CelestialBody
Starlet of India
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2000
- Posts
- 7,904
Homosexuality
- Thread starter CelestialBody
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
CelestialBody
Starlet of India
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2000
- Posts
- 7,904
Easy Boy
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2000
- Posts
- 138
a partial reponse
I'm responding to your second post, CB, because I never made in through to the end of your first. Yes, I would vote for full civil rights for gays and lesbians. It's a matter of human dignity. Why shouldn't gays be allowed to form civil unions, with legal rights equivalent to marriage? I care enough about this it's become a litmus test of sorts for politicians. Very few pass. My disappointment with Clinton started when he backed down on his campaign promise to end discrimination in the military, and came up with that absurd "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Don't get me started!
I'm responding to your second post, CB, because I never made in through to the end of your first. Yes, I would vote for full civil rights for gays and lesbians. It's a matter of human dignity. Why shouldn't gays be allowed to form civil unions, with legal rights equivalent to marriage? I care enough about this it's become a litmus test of sorts for politicians. Very few pass. My disappointment with Clinton started when he backed down on his campaign promise to end discrimination in the military, and came up with that absurd "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Don't get me started!
Silverlily
Kitty Mama - East Coast
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2000
- Posts
- 13,101
Absolutely without a doubt I would vote for Gay/Lesbian rights. It galls me such a thing need to be put to a vote. Since when does sexual orientation change your status as a human being? What's next, bisexuals? People who prefer blondes, brunettes?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, gives everyone the freedom from discrimination based on race, religion, gender, age, and such. At that time sexual orientation was not included, but I do not see a difference between that and the things that were.
[Edited by Kitten Eyes on 11-29-2000 at 01:31 PM]
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, gives everyone the freedom from discrimination based on race, religion, gender, age, and such. At that time sexual orientation was not included, but I do not see a difference between that and the things that were.
[Edited by Kitten Eyes on 11-29-2000 at 01:31 PM]
Purple Haze
Literally Stimulated
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2000
- Posts
- 19,290
Okay CB, why don't we just for fun replace Homosexuality with say.....Hockey (don't flame me for this, I don't have anything against hockey, it's just switching two unrelated lifestyles and activities)
Group A loves and plays hockey, and will continue playing hockey if it's legal or not. Hockey is in their blood.
Group B hates hockey, they find it extremely vulgar and don't think it's good for society and would like to see it banned. They're afraid their children might be exposed to it and start playing hockey. They hate hockey players, and feel that God is opposed to that kind of activity.
Group C not only loves and plays hockey, but thinks everybody should play hockey, and wants more hockey players. Maybe hockey should be everywhere you look. How about International Hockey Day.
Group D has seen hockey a couple of times, and doesn't care for it. This group also can't tell who the hockey players are when they aren't on the ice (unless they wear their uniforms everywhere), so it doesn't really effect them enough to care one way or the other.
If hockey were illegal, I would be in Group D, but would vote with group A.
Group A loves and plays hockey, and will continue playing hockey if it's legal or not. Hockey is in their blood.
Group B hates hockey, they find it extremely vulgar and don't think it's good for society and would like to see it banned. They're afraid their children might be exposed to it and start playing hockey. They hate hockey players, and feel that God is opposed to that kind of activity.
Group C not only loves and plays hockey, but thinks everybody should play hockey, and wants more hockey players. Maybe hockey should be everywhere you look. How about International Hockey Day.
Group D has seen hockey a couple of times, and doesn't care for it. This group also can't tell who the hockey players are when they aren't on the ice (unless they wear their uniforms everywhere), so it doesn't really effect them enough to care one way or the other.
If hockey were illegal, I would be in Group D, but would vote with group A.
Mackdaddy_74
Professional Pleaser
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2000
- Posts
- 2,553
Purple Haze said:
I agree with you Purple Haze,about hockey and homosexuality.
To each their own.
Sparky Kronkite
Spam Eater Extraordinare'
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Posts
- 8,921
People are people are people.....
That fact is basic, it's eliminatory, it's even animalistic. The law as governed by "pure human nature" - for lack of a better term.
All people are equal, no matter what. No matter what! No exceptions. That fact is beyond us, beyond what many/some would/might refer to as God - and above all, that fact is beyond reproach.
The next fact is.......
It's society, man-made-(mostly majority)-rule, that provides for the exceptions, the break from basic and the deviation into legal and moral complexity.
In the end it's all prejudice. A societal majority "imposing" its "theoretical righteousness" upon some minority.
But the reality is that - the fact is, that very majoritive righteousness - is only righteous "to that majority." And to the contrary, it is "not righteous" to the minority it forces into deviation or even violation, of the majority rule.
"Inequality" is then logically and abundantly evident - perpetrated by the majority, they set the rules! So, now who is right and who is wrong?
Well…………………
It's all relative perception as to the openness of the individual mind. Me, you, everybody else.
In my mind - all people are totally, unequivocally equal and should be treated thusly.
But then again - I'm smarter than most - and feel sorry for most poor fools - kill them all.
God I love tooting my own horn.
That fact is basic, it's eliminatory, it's even animalistic. The law as governed by "pure human nature" - for lack of a better term.
All people are equal, no matter what. No matter what! No exceptions. That fact is beyond us, beyond what many/some would/might refer to as God - and above all, that fact is beyond reproach.
The next fact is.......
It's society, man-made-(mostly majority)-rule, that provides for the exceptions, the break from basic and the deviation into legal and moral complexity.
In the end it's all prejudice. A societal majority "imposing" its "theoretical righteousness" upon some minority.
But the reality is that - the fact is, that very majoritive righteousness - is only righteous "to that majority." And to the contrary, it is "not righteous" to the minority it forces into deviation or even violation, of the majority rule.
"Inequality" is then logically and abundantly evident - perpetrated by the majority, they set the rules! So, now who is right and who is wrong?
Well…………………
It's all relative perception as to the openness of the individual mind. Me, you, everybody else.
In my mind - all people are totally, unequivocally equal and should be treated thusly.
But then again - I'm smarter than most - and feel sorry for most poor fools - kill them all.
God I love tooting my own horn.
Purple Haze
Literally Stimulated
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2000
- Posts
- 19,290
I must add that female hockey would be something that would have me in line for a season pass.
Call me a hypocrite.
Call me a hypocrite.
Purple Haze said:
Group C for me please...
CB...I would vote in favor. Your friend believes what she believes, and if she feels that strongly, it is her right, just as it is your right to oppose it. There are just some people that won't be forced to see another side of things, no matter what. I don't think this was YOUR fault, or HER fault. It is just a difference of opinion. And you will find that anywhere.
Be happy!!
Ambrosious
Weaver of Written Worlds
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2000
- Posts
- 6,346
Have you met my brother? He also likes to type.
The gay thing? Whatever.
The gay thing? Whatever.
woo hoo! here we go,...
like sparky, i love tooting my own horn.
now, as for voting, yes, i would vote for gay rights, because it's what i believe in.
CB- i think your arguments for the most part were correct. however, i think it oversteps your friend's boundaries when you tell them that they should fight for the rights of someone who participates in something he/she thinks is wrong,
and for that person, the bible is admissible. you can't tell someone they're not allowed to believe something because it's based on the bible, just like they can't tell you that you should because they do.
as for rights, i think we all have rights, but felons aren't allowed to vote, 18 year-olds can't drink in most states, and i can't go buy ritalin at 7-11. i can't smoke a bowl in my own house, is it disturbing other people, is me gettin the munchies a hazard to others? no,...
but sparky was on the money- majority rule. if you want to be a part of a certain group - in this case "american" society, then you have to conform. it's a good thing the society is so big that rebelling is a form of conforming,...
whether or not we like it, i think homosexuality will be debated over for a long time, especially considering how universally it has been fought around the world for so long. the places it has been accepted are far outnumbered by the places it hasn't.
if you expect everyone to change their mind because you think this way makes more sense, go talk to the people still performing female circumcision, change their minds,... then come back and change everyone else's.
above all- please keep a clear mind. there is nothing beyond the realm of possiblity,... don't limit yourself!
ps, y'all are lucky, this is a "pared down" version, i had so much more to say!
[Edited by lala on 11-29-2000 at 02:39 PM]
like sparky, i love tooting my own horn.
now, as for voting, yes, i would vote for gay rights, because it's what i believe in.
CB- i think your arguments for the most part were correct. however, i think it oversteps your friend's boundaries when you tell them that they should fight for the rights of someone who participates in something he/she thinks is wrong,
and for that person, the bible is admissible. you can't tell someone they're not allowed to believe something because it's based on the bible, just like they can't tell you that you should because they do.
as for rights, i think we all have rights, but felons aren't allowed to vote, 18 year-olds can't drink in most states, and i can't go buy ritalin at 7-11. i can't smoke a bowl in my own house, is it disturbing other people, is me gettin the munchies a hazard to others? no,...
but sparky was on the money- majority rule. if you want to be a part of a certain group - in this case "american" society, then you have to conform. it's a good thing the society is so big that rebelling is a form of conforming,...
whether or not we like it, i think homosexuality will be debated over for a long time, especially considering how universally it has been fought around the world for so long. the places it has been accepted are far outnumbered by the places it hasn't.
if you expect everyone to change their mind because you think this way makes more sense, go talk to the people still performing female circumcision, change their minds,... then come back and change everyone else's.
above all- please keep a clear mind. there is nothing beyond the realm of possiblity,... don't limit yourself!
ps, y'all are lucky, this is a "pared down" version, i had so much more to say!
[Edited by lala on 11-29-2000 at 02:39 PM]
Sparky Kronkite
Spam Eater Extraordinare'
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Posts
- 8,921
PS on this.....
It's obvious to me but I think I must make it clearer.......
I "think" beyond man-set limitations - in this example the primary one's being Religion and its societal mutations into everyday life, morals, unwritten rules and eventually law.
Those things mean nothing to me. I only acknowledge their existance and the lowly humans who actually let them mean something in their mundane and insignificant lives.
As is mine. Yes, in the end I am one of you. I just don't think like you.
It's obvious to me but I think I must make it clearer.......
I "think" beyond man-set limitations - in this example the primary one's being Religion and its societal mutations into everyday life, morals, unwritten rules and eventually law.
Those things mean nothing to me. I only acknowledge their existance and the lowly humans who actually let them mean something in their mundane and insignificant lives.
As is mine. Yes, in the end I am one of you. I just don't think like you.
CelestialBody
Starlet of India
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2000
- Posts
- 7,904
Sparky Kronkite
Spam Eater Extraordinare'
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Posts
- 8,921
Sometimes, unlike you and I.....
People are weak - they can't think beyond the system - the system takes hold of them and they in turn, enslave themselves to the system.
Actually, that is the way of most humans. They don't think for themselves. Not really.
People are weak - they can't think beyond the system - the system takes hold of them and they in turn, enslave themselves to the system.
Actually, that is the way of most humans. They don't think for themselves. Not really.
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
From my religious standpoint, homosexuality is wrong. Why? I don't think it was ever explained actually, just that it was unnatural.
However, I'm a bad christian. I not only tolerate sexuality of almost any sort (even Muffins have limits) but I enjoy the company of homosexuals and a pair of bisexual men do for me what a pair of bisexual women do for PH.
I believe that everyone should have equal rights and equal opportunity under the law, unless they would otherwise infringe upon the rights of others. (Like an epileptic driving an 18 wheeler). It is not my place to make decisions for other people. If they are going to do something, then they should be permitted to do it and face whatever consequences there are involved on their own. It is my place to love them as a brother/sister/whatever and not to judge them. Of course, that doesn't stop me, I'm damned judgemental. A failing, I know, but not all Muffins are perfect.
Perhaps a comparison of the Christians and their lions during Roman times would be appropriate when she brings up the persecution of a group of people based solely on creed.
While I would treat a gay person the same way I would treat a straight person, I would not march in their parades or attend PFLAG meetings. I do not need to learn how to deal with their sexuality, I have enough problems with my own.
Anyway. I'm writing a story about gay men so who am I to talk? People are too concerned with the failings and misbehaviors of other people and not concerned enough with their own.
"Clean the plank out of thine own eye before cleaning the dust mote out of thy neighbors." This applies to everyone, not just christians. After all, it addresses hypocracy.
However, I'm a bad christian. I not only tolerate sexuality of almost any sort (even Muffins have limits) but I enjoy the company of homosexuals and a pair of bisexual men do for me what a pair of bisexual women do for PH.
I believe that everyone should have equal rights and equal opportunity under the law, unless they would otherwise infringe upon the rights of others. (Like an epileptic driving an 18 wheeler). It is not my place to make decisions for other people. If they are going to do something, then they should be permitted to do it and face whatever consequences there are involved on their own. It is my place to love them as a brother/sister/whatever and not to judge them. Of course, that doesn't stop me, I'm damned judgemental. A failing, I know, but not all Muffins are perfect.
Perhaps a comparison of the Christians and their lions during Roman times would be appropriate when she brings up the persecution of a group of people based solely on creed.
While I would treat a gay person the same way I would treat a straight person, I would not march in their parades or attend PFLAG meetings. I do not need to learn how to deal with their sexuality, I have enough problems with my own.
Anyway. I'm writing a story about gay men so who am I to talk? People are too concerned with the failings and misbehaviors of other people and not concerned enough with their own.
"Clean the plank out of thine own eye before cleaning the dust mote out of thy neighbors." This applies to everyone, not just christians. After all, it addresses hypocracy.
i have to say, i feel bad having written a long post about letting others do as they see fit and vice versa, because i am biased, i can cite all kinds of ways, but suffice it to say that i am. does it bother me? no, i try to treat other people with respect and dignity, because that's what i want from everyone else.
CB, if your friend doesn't have the decency to treat other people with dignity and respect, then you might think about what kind of relationship you have with her. If she does, then what does it matter whether or not she agrees with other people about whether or not they are right, and whether or not she supports or doesn't support them?
CB, if your friend doesn't have the decency to treat other people with dignity and respect, then you might think about what kind of relationship you have with her. If she does, then what does it matter whether or not she agrees with other people about whether or not they are right, and whether or not she supports or doesn't support them?
Closet Desire
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2000
- Posts
- 1,177
What happens when you miss?
Ahhhh...Maybe I had to leave my guns in the US, but the air is fresh and relatively free of moral judgement here. It must be ironic that the UK is about to set the age of consent for homosexual relations between men (yeah...go figure) at sixteen. It was already sixteen for heterosexual relations. Times change and if we really followed the morals laid down in Biblical law men would be doing their own cooking a week out of the month, women wouldn't have the vote, and in some denominations women would not even be allowed to talk to God. We've obviously seen fit to cut and stretch the rules to suit our lifestyles and ambitions. The lifestyle someone else chooses isn't really my concern and throwing in questions about children, insurance, jobs, relatives, etc. doesn't phase me a bit.
The lesson was driven home a couple of years ago with the Soho bombings which were carried out by an engineer who hated gays. Soho, as you may know, is the heart of the gay community in London. Finally, on the third time he managed to kill some people including a newlywed woman and her unborn baby. Now that's morality that missed its mark.
I don't like legislation anymore than the next person, but sometimes it takes that to overcome predjudice. Afterall, it has taken the Human Rights act in the EU to make it possible for girls to wear trousers to school in northern England. We'll...'spose I better quit while I'm ahead!
Ahhhh...Maybe I had to leave my guns in the US, but the air is fresh and relatively free of moral judgement here. It must be ironic that the UK is about to set the age of consent for homosexual relations between men (yeah...go figure) at sixteen. It was already sixteen for heterosexual relations. Times change and if we really followed the morals laid down in Biblical law men would be doing their own cooking a week out of the month, women wouldn't have the vote, and in some denominations women would not even be allowed to talk to God. We've obviously seen fit to cut and stretch the rules to suit our lifestyles and ambitions. The lifestyle someone else chooses isn't really my concern and throwing in questions about children, insurance, jobs, relatives, etc. doesn't phase me a bit.
The lesson was driven home a couple of years ago with the Soho bombings which were carried out by an engineer who hated gays. Soho, as you may know, is the heart of the gay community in London. Finally, on the third time he managed to kill some people including a newlywed woman and her unborn baby. Now that's morality that missed its mark.
I don't like legislation anymore than the next person, but sometimes it takes that to overcome predjudice. Afterall, it has taken the Human Rights act in the EU to make it possible for girls to wear trousers to school in northern England. We'll...'spose I better quit while I'm ahead!
Nobody Special's wife
Just Peeking
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2000
- Posts
- 2,702
I have friends that are gay And I don't have a problem with this.Also have Family that are gay they are in our minds are married to that same sex ..So I just think that some predjuice is just Hatered or scared of what they don't understand...I just go with the flow ..And if a gay person comes on to you..Be flattered that they thought you were sexy ...I would any way ...
THe wife
THe wife
Earthmuffin
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2000
- Posts
- 764
Throwing my two cents in late (per usual)
For me it's a no brainer. Gays are ppl. No more, no less. To discriminate based on hockey or homosexuality doesn't work for me. I also believe (despite my own personal religion's beliefs) that a person's sexuality is as hardwired in their genetic code as their eye color.
For me it's a no brainer. Gays are ppl. No more, no less. To discriminate based on hockey or homosexuality doesn't work for me. I also believe (despite my own personal religion's beliefs) that a person's sexuality is as hardwired in their genetic code as their eye color.
CelestialBody
Starlet of India
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2000
- Posts
- 7,904
Homosexual/Heterosexual/Black/Whatever Rights - Bullshit!
The concept of rights is a concept that applies to the individual. Rights are not derivative of membership in any club, race, church, nation, sexual preference group or any type of associative choice or behavior.
I refer to the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…"
The only fundamental right, really is your right to choose free of coercion. One of the aspects of your individual right is the right of free association, i. e., you may choose to associate or not with anyone for any reason however inane.
The concept of group rights is fallacious because a right is universal, i. e., it applies equally to all human beings. But reality and honesty would get in the way of those with certain specific agendas and thus they must resort to subterfuge (lying) to conceal their objective.
In reality, those who push group rights are in reality seeking political privilege by garnering special provisions of law which forces others to deny their right to freedom of association.
As an example which was discussed on the BB a few weeks back, the Boy Scouts of America have a policy policy based in the right of free association that they do not allow openly homosexual males to be among their leadership. They do not harass, threaten or coerce homosexuals into any situations. They simply choose not to associate.
The activists, on the other hand, using the fallacious smokescreen of Gay Rights continually harass the Boy Scouts with lawsuits seeking to force upon them at gunpoint (figuratively) association with those with whom they do not voluntarily choose to associate.
The concept of rights is a concept that applies to the individual. Rights are not derivative of membership in any club, race, church, nation, sexual preference group or any type of associative choice or behavior.
I refer to the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…"
The only fundamental right, really is your right to choose free of coercion. One of the aspects of your individual right is the right of free association, i. e., you may choose to associate or not with anyone for any reason however inane.
The concept of group rights is fallacious because a right is universal, i. e., it applies equally to all human beings. But reality and honesty would get in the way of those with certain specific agendas and thus they must resort to subterfuge (lying) to conceal their objective.
In reality, those who push group rights are in reality seeking political privilege by garnering special provisions of law which forces others to deny their right to freedom of association.
As an example which was discussed on the BB a few weeks back, the Boy Scouts of America have a policy policy based in the right of free association that they do not allow openly homosexual males to be among their leadership. They do not harass, threaten or coerce homosexuals into any situations. They simply choose not to associate.
The activists, on the other hand, using the fallacious smokescreen of Gay Rights continually harass the Boy Scouts with lawsuits seeking to force upon them at gunpoint (figuratively) association with those with whom they do not voluntarily choose to associate.
CelestialBody
Starlet of India
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2000
- Posts
- 7,904
Similar threads
