Dimwitted Social Conservatives

[Diogenes]

"queers"? Sheesh. I guess only liberals like you are entitled to use that kind of derogatory language since you are so enlightened that it is obviously a joke. I know, I know, gays often use that term with each other, but that doesn't make your use of it any less ignorant.

Anyway, count one conservative that is not opposed to gay marriage or civil unions.

Should beastiality be legalized?

Ahh there's always one that wants to jump to extremes in these arguments. Why are you personally against gay civil unions? What logical reasoning do you defer to in this instance?

Why don't you answer the question? 50 years ago gay marriage was extreme. Do you have no conception of a sliding scale?

[Diogenes]

It seems as though those against some form of civil union in the queer community are against such simply because they don't like it. Personally I suspect they will eventually get the right to said unions. You can look at the vote that went on (Prop in California, where 10 years ago it was 80-20 against vs. recent voting where it was like 55-45 against. At this rate, its going to happen and has already happened in several states.

Now if people are willing to pickup firearms to stop this, I find that disturbing. I find it hypocritical that they would cite religion (using Christianity in my example) which preaches compassion and understanding before violence to justify their viiolence.

How do you feel about polygamy?

I'm not for it, but I don't judge those who commit to polygamist relationships.

Pederasty?

I suppose I could save us all some time and ask you if you believe in any limits at some point, and if so why?

[kcdodd]

Do you think masturbation should be illegal?

[Betruger]

Well yeah. Blindness today, end of the world tomorrow. Sliding scales and all.

[Diogenes]

As someone with conservative and libertarian leanings, here is how I view it: advances in medical research since the 1980s, especially in genetics, have demonstrated that some people are homosexual, bisexual, whatever, at a basic biological level. It's not a "disease" which can be "cured," as was often thought in the preceding decades - you can't make them straight. Now that we have that knowledge, I see no reason to not let them live as "normally" - if there is such a thing - as possible.

Before you jump to conclusions, there are researchers that are specifically and intently looking for evidence of homosexuality being genetic. In this regard, they are like global warming proponents. Their intentions are to find evidence that takes them to their conclusion, rather than looking at evidence which leads elsewhere. Their sought for findings are loudly proclaimed everywhere by the proponents of this theory.

Homosexuality may have a genetic component, but that does not mean it must conclusively result in homosexuality on the part of an individual, just as in the case of other genetic disorders, one copy of a bad gene does not necessarily mean that gene will express itself.

There is also a rather odd correlation between incidence of molestation as a child and the onset of subsequent homosexuality.

In 1998, Dr. William C. Holmes, M.D. and Dr. Gail B. Slap, M.D. reported in the medical journal JAMA the following:
“ Adolescent boys, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual than peers who had not been abused (P<.001).

Prior to 1973, The American Psychiatry Association classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. It was removed from the list of mental disorders not because doctors became convinced that it was not a sickness, but because of mass intimidation of psychiatrists whom queer activists regarded as the "enemy."

Led by radicals like Frank Kameny, same-gender sex activists attacked many psychiatrists publicly, as Newsweek describes, “But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. ‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,’ shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. ‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!’” (Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47)

More info on this point.

I admit that if we were having this discussion before the 1980s I would likely be taking a much more conservative approach.

Furthermore, in referenced to the suggestion that gay sex is "deadly" - that idea is usually associated with concerns about spread of disease. If gay people get married and stay in long term relationships, STDs are likely to be less of a problem for that community, just the same as STDs go down in any population which discourages promiscuity. Wouldn't that actually be better for society?

Gay people getting married doesn't really affect me. I'm more likely to be discouraged from getting married by the mess of convoluted laws that have been put in place around the institution.

I do not know if you have studied the subject of Homosexuality. Monogamous relationships are the extreme exception. If Homosexuals make up 2% of the overall population, than monogamous homosexuals make up probably 2% of the homosexual population. The vast bulk are promiscuous on a level that heterosexual nymphomaniacs and satyromaniacs can't even begin to attain.

Before San Fransisco closed it's bath houses due to the rampaging AIDS epidemic, studies indicated that the typical bath house denizen would engage in 10 sexual encounters per night.


It is easy to just accept what you are told and run with the crowd. I see evidence of Hollywood propaganda continuously "normalizing" the practice of homosexuality. ("Glee" comes to mind.) Those in control of the propaganda apparatus want this, and they are going to keep feeding everyone a steady diet of "this is normal" till eventually the ship of opinion swings to accept it.

Then they will move the goal posts further again. Next stop, lowering the age of consent. Sexuality will suddenly become a "right" at any age.

[ScottL]

Should beastiality be legalized?

Ahh there's always one that wants to jump to extremes in these arguments. Why are you personally against gay civil unions? What logical reasoning do you defer to in this instance?

Why don't you answer the question? 50 years ago gay marriage was extreme. Do you have no conception of a sliding scale?

I think AcesHigh did for me, but just in case you missed it:

do you have mental problems? Sex with animals are usually outlawed because animals cant give consent, because they are not intelligent. Its the same thing with children. Children are not considered to be able to take the decisions to have sex or not with adults.

gee, in fact if we strictly followed religious christian/judeo laws, we would probably still be able to have sex with girls after their first menstruation... of course, if we first married them (with their parent´s approval).


an homosexual couple, male or female, is composed of two human adults who can decide whats best for them. It doesnt not interferes at all with anybody else!


btw, speaking of animals, some homosexual animal behavior for you. Most interesting of it all is the bonobos, who are closer to us than chimps and are completely bisexual. (that is, IF you believe in evolution at all)
[youtube]8VSDVRuPydk[/youtube]

[Diogenes]

Do you think masturbation should be illegal?

I assume this is addressed to me.

No.

[Diogenes]

Why don't you answer the question? 50 years ago gay marriage was extreme. Do you have no conception of a sliding scale?

I think AcesHigh did for me, but just in case you missed it:

Yes, I did in fact miss it. If it has AcesHigh's name on it, I don't even look at it, and that is a polite way of saying it. But since you seem to have read it, and decided his argument must have some sort of merit, I'll take a look at your re-post of it. (All derogatory comments will be addressed to AcesHigh.)

do you have mental problems? Sex with animals are usually outlawed because animals cant give consent, because they are not intelligent.

Animals can give consent. Till the Dutch government recently outlawed the production of Beastiality movies, you could see plenty of examples of Animals giving vigorous consent from Holland. (I believe you can still find links to them on the net.) I understand the country of Brazil still produces such videos. If not, they certainly used to.

Apart from that, milking bulls is a very common practice world wide. No problems with dumb animals giving consent as far as I can tell.

Its the same thing with children. Children are not considered to be able to take the decisions to have sex or not with adults.

Age of consent in Mexico is 12 I believe. In many Muslim countries there is no such thing as an age of consent. Pederasty is actually a rather common practice. What's a matter with you, are you some sort of intolerant bigot who doesn't respect their culture?

In Ancient Greece, Pederasty was routine. Adult Homosexuality was considered disgusting.

gee, in fact if we strictly followed religious christian/judeo laws, we would probably still be able to have sex with girls after their first menstruation... of course, if we first married them (with their parent´s approval).

Not you. Eunuchs don't have sex. (You see why I don't bother with this @sshole?)

an homosexual couple, male or female, is composed of two human adults who can decide whats best for them. It doesnt not interferes at all with anybody else!

Most homosexuals do not remain couples. They tend to be promiscuous to a degree Heterosexuals cannot fathom. I don't expect you to know this because you are the most ignorant person I have ever encountered in my life.AIDS would never have become an Epidemic but for homosexual promiscuity.

btw, speaking of animals, some homosexual animal behavior for you. Most interesting of it all is the bonobos, who are closer to us than chimps and are completely bisexual. (that is, IF you believe in evolution at all)
[youtube]8VSDVRuPydk[/youtube]

No, you moron, weaker males are "dominated" by stronger males. Bulls attempt to do this as well as an assortment of other animals. It is a methodology they use for establishing dominance. Besides that, if you are getting your life advice from animals, you might as well lick @sses and eat Sh*t the way dogs and pigs do.

Think about it. What is the "Evolutionary" Advantage of a male chimp boning another male chimp?

[Diogenes]

Clearly whoever it is that you're quoting hasn't considered conservative fiscal policy contradictions.

And what would those contradictions be?

[kcdodd]

At least I can masturbate in Diogenes utopia.

You want to know contradictions? You like tradition, but you are telling people who come from happily married parents that they cannot stay in the tradition of marriage in their family because they are gay? You want to stop promiscuous gay sex, but you would prefer a society that tells them not to settle down in commitment? You want to lower the rates of divorce, but you would rather force gay men into unfulfilled marriages with women because, what, you thought it was icky?

Or, as the golden girls can show simply: http://youtu.be/2xxpd3Ye0zA

[kcdodd]

While I am down here in the basement, I would also like to add that gay people who advocate gay marriage are really closet (if closeted at all) conservatives, because marriage is a conservative idea, at least to me. If the conservative politics (fiscally that is) would get off their stupid anti-gay shit they would have a lot more allies then they might suspect. My partner and I agreed that being married (legally) isn't going to matter a whole lot if our economic system collapses. But I still am not going to vote for bat shit crazy anti-gay people. I do still have self respect. And I do know something about bat shit. I live right next to a colony a several thousand bats, and yes, they stink.

[Diogenes]

At least I can masturbate in Diogenes utopia.

You want to know contradictions? You like tradition, but you are telling people who come from happily married parents that they cannot stay in the tradition of marriage in their family because they are gay? You want to stop promiscuous gay sex, but you would prefer a society that tells them not to settle down in commitment? You want to lower the rates of divorce, but you would rather force gay men into unfulfilled marriages with women because, what, you thought it was icky?

Or, as the golden girls can show simply: http://youtu.be/2xxpd3Ye0zA

You can take the ventriloquist straw man dummy off of your lap. You are not accurately representing my perspective. I am not advocating any sort of utopia, just a real world that sucks less because people exercise some degree of self control, the lack of which is rapidly killing us.

I consider Homosexuality to be a disorder (The way it has been regarded by the civilized world for most of mankind's existence) from which some people suffer. From my perspective, it is little different from someone with Coprophagia trying to convince everyone they are "ok" and that there is nothing wrong with it.

The following may not have any affect on your perspective, but it might influence others.

First, Chaz Bono is not a man. She is a woman who has undergone radical surgeries and is taking male hormones in order to look like a man. That isn’t a political position, it’s a biological reality. Chaz Bono wants to be thought of as male, but she is not male.

Second, while Chaz Bono may now feel that her journey toward self-acceptance has ended, I am not convinced. I say this because, absent the gender politics involved, I was taught to consider Chaz Bono’s contention that she is male as a psychotic delusion—a fixed and false belief.

Read the rest of Dr. Keith Ablow's comments. He speaks the truth regarding an issue of which so many people refuse to see reality.


http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/nat ... o_55163480

[Diogenes]

While I am down here in the basement, I would also like to add that gay people who advocate gay marriage are really closet (if closeted at all) conservatives, because marriage is a conservative idea, at least to me. If the conservative politics (fiscally that is) would get off their stupid anti-gay shit they would have a lot more allies then they might suspect. My partner and I agreed that being married (legally) isn't going to matter a whole lot if our economic system collapses. But I still am not going to vote for bat shit crazy anti-gay people. I do still have self respect. And I do know something about bat shit. I live right next to a colony a several thousand bats, and yes, they stink.

You are advocating "pragmatism". (I.E. there would be political benefit to adopting a position favored by a constituency. ) What we need less of in our political system are such people as would trade principle for short term benefit. That is how we got into the mess we are in now.


I would like to go on a lengthy post about how marriage came about, why it was good for society, how it affected infant mortality and population growth, why it is incompatible with abnormal relationships, why there are no legal benefits that cannot be acquired through contract, and why the debate has more to do with imposing a new morality than anything else, but it would be too long, and few if anyone would bother to consider it anyway.

But just to satisfy my desire to make people aware of something on the issue that they might not have known, here is a link to a piece of information on the subject.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 09822.html

[ScottL]

Animals can give consent. Till the Dutch government recently outlawed the production of Beastiality movies, you could see plenty of examples of Animals giving vigorous consent from Holland. (I believe you can still find links to them on the net.) I understand the country of Brazil still produces such videos. If not, they certainly used to.

I was willing to listen to you on several topics as you usually provide reasonable critiques that I can often look up until this comment. This is not consent, this is instinct much as a dog who jumps on a stuffed animal if it so gets between its legs. Your failure to distinguish between what is animal instinct and what is consent and the way you make this point is appauling.

[CaptainBeowulf]

Homosexuality may have a genetic component, but that does not mean it must conclusively result in homosexuality on the part of an individual, just as in the case of other genetic disorders, one copy of a bad gene does not necessarily mean that gene will express itself.

In particular in the case of bisexuals, there are people who do have a "choice" between pursuing a gay lifestyle and trying to settle down in a traditional straight relationship. I agree that there's often a mixture of nature and nurture in determining behaviour. And, I can believe that abuse during childhood can cause serious confusion in a person, but there seems to be a core component of the homosexual population which is genuinely homosexual and can't change. I'm fine with letting them do their thing.

Let's take it from the opposite angle. I heard a story one time (I think it was in a newspaper or magazine), I don't know if it's true, that back in the 70s, when artificial insemination came in, that a lesbian couple and a homosexual couple got the procedure done and produced a son. This child was raised in the gay community but nonetheless turned out straight. So, he was biologically tuned to be straight and couldn't be changed by his environment. I can believe that too.

I do not know if you have studied the subject of Homosexuality. Monogamous relationships are the extreme exception. If Homosexuals make up 2% of the overall population, than monogamous homosexuals make up probably 2% of the homosexual population. The vast bulk are promiscuous on a level that heterosexual nymphomaniacs and satyromaniacs can't even begin to attain.

Yes, I know promiscuity is rife in many homosexual communities. What I haven't seen any adequate studies on is whether this is biological or the result of the gay culture that developed in those communities. While orientation seems to have a genetic basis, levels of promiscuity seem to be much more easily influenced by culture - look at Roman orgies, for example. Gay people who want to get married would appear to be rejecting promiscuity.

Also, during various university studies and at work I have known people who turned out to be gay. Just judging on my personal observations, a number of them do not seem to be promiscuous. Of course, I don't know what they do in their spare time, but a few are actually quite conservative in their attitudes, dress, etc.

sliding scale

Yes, I agree that the left has tried to impose a sliding scale on all sorts of issues. Someone might have views that would be considered liberal in the 1950s but would now be called ultra-conservative. In fact, let's take this discussion as an example.

What I said originally was that although homosexuality is not entirely "normal," (at a genetic level it is an aberration), since completely gay people can't change, they should be allowed/encouraged to live as normalized a life as possible. Gay marriage is better than promiscuity and the spread of disease. That position would get me attacked by some of the leftists I know. I would basically be screamed at that I have to accept that there is no such thing as genetic aberration, that it's completely normal, that I have to accept that homosexuals have been oppressed throughout history and apologize for being a straight white man. I would probably be called a bigot and a fascist into the equation. So I'm well aware of the sliding scale trick they try to pull.

My position is simply that I'm not going to mirror their behaviour. I'm not going to say that because they try to sneak in a sliding scale, I have to reject any kind of change in attitudes and insist on holding views I might have held were this the 1950s or 1960s. Since there appears to be a large level of biological determinant in homosexuality, I'll tolerate reasonable people for being who they are, regardless of the extremists.

*Edit* - I shouldn't just say "would be" screamed at by the leftists - I try to avoid being dragged into any such discussions with people I know are extremists, but sometimes they demand your opinion and I have been attacked by leftists for not being "accepting enough" in the way I view this subject.