Homosexuality

[Laurel]

Yes, but replace "black" for "homosexual". Suppose that the Boy Scouts decided that they didn't want blacks in their group. They're a private organization and thus can choose to exclude whoever they wish, but would you think that protestors were "pushing an agenda"?

Do you think Martin luther King Jr. was seeking "politcal privilege"?

As much as the Boy Scouts have the freedom to decide their membership, I as a citizen have the freedom to protest them. The fact that they disallow gays has turned me off to them completely. Prejudice is prejudice. And the whole "protecting our children" excuse is bogus - the vast majority of sexual predators of both young boys and girls are heterosexual males.

If homosexuality is in fact biological, then gays have as much choice in their sexuality as blacks have in their skin color - and should not be penalized for an accident of birth.

If homosexuality is a choice, it should be protected as we protect a person's right to choose to worship (or to not worship) the deity or dieties of their choice.

 

[Nobody Special]

I have no problem with fags

Guy, I didn't know you smoked What kind of Fags do you smoke?? Just wondering is all...

E

 

[Temptress_1960]

Well, I DID vote for gay rights

More or less... In Vermont, we passed the civil unions law, which give rights similar to marriage to same-sex couples. I fully support these rights.

And you know what? It hasn't affected my marriage at all (one of the arguments against this law was that it would destroy marriage as we know it). In fact, it hasn't changed my life in any way.

The Vt. Conference of the United Church of Christ, to which I belong, a main-line Protestant denomination, also supports this law. The church I attend is open and affirming to all people, regardless of ... sexual orientation.

I have very dear friends who are gay. Why shouldn't they be granted the rights the rest of us have?

I voted for it "more or less" because it was not put to a popular vote. But I did vote for those state officials who supported civil unions.

And, you know what, we here in Vermont have not been overcome by gay people. There are no more and no less than there always were.

Some gay and lesbian people will never choose to join in a civil union. And many straight people will never choose to marry. But all those that want to legally recognize their commitment and love should be allowed to do so.

End of sermon - didn't mean to get quite so wordy about this LOL.

 

[naudiz]

I believe...

Anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so, yet does not consider eating shellfish a sin, is a hypocrite.

If it is something human beings have practiced since the earliest known historical record of human beings, then it is natural. But, to suppose for the moment it isn't natural, neither is plastic yet it somehow has a place in our society.

If the only purpose of sex is to reproduce, then isn't birth control unnatural, too? What a sad thing, to reduce the beauty of human sexuality to a simple utilitarian task.

As long as people are getting beaten up and killed, as a group, by bigots because of their sexuality, gay rights is going to be a group issue. Before anyone claims that violence against gays is a thing of the past, remember Matthew Shepard. That wasn't so long ago.

Gays should have the right to marry. Look at the divorce rate and what so many straight people have done to the sanctity of marriage. Maybe gay couples would treat it with a little more dignity because they had to fight for it.

Trying to 'recruit' someone to your own sexuality one way or another is just stupid. If you feel like everyone around you has to be the same, then maybe you aren't so secure in your sexuality after all. I think the same can be said for religion, politics, and everything else people get all freakish about if someone disagrees with them.

Gay rights is an issue that strikes a chord with me because in RL, I've got far more gay/bi friends than straight. I've seen first-hand how discrimination of the worst kind is still rampant. Even if you don't like homosexuality, it exists and will continue to exist. Live with it. As for myself, all those dear to me, regardless of their orientation, will always have a welcome place in my home, heart, and life.

 

[TN_Vixen]

i agree with sparks & UncBill

on this one. Everyone has equal rights, period. It is only within the confines of society that people tend to place judgement upon another person's choice of lifestyle. Gay lifestyles are not popular in Christianity, nor are they in many people's choice of perspective, but that should not preclude the morality of such a lifestlye and/or belief.

It is not my place to judge, nor is it yours. No one has the right to appoint themself judge and jury over a person's sexual preference.

Keep thy nose out of thy neighbor's bizzznesss.

 

[Silverlily]

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,…"

Something to keep in mind is that passage was written by a group who more than likely intended the word men to mean just that, men, and only white men. Women and minorities had no rights during the latter part of the 1700's.

Despite all that, I do agree, ideally that concept should be sufficient, but in reality, it isn't. Hence the necessity of such things as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans With Disabilities Act. It has been proven time and time again, that unless society is forced to do otherwise, the rights of individuals in the minority are ignored.

It shouldn't be this way, but it is. It would be utterly irresponsible of us as a nation to do nothing because ideally we shouldn't have had to. We have established ourselves as a nation of personal freedom; we have an obligation to uphold that. Yes, we have had failures and problems along the way, but that does not justify no longer trying.

 

[lala]

CB- now that, i understand,... but apparently it is a different topic anyway, so we'll look at that another time, as for rights, i do think they're individual, that makes sense,...as does having to enforce them if they're the minority, seeing as how the majority doesn't want to have to put up with the minority's whining let's see, what else,... laurel made good points, but then again, she almost always does!! i forgot the rest. k bye.

oh yeah, and as far as BSA goes, i had two paragraphs, but decided to just say e-mail me and i'll talk to you all about it,...

so what do i truly believe? i think being gay is like being a woman, or black, or diasabled. in the legal respect of it, i think those interests may have to be enforced. i wish everyone treated everyone else on the basis of only how they affect others, but many people get treated differently even if that distiguishing mark doesn't ACTUALLY affect others.

[Edited by lala on 11-29-2000 at 08:17 PM]

 

[teresafannin]

I suport equal rights for all, gay or not. Having said that, I am also a registered Boy Scout leader. I don't know how other councils operate, but the council I am in receives no federal funding at all & very little money from the United Way or any other organization. Those of us involved in the program pay our own way & the way for a lot of kids whose parents can't afford it. The main source of funding for our council comes from private trusts that were set up years ago by families whose children were in scouts, both Boy & Girl Scouts. BSA is a private organization, not unlike other organizations in this country. Other organizations are allowed to have membership requirements & restrictions, but I very seldom hear of complaints against social groups, church groups,athletic groups & the like. Scouting is expensive, but in comparison with other youth activities, it is reasonable & I feel that my son learned more from his years in Scouts than in any of the athletic programs we tried. In every athletic program he was in, the main emphasis was that a few kids get to play, the rest sit on the bench & winning is all that matters. I heard more adults verbally abusing kids in those athletic programs than anywhere else, pretty sad. I wish all these people who bash the scouts would take a few minutes to see some of the programs we offer, it is one of the best things that happened in my son's life.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[lala]

grrr *making marge noise* i knew it would do no good to bring it up,... grr,...

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[teresafannin]

All of the paperwork I have done shows BSA to be a non-profit organization. No one that I know in Scouts makes any money, but a lot of us spend our own money to help provide activities to the kids. I am currently on leave from my scouting activities, it was something my son & I did together & I need all my energy to get through the holidays. In virtually every court appeal, BSA has been ruled non-profit & private. We pay membership fees & dues each year to our local council. Private vs public is a big debate in many areas. I find the idea of private schools who only accept certain kids getting public money offensive. When every private school accepts every kid, then they can have my tax dollars. If the Citadel wants to exclude women cadets, they should stop accepting federal money & become a private college. Juliette Gordon Lowe, who based the Girl Scouts on the Girl Guides of England, was a great woman, but I would be willing to bet, she would not be an advocate of gay rights, given the time in which she lived. I tried to get involved with Girl Scouts here & they didn't want me. I am an archery instructor & they informed several of us that girls don't need shooting programs. At least in my area, I think the local Girl Scout Council does girls a disservice by not providing a good outdoor program. Most of my son's friends quit Girl Scouts in middle school because they wanted to camp, canoe, rappel, & participate in shooting sports. Girls need these activities as much as boys do, there would be a lot less anorexia & other problems for girls if they had better access to some of these types of programs, but that is a whole different thread. Steps down from the soapbox. Next?

 

[ManOSafety]

I hate the thought

of more legislation telling us what we can or cannot think or do. Too many times, the legislation that has been passed to protect "group rights" (which I must agree with Sparky and Unclebill do not exist) has been flawed from the beginning and is enforced in a way that provides political benefit to some people, but not to the group that it is supposed to be protecting.

In addition, as the laws become enforced, the purpose of them becomes lost. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for example, sounds like a great idea, guaranteeing the disabled the right to live their lives like the non-disabled, an idea that few would argue against. However, the way the law is enforced has lead to some idiotic actions...like braille on drive-through ATM machines, sidewalk ramps around the corner from my house where there are no other sidewalks than those at the corner of two busy four lane divided highways (so no place for a wheelchair to go other than the ramp), to an epileptic filing suit against the company I used to work for because he'd been hired as a truck driver and then fired when we learned he was epileptic and he couldn't perform the essential functions of the job he'd been hired for and wasn't qualified to perform any of the other jobs we had available...

So, the short answer to your question would be, no, I don't want to see laws against discrimination against homosexuality.

 

[Unclebill]

Do you think Martin luther King Jr. was seeking "politcal privilege"?

No. What he fought against and got overturned was Government institutionalized discrimination among citizens based on group identifying traits which was, is and always will be wrong.

A legitimate government is the protector of the citizen's rights and thus cannot discriminate and retain its legitimacy. Government does not have rights. It is a political entity, NOT a person, an individual.

The right of free association is just that. I agree that discrimination based on skin color, religion, sexual orientation, hair color, eye color or any other inane reason is irrational however, those people who as individuals choose to make those choices, however inane and stupid they may be have the right to do so.

Jesse Jackson on the other hand has bastardized the ideas of Dr. King and is seeking political privilege (mostly or entirely for his own benefit). He is one of the most intellectually dishonest men I've ever observed. The only thing I can say favorably of him is that I have no reason to think him a criminal as I do have reason to believe that of Clinton, Gore and others with whom he allies himself. But that I think is merely their allliance for mutual political benefit.

And while supporting it is not popular, it is at least intellectually honest and consistent. Can you say that of your stated position?

 

[Laurel]

And while supporting it is not popular, it is at least intellectually honest and consistent. Can you say that of your stated position?

I'm obviously missing something...what is intellectually dishonest about taking a position against discrimination?

The BSofA have a right to not accept gays in their ranks. I have a right to disagree with that position, and to make my opinions known. Where's the dishonesty there?

Right-wing Christian groups boycott the sponsors of programs they deem unethical ALL THE TIME. This is considered proper protest - they make their attack not in the courts but in commerce, by trying to make it unprofitable for stations to run such programming.

Gay rights organizations use the exact same tactics that right-wing groups have been using for years in their protest against the Dr. Laura show, and they're accused of everything from censorship to harassment.

Hypocrisy? I'd say so.

And I object to this view of homosexuals as some freaky cult attempting to "recruit" and "gain power". Yes, there's a few activists that take it too far, just as there is in any group of people, including the Christian right wing. But when it comes down to it, all homosexuals want to do is live their lives - and be allowed to love each other like straight people do.

Sodomy laws still exist in many states. These laws are not there to keep hubby from giving it to wifey up the butt in the privacy of their own home - they are there to persecute homosexuals. Period. George W. Bush - a long-time foe of gays and gay rights - refused to appeal the anti-sodomy law in his state, stating that it "sent a message".

The whole "gays want special privileges, blah blah" argument is a smokescreen to disguise the fact that even today in the United States a gay man can be ARRESTED for making love to his chosen partner - love made out of wedlock, because it is ILLEGAL for them to wed.

You can wrap rhetoric around the issue, but it doesn't change the facts. Gays do NOT have the same legal rights in the United States as straight people. They do not have the right to marry the person they love. They can't even have SEX with that person. And why, exactly, is it illegal? How does it harm anyone?

As a libertarian, I would think that you would be against government trying to enforce a code of morality via anti-sodomy laws and anti-gay marriage laws. I would think that you would stick up for the rights of all people to behave as they wish without the thumb of government on their backs. If you defend a person's right to choose to use drugs, how can you not defend their right to choose their mate?

 

[Closet Desire]

WOW!

What could I possibly say to top that? There have been some really thought provoking insights on this thread since I went to bed last night. I especially liked the bit about "talking to an audience". I don't think I've ever heard it put so eloquently before...I'll have to remember it for future reference.

I think the founding fathers were indeed influenced by their own perceptions, prejudices, and mores of the times, but I also think they were aware of the inherent weaknesses of the culture in the US. The system they left us is about as airtight as it can be when it comes to protecting people from their own government and themselves. This may not be popular, but I'm a big fan of the Supreme Court and ripple with pleasure everytime a justice votes the opposite way the incumbent president thought they would vote.

So, I was rather dismayed when they supported the BSA's "right" to exclude gays. My dismay turned to amusement a few days later when the "fallout" began. My own wisdom fell short of that of the justices who knew full well what would happen. Chapters that do receive support from state and local governments were suddenly facing eviction from schools that had previously supported them and financial loss from grants that were government supplied (I'm referring to Florida). Some charities have also stated that they will pull funding for BSA because of a conflict with their own principles. I suppose it's sort of like the "Christian Women Against Victoria's Secret" who are boycotting malls and stores that tolerate such "risque" displays in the windows! It's true that some churches and other contributors have stepped in to fill the void, but this is likely to be short lived. In the end, I suspect, the BSA will have to come around to what is a growing acceptance of gays in society. That said I'm in no way criticising the good people who volunteer both their time and money to the programmes for young men and women. I think it is noble and well worth the effort and my hat is off to them (I don't wear a hat, but you know what I mean).

It's easy to look at gays as "things" and forget that they are people. Gay couples love one another, support one another, have flaming rows, fall out with one another, and separate just like anybody else. When you add all the burdens and obstacles in the way like health insurance, wills, medical care (who is your next of kin?), jobs, etc. it is a wonder that love manages to survive at all.

Yes, I have friends and colleagues who are gay, some living in relationships and some not. We socialise and work together. I like a person simply because I like a person. It doesn't matter to me if they prefer same-sex lovers, role play, masturbation, fetish dress, BDSM, or celibacy. Human sensuality stopped being about reproduction when we became ware of our own existence. Then it became a way to share our deepest, most intimate desires, fantasies, and needs. When we find the person with whom we belong, the person with whom we are safe to share these things, then we grow as a person and a human. Somehow I think that makes the world a better place to live.

 

[Temptress_1960]

One more thought

In response to Laurel's last post on this topic, I want to repeat that in the state of Vermont, same sex couples have the legal right to enter into a civil union. Many people here were uncomfortable with using the word marriage, so the Legislature went with "civil union."

Not every Vermonter is OK with any of this, obviously. It has been a truly controversial law. But, hey, we are OK with controversy. Remember us? We're the ones who elected a Socialist mayor twenty years ago in our largest city (I loved the Doonesbury cartoon about the "socialist republic of Burlington"). We're the ones with the Independent congressman. We're the folks who just don't give a rat's ass about what others think when we do what we feel is right.

It is not illegal in Vermont to fuck anybody any way that you want - unless they are underage or not willing. The government has no right whatsoever to legislate what happens in my bedroom - or kitchen, or shower, or living room, or the backseat of my car, or in my garden - or to legislate how I can fuck - mouth, pussy, asshole, hands, tits, whatever I choose.

That said, private organizations like the Boy Scouts certainly have the right to exclude whomever they choose. They do not receive federal funding. If you don't like the way they run their organization, you have three choices if you want to belong. Either accept their conditions, or work from within the organization in a reasonable way to change it, or don't join.

 

[Closet Desire]

Not quite true...

The BSA cannot exclude blacks, Hispanics, or people with blue eyes. The annual Jamborees are often held on federal land which, one could argue, means federal support, a question that was raised by the dept of interior after the ruling. I don't know where that ended up.

I'm not saying this to be awkward or confrontational, just to suggest that it is a very grey issue to deal with. I think the BSA is a unique organization that blends a number of things, including churches, into its fabric. It can be argued that it benefits the public welfare. Tough call for anyone to make I think.

Still, I think one thing can be clearly stated...the BSA excludes gays from serving as leaders. The BSA admits this and wants this. Legal or not that fits the definition of discrimination in a social (not legal) sense.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Laurel
I'm obviously missing something...what is intellectually dishonest about taking a position against discrimination?

First, let's clarify something. The political activists (of all stripes) have hijacked the language and misused certain words to twist meanings to benefit their causes. Discrimination is not a bad thing. It is merely choosing. Yet because of the activist mentality, the word has become automatically associated with evil.

I've never said nor implied that taking a position against senseless discrimination is bad nor will I ever. If one does not take a stand against it, it will endure and perhaps prevail.

What is intellectually inconsistent is to advocate government intervention where it does not belong and it is that against which I speak.

Originally posted by Laurel
The BSofA have a right to not accept gays in their ranks. I have a right to disagree with that position, and to make my opinions known. Where's the dishonesty there?

And I support your decision to disagree and your right to state your opinion however publicly you may choose. And if you choose to boycott products or services they offer or their sponsors, I support your right to do that as well.

Originally posted by Laurel
Right-wing Christian groups boycott the sponsors of programs they deem unethical ALL THE TIME. This is considered proper protest - they make their attack not in the courts but in commerce, by trying to make it unprofitable for stations to run such programming.

I understand this and they are within their rights to do so. Which brings up a point from several years back when Jerry Falwell (one of my all-time favorites ) was stirring up his sheeple to boycott Pepsi for some inane pseudo-moralistic reason. I read of this in Playboy and I even went so far as to write Pepsico and express my support for them maintaining their stand.

Originally posted by Laurel
Gay rights organizations use the exact same tactics that right-wing groups have been using for years in their protest against the Dr. Laura show, and they're accused of everything from censorship to harassment.

I have no problem with them boycotting her advertisers and campaigning against her SO LONG AS THEY DO IT HONESTLY. The homosexual activists opposing her have lied about her and misrepresented her statements as or perhaps more grossly than the Democrats have lied and misrepresented Republican positions. That is where I have a problem with the asshole activists. They are not constrained by common courtesy, truth, reason, ethics, morals or principles. They have adopted the philosophy that the end justifies the means (Algore is a perfect example).

I have listened to Dr. Laura for several years fairly regularly and I have heard many of the statements about her. I know from personal experience that most if not all are either exaggerations or outright lies. This is where I have a problem with these activist bastards in that they have no principles. Being an atheist, we disagree on many things but I respect her intellect (she earned a Ph.D. in physiology and is a licensed marriage and family counselor or therapist(?)) and her consistency. And despite the lies spread by her enemies, she does practice what she preaches (unlike them).

Originally posted by Laurel
Hypocrisy? I'd say so.

Yes, but the hypocrisy is the activists screaming for tolerance and acceptance and yet they are the most intolerant bastards in the world if you disagree with them. There is no civility from these thugs. If you have the temerity to disagree with them, they will do literally anything they can to silence you while they are whining tolerance and acceptance. What they are preaching is; "You must be tolerant of our cause, position, belief, etc. but we will NOT tolerate your disagreement".

Originally posted by Laurel
And I object to this view of homosexuals as some freaky cult attempting to "recruit" and "gain power". Yes, there's a few activists that take it too far, just as there is in any group of people, including the Christian right wing. But when it comes down to it, all homosexuals want to do is live their lives - and be allowed to love each other like straight people do.

I have never said that either. Neither have I ever encountered a homosexual recruiter. But there are a minority of activists whose behaviors and statements support this perception. I am guessing that the majority of homosexuals are decent people like you or I (I'm presuming you are ). Among homosexuals are child molesters, criminals and various other categories of assholes. But I believe that there are a comparable percentage of those among the population at large so that then becomes irrelevant to the discussion. The only real difference I see between the two groups you cite is that the Right Wing Christian types (however zealous and misguided they might be) have a religious obligation to honesty and for the most part observe their religious constraints there while the homosexual (as well as other) activists demonstrate no such constraints or restraints.

Originally posted by Laurel
Sodomy laws still exist in many states. These laws are not there to keep hubby from giving it to wifey up the butt in the privacy of their own home - they are there to persecute homosexuals. Period. George W. Bush - a long-time foe of gays and gay rights - refused to appeal the anti-sodomy law in his state, stating that it "sent a message".

The only disagreement I have with this statement is to clarify; sodomy is not constrained to anal intercourse; it also includes hetero oral sex and bestiality. Bush is as wrong as was Gore to support the existence of this type of law, i. e., political crime. But he's right about it sending a message. The message I get is "I'm a fool and I want to be sure everybody knows it." But then, this message is not really aimed at the thinking portion of the populace, now is it?

Originally posted by Laurel
The whole "gays want special privileges, blah blah" argument is a smokescreen to disguise the fact that even today in the United States a gay man can be ARRESTED for making love to his chosen partner - love made out of wedlock, because it is ILLEGAL for them to wed.

Again, this is not what I addressed. This is a simple issue of rights period. (see end remarks) This is what I refer to as political crimes.

Originally posted by Laurel
You can wrap rhetoric around the issue, but it doesn't change the facts. Gays do NOT have the same legal rights in the United States as straight people. They do not have the right to marry the person they love. They can't even have SEX with that person. And why, exactly, is it illegal? How does it harm anyone?

Our disagreement here is conceptual. The problem is a general lack of understanding of the concept of rights. (see end remarks)

Originally posted by Laurel
As a libertarian, I would think that you would be against government trying to enforce a code of morality via anti-sodomy laws and anti-gay marriage laws. I would think that you would stick up for the rights of all people to behave as they wish without the thumb of government on their backs. If you defend a person's right to choose to use drugs, how can you not defend their right to choose their mate?

If you refer to Slut_boy's thread 'Letter from a friend' you'll see where I've addressed the concept a little deeper so I won't repeat it all here.

You are absolutely correct as to my Libertarian advocacy. If you recall an earlier thread about homosexual marriages, I addressed the concept there and put it in the same arena as heterosexual marriages. This is not a legitimate province of government. This is interpersonal relationships and government has no legitimate reason to intervene or intercede unless a crime is committed or a legitimate property dispute arises. Then the government's only legitimate interest is to protect the rights of the parties involved and adjudicate the most just solution.

Marriage may come under the auspices of religion for people who follow a specific organized religion. Otherwise, it becomes the province of contractual agreement with terms enforceable in a court of law. Beyond this situation, government has no legitimate authority to involve itself.

My problem with the BS of A issue comes to the point that the courts having become embroiled in this issue have now taken it from the legitimate province of the activists voicing their dissent and campaigning for public opinion to curry victory to a matter of using the force of arms (government) to bludgeon into compliance with their desires someone else who simply does not wish to associate with their peer group.

To put to you the question more directly, whose rights should be abrogated and negated by the use of government force, the homosexuals or the Boy Scouts? Whose rights are more valuable? And why? What is it that makes one's position more legitimate than the other necessitating the intervention of the agent of force to coerce compliance of one party with the other party's wishes?

And keep in mind that once you accept that the government has legitimate authority to obviate the right of one person, you're tacitly conceding that you are willing to see your rights so obviated as well.

RIGHTS There has been so much bullshit thrown around under the heading of rights that the legitimate meaning is all but eradicated. Rights are innate. They are not granted by government which then can legitimately rescind them. Rights are universal, i. e., they apply to everyone equally. Anything that does not meet that criterion cannot legitimately be called a right. Right is a concept that can legitimately only apply to the individual. You have no rights there are derivative of membership in any group whatsoever. Any benefit from group membership is a privilege that is granted by that group and may be revoked by it.

There is no such thing as a right to property. The right is to ownership of property if you can earn it. Your right to own what you earn is the right that a legitimate government is obligated to protect. When a government begins to confiscate your property and give it to others, it surrenders its legitimacy and relegates itself to the role of thug or criminal.

The activists (not limited to homosexual activists either) are seeking legislated privilege. They are seeking laws to coerce an employer to hire them over the employer's right of free association or in other arenas to interject the use of force to have their whims sated. In essence, they seek governmental intervention to protect them from the consequences of their own choices or actions, i. e., they wish to do as they please but not have to contend with anyone's disapproval or dissent. They want government to exempt them from the consequences of their choices and actions, i. e., to protect them from reality. They want to have their cake and eat it, too, and that does not happen in reality. And it is against this that I rail because it is simply wrong.

 

[Laurel]

To put to you the question more directly, whose rights should be abrogated and negated by the use of government force, the homosexuals or the Boy Scouts? Whose rights are more valuable? And why?

I agree that that is really what is at the heart of the BSofA controversy. And I also agree that the government shouldn't enforce morality. If they don't want gays, they shouldn't be forced to include gays in their organization. The government should not force the KKK to accept blacks, the Black Panthers to accept Jews, etc... I truly and deeply believe that these groups are wrong in their approach, but America is nothing if people do not have the freedom to hold idiotic views.

I have no problem with them boycotting her advertisers and campaigning against her SO LONG AS THEY DO IT HONESTLY. The homosexual activists opposing her have lied about her and misrepresented her statements as or perhaps more grossly than the Democrats have lied and misrepresented Republican positions.

Ah, and the Republicans are entirely honest in their representation of Democrat party positions? I know you're not that naive...Activists on all sides of the fence exaggerate, twist the facts a bit, and sometimes even out-and-out lie. This is not a gay invention - this is politics.

I have never said that either. Neither have I ever encountered a homosexual recruiter. But there are a minority of activists whose behaviors and statements support this perception. I am guessing that the majority of homosexuals are decent people like you or I (I'm presuming you are ).

Hey hey, I'm as straight as they come! Decent, sometimes...

The only real difference I see between the two groups you cite is that the Right Wing Christian types (however zealous and misguided they might be) have a religious obligation to honesty and for the most part observe their religious constraints there while the homosexual (as well as other) activists demonstrate no such constraints or restraints.

LOL! Do you really believe that, or are you playing with me? Have you ever visited godhatesfags.com? You don't want me to post an essay on the evils done in the name of religion? The lies told, the countries stolen, the innocent butchered? Look at the Middle East! To assume that anything done in the name of belief is somehow cleaner is a faulty - and dangerous - assumption.

Marriage may come under the auspices of religion for people who follow a specific organized religion. Otherwise, it becomes the province of contractual agreement with terms enforceable in a court of law. Beyond this situation, government has no legitimate authority to involve itself.

I definitely do not believe that a church should be forced to accept homosexuals or to allow gay marriages within their ranks. Frankly, if I were gay, I would have no interest in being associated with a church that intolerant. (I'm not gay, and a small part of the reason I cannot support a church - beyond the not-believing thing - is that the Bible's "morality" - particularly the Old Testament - reflects the ancient biases and prejudices of its time, and I don't think the "morals" of hate and bigotry have a place in the 21st century).

To clarify: in my remarks above, I was referring to legal marriage. If I were to die right now, Manu would have little or no say in how my remains were disposed of, how my assets were distributed, etc. That right would go to my parents, whom I despise. Now, that's my fault because I've neither married Manu nor set up a living trust of some kind. Eventually, I'll get around to doing one or the other, I'm sure.

However, gay people don't have that option. If one dies, the other is left with a huge uphill battle to ensure that their mate's last wishes were carried out.

And why? Is there a logical reason that gays should not be given the same rights in this area as a straight people? If a man and a woman can be recognized under the law as a couple, why not a homosexual couple? Legal marriage is a non-sectarian bond that provides couples with legal options that unmarried ones lack. So why not allow it for gays? That's my point.

 

[KillerMuffin]

The BSA is a private, not for profit organization. As far as I know they do not receive federal funding. http://www.scouting.org/nav/about.html They have always been strongly affiliated with various Christian organizations, but in the past decade or so, have branched out into the bhuddist community and other religions.

The problem with comparing homosexuality to black, blue-eyed or disabled persons is that not all people are convinced that homosexuality is an inherent condition. A good number of people believe that gay people aren't born that way, they've chosen to be gay. Now this, on the surface, seems preposterous, because why would anyone choose to be something that's viewed so negatively? People can, and do, choose to do things that adversely affect their lives. Case in point, abused girls growing up to marry abusive men. This idea of choice is further muddied by several individuals who have joined the vocal Christian community who claim to have been gay, seen the light, and are now heterosexual.

There are people out there who can't be anything but homosexual, quite obviously. Take Liberace for example. However, a predisposition to homosexuality has never been scientifically proven, which doesn't mean much of anything. Unless one is of the opinion that homosexuality is a choice, not the way one was born.

This also goes back to the issue of people being permitted to live however they choose (providing it doesn't infringe on the rights and well-being of others). If two gay men want to have the same legal priviledges that a married man and woman have, then they ought to. Period. Whether Christians like it or not, you cannot legislate morality. Particularly when at least half the population is not Christian.

The problem with the BSofA is that they see homosexuality as deviant sexual behavior, not as something that some people are inherently. Like the BSofA, I don't want my children exposed to deviant sexual behavior or permissive attitudes regarding deviant sexual behavior. What deviant sexual behavior is defined as differs from person to person, group to group.

There will be difficulty legislating for homosexuals as long as there is controversy over whether or not they chose to be gay or they were born that way.

 

[Unclebill]

I agree that that is really what is at the heart of the BSofA controversy. And I also agree that the government shouldn't enforce morality. If they don't want gays, they shouldn't be forced to include gays in their organization. The government should not force the KKK to accept blacks, the Black Panthers to accept Jews, etc... I truly and deeply believe that these groups are wrong in their approach, but America is nothing if people do not have the freedom to hold idiotic views.

Precisely why this has become one of my favorite quotations.

"If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all."
-- Jacob Hornberger, 1995

Ah, and the Republicans are entirely honest in their representation of Democrat party positions? I know you're not that naive...Activists on all sides of the fence exaggerate, twist the facts a bit, and sometimes even out-and-out lie. This is not a gay invention - this is politics.

The remark about the Democrat distortions was merely to point out that they have completely adopted the 'end justifies the means' attitude and are far more egregious in their behavior. The Republicans practice their fair share but are less egregious about it. Hence my remarks on other threads that I consider by and large Republicans to be fairly honest whereas I won't make that accusation of Democrats. They have become so brazen about their lies being accepted that they have ceased to act even remotely embarrassed or uneasy about even the most egregious distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies.

LOL! Do you really believe that, or are you playing with me? Have you ever visited godhatesfags.com? You don't want me to post an essay on the evils done in the name of religion? The lies told, the countries stolen, the innocent butchered? Look at the Middle East! To assume that anything done in the name of belief is somehow cleaner is a faulty - and dangerous - assumption.

So far I don't really see anywhere we disagree. Perhaps I am naive in my belief about the Christian Right Wing. The statement was a generalization I thought obvious. There is always the lunatic fringe in any cadre. My point was meant to be that generally, religious people are more likely to adhere more closely to truth than the activists who have adopted the 'end justifies the means' mentality. For them, being right has nothing to do with it: winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

And, no, of course you don't have to provide me a litany of evils done in the name of religion. However, you could probably do a better job of that than could I if I needed any convincing. My perception is that religion is less evil than government only because for religion to get access to or control over your life, livelihood and property, you must ascribe to their wooing voluntarily. With government, if you don't agree, they take without your consent and leave you no recourse.

To clarify: in my remarks above, I was referring to legal marriage. If I were to die right now, Manu would have little or no say in how my remains were disposed of, how my assets were distributed, etc. That right would go to my parents, whom I despise. Now, that's my fault because I've neither married Manu nor set up a living trust of some kind. Eventually, I'll get around to doing one or the other, I'm sure.

However, gay people don't have that option. If one dies, the other is left with a huge uphill battle to ensure that their mate's last wishes were carried out.

And why? Is there a logical reason that gays should not be given the same rights in this area as a straight people? If a man and a woman can be recognized under the law as a couple, why not a homosexual couple? Legal marriage is a non-sectarian bond that provides couples with legal options that unmarried ones lack. So why not allow it for gays? That's my point.

I know you're straight. I was referring to the decent, hence the smiley. That was meant in humor in case there's any misperception. And I agree about the 'legal rights' issue. This is more of the point I try to make about government grossly exceeding its legitimate bounds whether it's with homosexual couples, non-married hetero, or whatever. Most of these infringements are the result of laws written by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers IMNTBHO. Where is their a legitimacy for government to REQUIRE that in the event of death your property MUST go through probate? And how do they justify the death tax; I can remember when about the most despicable thing you could do was steal from the dead but politicians have raised it to an art form.

However abrogated by an abusive authoritarian government, it is your right to have Manu (or whoever you desire) as the heir to your property should you predecease him and to have him exercise control over distribution and dissemination of your worldly possessions.

This essentially comes back to the misperception of all these different arena of rights; legal rights, minority rights, gay rights, Jew rights, and all the other BS. The only legitimate application of the concept is to the individual and there seems to be a concerted effort to obfuscate or obliterate that concept.

You're making the very common error of accepting the erroneous propaganda regarding rights and it show in the way you address the idea as follows: Is there a logical reason that gays should not be given the same rights in this area as a straight people?

Keep in mind that rights are not given by government and thus cannot be taken away by government; they are innate, i. e., "…they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…". Government either protects or violates and abrogates your rights.

And to answer your question, NO, there is no logical reason for the disparity in treatment of heterosexual and homosexual couples or between married and unmarried couples. The reason seems to arise from religious influences in law which in reality violates the separation of church and state concept expressed in the Constitution.

Originally posted by KillerMuffin
The problem with comparing homosexuality to black, blue-eyed or disabled persons is that not all people are convinced that homosexuality is an inherent condition. A good number of people believe that gay people aren't born that way, they've chosen to be gay.

That is only a problem for those who are convinced that they are right despite evidence or lack of it.

To the best of my knowledge, the hypothesis of genetic origins of homosexuality have been pretty well dispelled. That leaves two possibilities as most likely with choice being one of them and you thoughts on that are well expressed.

The other possibility I heard best expressed by Dr. Laura and it goes basically like this. In the development of the human as it progresses from zygote to blastocyst to embryo to fetus there are numerous biochemical changes and stages triggered by a control mechanism. Occasionally, there will occur an error in this developmental process resulting in a number of anomalies, deformities, mutations, etc. One (or possibly combinations) of these errors may well result in a homosexual individual.

And for the record, it is this hypothesis that was the basis for the homosexual activists screaming and whining that Dr. Laura said they were biological errors. In fact, what she said was that their homosexual orientation was likely the result of a biochemical error during intrauterine development. What she said was their sexual response to the opposite gender was abnormal due to a biological error, NOT that they were a biological error.

Originally posted by KillerMuffin
If two gay men want to have the same legal priviledges that a married man and woman have, then they ought to. Period.

Why should any couple have legal privileges? They have as individuals the same rights as you or I. A government to be legitimate must treat all individuals as equal. Once it favors one person over another, it abandons its legitimacy.

Originally posted by KillerMuffin
Like the BSofA, I don't want my children exposed to deviant sexual behavior or permissive attitudes regarding deviant sexual behavior. What deviant sexual behavior is defined as differs from person to person, group to group.

The problem with the BSofA is that they see homosexuality as deviant sexual behavior, not as something that some people are inherently.

I absolutely agree with your desire of raising your children as you see fit and determining the values instilled in them. That is your right and your responsibility.

As to the second statement, why is it a bad thing to see deviant behavior as deviant behavior? That's merely acknowledging the perception of reality. Homosexuality is a deviant or abnormal behavior. Were it the norm, how long would our species survive?

Originally posted by KillerMuffin
There will be difficulty legislating for homosexuals as long as there is controversy over whether or not they chose to be gay or they were born that way.

Rights are applicable to the individual and only the individual. Government as the protector of your rights must treat everyone the same. It is irrational to presume that there should be special laws for homosexuals. There is absolutely no rational or moral justification for such laws. When government begins to treat non-criminal people differently, it surrenders its legitimacy.

 

[Closet Desire]

Somtimes it doesn't take laws...

Things are never what they seem. The BSA receives a great deal of funding directly and indirectly from a number of sources including the fed through the support of schools. Many of these organizations have already adopted policies regarding discrimination...without having to go to court. The link I've included details the funding and support the BSA has previously received from the New York City School System...and which it has just now lost due to its policy on gays. From CNN 2 December 00.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/12/01/ny.schools.boyscouts/index.html

No opinions this morning...too early...just the facts m'am!

 

[CelestialBody]