went through, the term “bigot” has been (rightly) stigmatized. Association with the label -- even if one agrees with all the requisite definitions of the term -- has negative connotations, which is no doubt the principal reason behind the anxiety of the homophobic/anti-homosexual crowd to avoid such a label. After all, if anti-black people are despicable for their bigotry, why doesn’t that principle extend to the anti-homosexual crowd? It does. Which is, I believe, why so many people are anxious to emphasize their homophobia’s role as a religious tenet rather than an opinion that requires logical justification -- justification which, I might add, nobody here (or anywhere, to my knowledge) has ever been able to provide.
To end this first segment -- yes, Dagonee, bigotry applies to all intolerance of different groups (be they racial or religious or sexual) inspired by no other reason but hatred of their differences. Intolerance wrapped in religion is still intolerance -- bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry, with all the negative connotations that go with the term. The sooner anti-homosexuals are honest about the requisite prejudice for holding such a position, the sooner this argument will reach a conclusion. The longer that the anti-homosexual camp continues to insist that its pre-determination of guilt for people it’s never met has nothing to do with bigotry, the longer will people suffer and will Christianity’s reputation be tarnished.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, I'm not homosexual so maybe I don't know....but if I *were* homosexual, I think I'd object to being called a fag, even in my own defense.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie, I disagree. I don't mean the term to disparage homosexuals and didn't use it to describe them -- my use of it was drawing the rather obvious parallel between declaring God's hatred of homosexuality and the traditional God-hates-fags argument -- but rather to illustrate a point that directly contradicts the spirit behind the term. There's no such thing as bad words, only bad intentions; and I like to believe I have few, at least in terms of bigotry.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, so religions cannot call something a sin without being bigoted? My religion says that sex outside of marriage is a sin. I believe that is true. Does that mean I am bigoted against people who are having extra-marital sex? My religion says it is wrong to drink alcohol, smoke, and "do drugs". I believe that God does not want us to do those things. Am I bigoted against those who use those things? Most religions say that something that people do is "wrong" or "sin". Are all those religions bigoted? If God is real (I believe He is) and He has laws that He does not want broken (I believe He does) is He a bigot too? Does that mean that I or God hate any of these people? Heck no! I might hate pedophiles and murderers, I am such a bigot!
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*wanders into thread. frowns slightly. shrugs. extracts exacto knife and begins to cut windows and doorways into boxes. steps back. sighs. leaves thread.*
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: ....but if I *were* homosexual, I think I'd object to being called a fag, even in my own defense.
I remember reading a discussion about homosexual marriage on a news site a little while ago. This was not long after the canadian government started talking about legalising same-sex marriage. One post which particularly struck me was written by a very angry gay man. He felt that the most offensive word used when talking about homosexuals was the word "tolerance". The Cambridge Online Dictionary gives the definition of tolerance as "the ability to bear something unpleasant or annoying, or to keep going despite difficulties." He did not want to be tolerated, he said. He wanted to be accepted, not seen as something unpleasant and annoying to be put up with. He claimed that he would rather be beaten in the streets and called a faggot (he used the word "tapette", which is the french equivalent) rather than be "tolerated".
I had never seen it in that light before. But I can definitely understand his position. I am NOT saying that it is a good thing to use pejorative terms referring to homosexuals, or any other group and/or individual for that matter. I am simply saying that "tolerance" does not remove bigotry or prejudice. It simply disguises it. And I can see why that could, in some ways, be worse than coming right out with it.
PS -- I'm sorry I could not supply actual quotes from this person's post, as I found the discussion by pure accident, and could never find it again. I'm working from memory here; but it made enough of an impression on me that I can remember it quite well.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oooh, ooh! Digging-holes, check out the "Religion and Homosexuality" thread....I'll link it in a sec.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lalo said: I'll dedicate this post to Dagonee and his contention that anti-homosexuals are not, in fact, bigots, since so many of them wrap their homophobia (or anti-homosexuality, if that's a preferable term) in the mantle of religion.
First, I didn’t contend anything. I do happen to contend that mere belief that homosexual actions are sinful does not make one a bigot.
I did ask a question which you still haven’t answered. For the record, that was “Does believing that homosexual actions are wrong/sinful/immoral/whatever make the person holding that belief a bigot?” Not, “Does believing that homosexual actions are sinful plus hating homosexuals or believing God hates homosexuals make the person...” I know you equate the one with the other; most of this post will be dedicated to refuting that.
quote:Lalo said: While these definitions essentially make the case for me
Actually, neither one does. The first clearly doesn’t apply to me, since I support equal civil marriage rights for homosexuals. I also oppose laws making consensual homosexual actions illegal. I oppose discriminating against them in housing or secular employment. So I serve as a counterexample to the contention that all those who believe homosexual actions are sinful are “intolerant of those who differ.”
On the second definition, I don’t view my own faith as unquestionably right nor those opposing my faith and beliefs as unreasonable or wicked. My faith in my beliefs is great enough that I try to pattern my life after it and behave as if it were true. But no one who lives by a moral philosophy does any less.
Of course, if we assume you think bigotry is wicked (or, to use your term, despicable), then this definition could apply to you quite well. After all, that would mean you think any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from your belief on the rightness of homosexual actions is wicked. I’m not willing to go this far yet, because I hold high hopes for you acknowledging that a large group of people’s motivations and beliefs aren’t as simple as you seem to think them to be.
quote:Lalo said: I'll elaborate further. Bigots are often characterized by their pre-determination of another group, be that group recognized by its socio-economic class, race, sex, or sexuality. Determining that all blacks are criminals, for example, is an obviously bigoted statement -- clearly, not all black people are criminals, and the person declaring thus lacks the experience and/or tolerance to back up his/her unreasonable beliefs. Or so I'd assume; if there are reasons to believe all black people are criminals, I'm open to hearing them, though my personal experience alone disproves the claim's sweeping generalizations.
I hope we can all agree, at least, that making such a pre-determination of any group, be it racial or sexual, is a bigoted act. Is it any less bigoted if you wrap that bigotry in religious context? If I were to claim I believe God believes all blacks are criminals, am I any less a bigot?
We agree up to this point.
quote:Lalo said: Now, let's switch the focus of this bigotry from black people to homosexual people. If I believe all homosexuals are sinful or indecent or wrong, am I a bigot?
I actually don’t know anyone who believes this. I do know there are people who do, but that’s not the generally accepted teaching on homosexuality in my Church. And I would say that anyone who thinks “all homosexuals are sinful or indecent or wrong” is a bigot. (Caveat: I think all people are sinful in some respect. I’m taking your meaning to be “all homosexuals are sinful or indecent or wrong as a result of the fact that they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex.)
quote:Lalo said: If I put that in religious terms, and declare that my God hates fags (or any euphemism thereof), am I a bigot?
Yes, you are. Claiming God hates any group is bigotry.
quote:Lalo said: Or if I utilize a common cop-out and declare that God doesn't hate fags, only faggoty actions -- that is, homosexuals who dare love someone they're attracted to -- am I any less a bigot?
Here’s where we part company on the issue. Your statement here shows a gross misunderstanding of the Christian faith and it’s teachings. First, and most importantly, Christians believe that God hates no one. Second, everyone commits actions that God hates. To be really bald about it, while believing all blacks are criminals would be bigoted, believing that all blacks commit sins is not bigoted if the person holding that belief thinks that all people commit sins regardless of race.
quote:Lalo said: It's rather important to note that since the only distinction between a heterosexual and a homosexual is homosexual attraction, declaring that God hates homosexual (faggoty) actions is the equivalent of declaring that God hates homosexuals (fags).
No, it isn’t. Christians believe that everyone is tempted to commit actions that God hates. Are you saying that Christians believe that God hates everyone? Further, Christians believe that everyone is vulnerable to different temptations.
Christians also believe that many sinful actions have the effect of actually preventing fully experiencing the pleasure which is the aim of the temptation’s underlying, proper desire. For example, humans seem to have an innate desire to take chances. Properly channeled, this can lead to scientific discovery, acts of courage, and a greater appreciation for life. Improperly channeled, this can lead to excessive gambling which can cause a person to neglect duties of familial care and charity to others as well as lead to personal ruin.
quote:Lalo said: Claims that homosexuals can avoid a life of sin by never acting on their attraction to the same sex are little more than an attempt to stamp out homosexuals by suppressing homosexuality (or vice versa, if it’s preferable -- both amount to the same bigoted pre-judgment).
Christians, in there better moments, would also like to see an end to premarital sex, greed, abortion, lust, and many other sins, even as they commit them themselves. It’s not an attempt to stamp out homosexuality; it’s an attempt to encourage people to live a life more in accord with what God intends. Christians believe such a life is potentially happier here on Earth and far better for the ultimate fate of the immortal soul. As such, it is an act of love to help someone choose that life. Emphasis is on “help” and “choose.”
quote:Lalo said: By pressuring the homosexual into a life of non-offensive celibacy or false heterosexuality -- by removing the homosexual person from his/her love life, even if it means condemning that person to a life of loneliness and/or misery…
Christians are called to make sacrifices. This would be a much greater sacrifice than most Christians ever make, but not greater than the sacrifices most Christians (myself included) should make. One of the reasons I hold the stances I do on the law and homosexuality is because I believe that coercion should not be related to a sacrifice.
quote:Lalo said: (especially if the homosexual person suppresses his/her sexual needs to the point of marriage to a heterosexual of the opposite gender, which extends and amplifies that loneliness and misery to the target’s spouse and possible children).
We probably disagree as to whether this is the inevitable result of such actions. I would say that a marriage “which extends and amplifies that loneliness and misery to the target’s spouse and possible children” is not the most Christian of acts. But I also am not qualified to say if the net misery and loneliness caused by such an arrangement is better or worse than possible alternatives. (Consider that the children would not even exist as a starting point.)
quote:Lalo said: By stamping out homosexuals’ homosexuality, the homophobe (or anti-homosexual, if it’s a preferable term) can effectively stop hating the target, since the target’s no longer an active or proud homosexual person. Is this not bigotry? Is this active persecution of homosexuals and their loves not active bigotry?
Active persecution would be bigotry. We’re talking about mere belief that homosexual actions are wrong here. I am not denying that people who hold that belief often use it justify a further, bigoted, belief that “homosexuals are evil” and use that belief to justify persecution of homosexuality. But the problem is with the second step, not the first.
quote:Lalo said: To reiterate what I’ve said above, by condemning homosexuals and/or homosexuality (which amount to the same identity) without knowing them, their lives, their partners/spouses, or even their identities, am I a bigot?
Now you’ve left homosexual actions out of your identity. It is not a Christian’s place to condemn anyone. But believing an action is sinful and stating that belief in an appropriate place is not condemnation.
quote:Lalo said: If I actively persecute the breeding of black people as I do homosexuals, am I more of a bigot since it’s clearly wrong to judge all black people and their loves as unworthy of consummation and marriage due to their shared trait of black ancestry – but clearly not wrong to judge all homosexual people and their loves as unworthy of consummation and marriage due to their shared trait of loving people whose genetalia don’t meet an arbitrary standard?
Actively persecuting the breeding of black and homosexuals is bigotry of an equal degree. In fact, I anticipate with horror the day when a genetic marker for homosexuality (or deafness or blondeness or athletic ability or any other criteria) is identified and people start pre-testing unborn children for that marker as a criteria for abortion. It will be interesting to see how societal forces realign themselves at that point.
Further, the belief that homosexual actions are wrong is not a judgment that homosexual people are unworthy. It is a judgment that sexual consummation of certain loves is sinful. But believing that an action is sinful is not uniquely aimed at homosexuals or even at sexual actions.
quote:Lalo said: It’s stunning how few homophobes/anti-homosexuals are willing to acknowledge that their stances are, in fact, bigoted.
Well, assuming you mean by homophobe people who “believe homosexual actions are sinful,” it’s not stunning to me because they’re not all bigoted.
quote:Lalo said: If actively condemning/persecuting a huge number of the population without ever knowing who they are or what they’ve done to merit unworthiness of equality isn’t bigotry, what is?
This is where you’ve projected far beyond my original question. I would agree that people on an anti-homosexual campaign “actively condemning or persecuting a huge number of the population” are bigots. But that’s different from holding the belief that certain sexual actions are sinful, that among those are homosexual actions, and only speaking about it in an appropriate place and manner. Collapsing diverse sets of people into a single group is at the heart of bigotry, Lalo, and you seem dangerously close to it here. Not all Christians who hold the belief at issue here are actively doing anything about homosexuality.
quote:Lalo said: Ever since the civil rights movement for racial minorities went through, the term “bigot” has been (rightly) stigmatized. Association with the label -- even if one agrees with all the requisite definitions of the term -- has negative connotations, which is no doubt the principal reason behind the anxiety of the homophobic/anti-homosexual crowd to avoid such a label. After all, if anti-black people are despicable for their bigotry, why doesn’t that principle extend to the anti-homosexual crowd? It does. Which is, I believe, why so many people are anxious to emphasize their homophobia’s role as a religious tenet rather than an opinion that requires logical justification -- justification which, I might add, nobody here (or anywhere, to my knowledge) has ever been able to provide.
I have never rested my claims that this belief is not bigotry on the grounds that it is a religious tenet. I have rested my claims on the fact that there truly is a difference between believe homosexual actions are sinful and hating/condemning/persecuting homosexuals.
quote:Lalo said: To end this first segment -- yes, Dagonee, bigotry applies to all intolerance of different groups (be they racial or religious or sexual) inspired by no other reason but hatred of their differences.
And yet, you haven’t even attempted to demonstrate that people who think homosexuals actions are sinful are inspired to do so by no other reason but hatred of their differences. And in many threads, people have given reasons why this might not be so. I haven’t seen you respond to any of those posts (although I could have missed one) in a way that demonstrates you understand the claims being made.
quote:Lalo said: Intolerance wrapped in religion is still intolerance -- bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry, with all the negative connotations that go with the term.
Agreed.
quote:Lalo said: The sooner anti-homosexuals are honest about the requisite prejudice for holding such a position, the sooner this argument will reach a conclusion.
Which argument? That homosexual actions are sinful? Or the gay marriage debate? The first will never be settled to your satisfaction. The second, God willing, will be settled in our lifetimes when more Christians start realizing there is no reason to vilify homosexual actions any more than there is reason to vilify other sinful actions. There are many actions which are legal yet sinful. The immorality of an action should be a necessary condition for its criminalization. It is not sufficient. One reason I favor allowing equal civil marriage rights for homosexuals is that the behavior of such a couple is in greater conformance to the ideals of Christian sexuality than a lot of heterosexual actions are. We might be seeking perfection, but that shouldn’t mean we ignore positive steps.
quote:Lalo said: The longer that the anti-homosexual camp continues to insist that its pre-determination of guilt for people it’s never met has nothing to do with bigotry, the longer will people suffer and will Christianity’s reputation be tarnished.
And the longer the “pro-homosexual camp” continues to insist that the belief that homosexual actions is a “pre-determination of guilt” the longer will the debate be dominated by name-calling and not rational discourse.
posted
As a homosexual myself, I can tell you right now that people who don't agree with my lifestyle do not bother me. I pity them in that they can not be happy for me and keep an open mind about who I am. I knew I liked men from the time I was born. Even in elementary school I used to look at the cute boys in my class. I always wanted to be with them but I knew that it was wrong because I was raised Pentecostal. I fought my homosexuality all of my life. It caused me soooo much stress fighting to be straight when my whole being was crying out for me to be something else. A few years ago I stopped fighting and embraced what I knew was right from the start. I have since been happpier than I could ever have been if I was still fighting to be straight.
*WHEW*
That felt better. If you all have any questions feel free to ask. I have researched most of the questions asked by my friends.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never understood why the burden of proof is always on those who are against homosexuality. Sounds arbitrary to me.
"I think homosexuality is wrong."
"WHY?! Bigot!"
How about the reverse? What exactly makes homosexuality inherently right? What makes it just ok to do in your opinion? Is it just because that's what homosexuals naturally want and desire? That's a ludicrous argument. Drive in traffic one time and you'll know that natural desires to beat the living shit out of fellow human beings is very common. Does that make it inherently right to do so? Of course not.
The decency, functionality, and neccesity of heterosexuality is attested to by millions of years of evolution and every other species on the planet. Heterosexuality IS inherently right. That is fact. I'm wondering where the logic is for the assumption that homosexuality shares the same luxury.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not that homosexuality is intrinsically right. It's a belief (at least on my part) that human rights are most preserved when we have the least restrictive legislation possible. I believe that, right or wrong, people should not be legally prohibited from doing things that harm nobody.
I'm among those who doesn't have a real problem with you thinking that homosexual actions are sinful. I just don't believe that your opinion on what is sinful should be the basis of our laws.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm among those who doesn't have a real problem with you thinking that homosexual actions are sinful. I just don't believe that your opinion on what is sinful should be the basis of our laws.
Just to clarify, I've never posted that I am of the opinion that homosexuality is sinful. I've just been reading the debate here and I have a problem with the thinking of the pro gay camp.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: As much as I "support our troops", they generally aren't the most educated or forward thinking individuals
Almost every officer in the United States Military has a college degree.
West Point, Naval Academy, Air Force Academy, Reserve Officer's Training Corps, do these institutions not hold up to your lofty standards of 'education'?
And I know of a few Navy SEALs with two degrees apiece who might have a different opinion about your absurd remark.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just curious, who said that? I couldn't find it going back about five pages, so I assume it was deleted or edited out.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very well said, Dagonee. I can't imagine a thoughtful reply that could do anything other than assent to your conclusions. We'll see what Lalo provides instead Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Icarus hit it on the head. If we can't think of a more logical reason for a particular law than "God says it." I'm afraid we shoudn't have a government of laws at all. I think we might as well just appoint a priesthood to judge all things and go the way of the Taliban.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good to meet ya, Shardok! I think it is a really good thing for me to learn to understand better how those in your shoes feel about things. Not only have I not been blessed to know many who are of homosexual orientation, the ones I have known have not exactly explained much to me.
I guess one question I do have for you is this: do you feel attracted to women at all? Some? None? I am curious to know how that works. I realize that that will be different for each individual though.
Well, here, I will explain a bit. My first "love" (I only put that in quotes because I was a teenager. The feeling was one of the most powerful I have had in my life. At the time, I felt he was my perfect soul-mate.) was with a young man who I much later found out was bisexual. I didn't find out until years after we broke up and we communicated briefly. It seemed that he preferred to be in a relationship with a guy given the choice.
When I found out, I was actually devistated. This was partly because I had had no clue, so I really didn't know this guy I thought I knew so well. Secondly, I began to question my own femininity. I know that is totally irrational, but I was already insecure about feeling feminine. I came to the conclusion that he had always been very attracted to me, as a female, remembering all the times that it was obvious. Even the way I dressed--when I looked more feminine, it seemed to really bring out his masculine feelings in general. Almost like a masculine "aura". (He was somewhat effeminate, and I actually liked that about him.) In his case, I wondered if he chose to pair up with men because of not feeling masculine "enough". At this time I knew even less than I do now about homosexuality.
You know, he always reminded me of Josif in Songmaster even long before I knew he was attracted to men. I just assumed if he was so attracted to me, and other girls, that he could not be. So I have always since wondered about homosexuality vs. bisexuality and wanted to understand it better.
I am in the "I think homosexuality is wrong for religious reasons and don't have a conclusion about gay marriage" camp. Actually, maybe it is not all religious--there are some darn great guys out there that women miss out on because of sexual orientation! That right there is a cryin' shame.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think Icarus hit it on the head. If we can't think of a more logical reason for a particular law than "God says it." I'm afraid we shoudn't have a government of laws at all. I think we might as well just appoint a priesthood to judge all things and go the way of the Taliban.
A bunch of people have said that in this thread. But, as Lalo has clearly shown, this doesn't cover the extent of the issue.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
