Money is okay but teh gays are bad?

[kirottu]

Mothman totally doesn't get the funny, once again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Some times I think there

[Musopticon?]

Not to sound like a clich

[metadigital]

If these people did do not make noise they will never get their rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rights are not acquired or given by flamboyant displays of ill conceived notions surrounding sexuality. All they are doing is noise, nothing else. There is no merit in having a different skin color, nor is there any merit in having a different sexual preference; therefore, no reason to be proud of it. They did not fight for their right to be gay; they already were to begin with. It's absurd to attribute pride to sexuality or to use sexuality as an identity flag; sex is bereft of identity and history, and it does not beget any kind of culture, ethics or politics. Homosexuality is a natural condition, not an ideological argument. When it is used as such, it loses its value.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The minorities are just trying to reverse the stigma attached to their minority condition by the majority. Not to suggest that one state / condition is better than another.

Gay parades are at best warped expressions of what Dr. La Forest Potter did in the early 30's, where he tried to typify the common traits or distinguishable characteristics of homosexuals and went on to propose a ludicrous laundry list of such features. They end up exacerbating the common misinterpretations of their nature and end up parodying themselves. How does that give them rights? And rights on what, especifically? "Gay pride" does not exist, and suffice to say neither do 'heterosexuals' or 'homosexuals'; it's all an absurd concept born out of narrow minds and narrower visions, not unlike Potter's own irrational discriminations disguised as science. There are just men and women, human beings who are capable of loving people of the same gender, of opposing gender and of both genders. 'Homosexual' describes an act, not an identity; and the problem stems from trying to do the opposite, redefining identity by how submission to desire is made. In the end, gay parades are terrible attempts at the expression of homosexuality and are no better examples of homosexuality than construction workers playing Casanova to passing by women are expressions of heterosexuality. It's a vulgar and rudimentary manifestation of exacerbated sexual traits. Nothing else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it is more therapy: celebrating the RIGHT to BE OPENLY GAY in society, without bigotry and repression. Otherwise, through the silence of the majority that is more to aquiesce, but that is manipulated by other, vocal minorities condemnation.

The only thing they should really be proud of is their human ability to love, to truly love another and fight for said love.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amen.

I'm sure someone could tell me all about gay minorities and how they are excluded and such. Unfortunately, since I do not believe in the concept of homosexuality as indicated above, I also don't believe in gay minorities. And I don't believe any of them will ever have their rights achieved by excluding themselves and trying to pin that exclusion on others. There are human beings who can undergo situations of exclusion and humiliation, and if that is the case then it is the duty of any civilized society which they are a part of to correct these situations - not because they are 'gay victims' but because they are victims. Not because they deserve to be respected while being 'gay' but because they deserve to be respected while human beings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wish we lived in such a utopian vision, too.

All this homosexual martyrdom, associated rethorics and its aberrant displays - such as gay parades - are much more insulting to human beings who love those of the same gender than people will ever understand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not sure I am able to pass a judgment, but I would expect that, as long as the right to be OPENLY, publickly a member of a minority, then there is less need for the display.

[Bokishi]

Drinking is good for the heart *is serious*

[Dark Moth]

No, I got LL's funny. I think Muso missed my point.

[metadigital]

So wait meta, are you saying that blacks are still repressed in the USA, and still do not have equal rights?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes.

[kirottu]

Not to sound like a clich

[Llyranor]

So, explain to me why the Catholic church is opposing homosexual priests, when they should advocate chastity in the first place :D

[metadigital]

[Musopticon?]

Not to sound like a clich

Edited March 18, 2006 by Musopticon?

[kirottu]

Not to sound like a clich

[Dark Moth]

So, explain to me why the Catholic church is opposing homosexual priests, when they should advocate chastity in the first place :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They do advocate chastity. For one thing, I can't really speak for Catholics, since I am Protestant (woo-hoo!). But one reason why they might oppose homosexual priests is probably the same reason boy scouts would oppose gay scout troops. Not necessarily out of homophobia, but out of safety. Imagine this: you have a male priest who has taken a vow of chastity. Sex is a part of human nature that, like any other part, starts to really get to you once you go without for a long time. Then say that this priest was homosexual. A priest who spends much of his life around other men AND young boys. The chances of a homosexual priest abusing a young boy would be greater than that of a heterosexual priest abusing a young boy.

Edited March 18, 2006 by Mothman

[WITHTEETH]

The Catholics that oppose homosexuality do it only because they are insecure about their own sexuality and i have no pity for those that discriminate against others who are just trying to live a happy life together. These catholics that are against happiness are sadistic.

[kirottu]

I

[Dark Moth]

Making it is just as wonderful.

[Musopticon?]

Like you would know.

[Hurlshort]

So, explain to me why the Catholic church is opposing homosexual priests, when they should advocate chastity in the first place :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They do advocate chastity. For one thing, I can't really speak for Catholics, since I am Protestant (woo-hoo!). But one reason why they might oppose homosexual priests is probably the same reason boy scouts would oppose gay scout troops. Not necessarily out of homophobia, but out of safety. Imagine this: you have a male priest who has taken a vow of chastity. Sex is a part of human nature that, like any other part, starts to really get to you once you go without for a long time. Then say that this priest was homosexual. A priest who spends much of his life around other men AND young boys. The chances of a homosexual priest abusing a young boy would be greater than that of a heterosexual priest abusing a young boy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is utter BS. Sexual predators and homosexuals are not similiar. The homosexual priest has the same chance of engaging in sexual conduct with a child as the straight priest.

 

The Catholic church WAS moving towards being more open to gay priests. It's quite recent, and a sign of our current pope, that they have renewed the attack on homosexuality. In the 90's the Catholic church even aknowledged that homosexuality is a genetic disposition.

[Llyranor]

So, explain to me why the Catholic church is opposing homosexual priests, when they should advocate chastity in the first place :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They do advocate chastity. For one thing, I can't really speak for Catholics, since I am Protestant (woo-hoo!). But one reason why they might oppose homosexual priests is probably the same reason boy scouts would oppose gay scout troops. Not necessarily out of homophobia, but out of safety. Imagine this: you have a male priest who has taken a vow of chastity. Sex is a part of human nature that, like any other part, starts to really get to you once you go without for a long time. Then say that this priest was homosexual. A priest who spends much of his life around other men AND young boys. The chances of a homosexual priest abusing a young boy would be greater than that of a heterosexual priest abusing a young boy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This calls for a castration campaign!

[Dark Moth]

Like you would know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's common knowledge.

Edited March 18, 2006 by Mothman

[kirottu]

Making it is just as wonderful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Making love when in love is double awsomness! Liek totally!

[metadigital]

So, explain to me why the Catholic church is opposing homosexual priests, when they should advocate chastity in the first place :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They do advocate chastity. For one thing, I can't really speak for Catholics, since I am Protestant (woo-hoo!). But one reason why they might oppose homosexual priests is probably the same reason boy scouts would oppose gay scout troops. Not necessarily out of homophobia, but out of safety. Imagine this: you have a male priest who has taken a vow of chastity. Sex is a part of human nature that, like any other part, starts to really get to you once you go without for a long time. Then say that this priest was homosexual. A priest who spends much of his life around other men AND young boys. The chances of a homosexual priest abusing a young boy would be greater than that of a heterosexual priest abusing a young boy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mothman,

 

homosexuality ≠ pederasty

 

that is a fallacy. And a dangerous one.

[Dark Moth]

Mothman,

 

homosexuality ≠ pederasty

 

that is a fallacy. And a dangerous one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't mean that. I meant that one sexual orientation may be more predisposed to that sort of thing with the other. A priest spends much of his life around other men, and in many cases alone with other men. If a priest does not feel any sexual attraction toward males, he'd be less likely to have sex with them. And yes, I'm well aware that heterosexuals do in many cases have intercourse with those of the same sex (ex. prisons), which comes mostly out of sexual starvation. But my only point is that you'd have a greater chance of that (abusing members of your own sex) happening with one orientation than another.

Edited March 18, 2006 by Mothman

[Llyranor]

So it's okay to only target one group and not the other. "Statistically, there'd be fewer molestations, because that's already better than more! Hurray!"

[Diogo Ribeiro]

The minorities are just trying to reverse the stigma attached to their minority condition by the majority. Not to suggest that one state / condition is better than another.

 

And in the process do so in a way that does not fit their agenda. If it's assumed that somehow homosexuality or rather, those who express themselves as being homosexuals being in a repressed minority - which I disagree with, because what we're witnessing is prejudice against established social conventions which are wrongfully thought of as laws of nature, prejudice which apparently has no bearing on the affirmative action taken by increasingly more and more people (which in itself contradicts the essence of minorities as it is slowly becoming less of a minority) - it isn't beneficial to manifest themselves in a way that corresponds to common misinterpretations of them. They want to remove prejudices based on unfounded categorizations or beliefs of them; not to reenforce them.

 

I think it is more therapy: celebrating the RIGHT to BE OPENLY GAY in society, without bigotry and repression. Otherwise, through the silence of the majority that is more to aquiesce, but that is manipulated by other, vocal minorities condemnation.

 

They can't celebrate that right if they claim they haven't acquired it yet; or is it a celebration that refers to every single successful step that promotes their agenda? Nonetheless it is a flawed therapy because the right to be open towards anything that goes against social conventions will always be met with bigotry and repression, wheter for good or bad and wheter we agree of disagree with it. To me, the right to be openly gay is a falacious issue because they have the right to be gay; they always had the right. They are not forbidden of being gay by no man or no law. However, the right to the expression of any person's mind, behavior or belief is not isempt of criticism or opposition. As such, people have the right to exercise free will and free speech - but they can't expect to be free of consequence. We can't deny someone's free will (in this case someone who would oppose homosexuality) because it goes against that of other individuals (in this case someone who supports it). We can, however, make sure divergences are kept in check and do not outweigh the concerns and integrity both physical or moral of either side.

 

I wish we lived in such a utopian vision, too.

 

All I've done is said things how they are, although not all want to see them as such. I don't think this is necessarily utopian as I do not find it impractical as a standalone truth nor as a concept applied in a social reform. Curiosly, given our nature, I find the erradication of bigotry and repression to be much more utopian than the acceptance we're all human beings who are capable of loving each other.

 

Not sure I am able to pass a judgment, but I would expect that, as long as the right to be OPENLY, publickly a member of a minority, then there is less need for the display.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The problem is, in the eyes of those which are supposed to be made more tolerant of open sexuality, do 'gay pride' parades come off as meaningful opinion-changing vehicules or histrionic nonsense? While I don't mean to use anedoctal evidence, the fact is I've yet to encounter people who believe these parades to be anything but the later.

[alanschu]

The whole gay pride thing needs to go.

 

People don't march around wearing Hetrosexual and proud T-shirts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Probably because heterosexuals aren't openly discriminated against, nor are they they minority.