Sunday, August 21, 2005
What Else?
Another round of articles showing that Playing violent video games can heighten aggression - Review of research shows.
The new pope is travelling around, correctly criticizing flaky religious consumerism.
Another article in a similar vein, criticizing the Dem's "born-again-religious-conversion-after-the-2004-defeat":
DEMS: Website religion page does not a moral party make
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
This "lying to appear honest" is exactly what homo activists do.
Here is the latest part of another discussion on homosexuality at Angry in the Great White North blog:
The ancient Greeks and Romans knew something about what we now call "gays" in the media. In reality, there is little 'gay' about this lifestyle choice.
European history has had an ebb and tide relationship with this phenomenological choice by certain males dissing biological relations with women even as 'the women's movement' elevates 'gay' males to sacrosanct status. Go figure...
In freedom, we have choice; but choice should not entail promotion at the expense of objective factual reality of what this choice means. Martin 'Liberal' "human rights" laws try to stifle objective information about such a choice.
Posted by: edward mills at August 11, 2005 01:58 AM
Edward -
Nonsense. This constant and consistent attempt by right wing groups to create "objective" information about people they wish to vilify is as revolting as the ways the left has contributed to degrading individual choices in other parts of life.
The argument about promotion would have been more convincing had society quietly allowed same-sex marriages in the first place. Instead, the history is about nailing an entire group of people to the cross - first by claiming they are mentally ill and using bogus research to support the notion, then by claiming they were too promiscous to have meaningful committed relationships. Obviously both positions were despicably wrong.
One wonders how any group can argue about the superiority of their moral viewpoint when they have willingly engaged in outright deception to crucify an entire class of people, and yet demand that they themselves be treated as an individual. Our society has a history - and that history involves the existence of gay citizens even when there wasn't a single representation of them in any format of media or public statement. Of course, that made it easier for the dominant group to develop all kinds of myths about gays to reinforce their own insecurities.
One of the most outrageous things we see today is the attempt by American "family" groups to cart out the oldest, most horrifying attitudes and present them as "objective" information. One such recent directive by James Dobson explains how to instruct your child on proper gender identification in order to prevent them from becoming gay. These directions include having the father shower with the son so the child can see the size of Dad's peepee.
This isn't the 13th Century. If some people need superstitious nonsense to make them feel better about their innate hatred of others, then at least learn how to accept that reality about yourselves. And if that leads anyone to self-hatred, then you might get the first clue about how effectively you've worked for centuries to force gays to live that for their entire lives.
Posted by: Kevin at August 11, 2005 10:33 AM
Kevin -
You like to spout off demonizing others as bigoted, hate filled witch hunters, but yet continually choose to ignore some of the horrible truths of homosexuality.
This is a lifestyle CHOICE that is typified by:
- Higher than average STD transmission, including AIDS; coupled with abnormally high levels of regular unprotected sex with many partners
- RISING HIV infection rates regardless of modern education
- Higher than average depression, alcoholism, and suicide rates.
- Lower life expectancy as a whole
- Supression of treatment that has helped many Ex-Gays; regardless of many people admitting improvement and happier lives
- A biological phenomenom incapable of sustanance without support from the heterosexual community
Until I see the homosexual community deal with its own problems, I find little sympathy for their public escapades.
Posted by: Toad at August 11, 2005 04:39 PM
Toad -
Since you are talking about MY life (and I'm assuming it isn't YOURS) exactly what is your experience in gathering information and interaction with this community that you claim to have so many "facts" about?
Again, you seek legitimacy for your own bigotry by attempting to compare statistics between the gay population and the heterosexual population. There are two different cultural/social situations there. Why? Because people like you created the environment that encouraged a culture of depression and self-hatred based on manufacturing blatant and hostile lies.
Moreover, there are no studies which indicate homosexuals are incapable of reproduction - their reproductive abilities are not inhibited. Women still produce eggs and men produce sperm. They are not dependent on the heterosexual community.
It is rather arrogant for you to believe anyone should accept or give you credibility on whether homosexuality is a "choice" - frankly, unless you've experienced making such a choice, you really don't have any basis for a speculative opinion. And since you failed to explain to us when you made your own choice to become heterosexual, you again detract from your own basic argument.
Attempting to fake interest in the causes of homosexuality ring quite hollow when it really has nothing to do with you. Perhaps if you would focus on the social and health ills caused by the history of heterosexual behaviors, you could draw the same conclusions about the well-being of that orientation. Surely there have been enough incidents of in-family relationships, birth defects, unfaithful partners, STD transmissions,deadbeat spouses, alcoholism and drug addiction to label the entire heterosexual population incapable of meeting the obligations of monogamous relationships.
How would you know what the rates of promiscuity are among the gay population? Are there even definitive census figures about the number of identified gay citizens in the country? Do you honestly believe that a gay citizen should even think of giving credibility to "research" where the base population cannot even be identified and represented?
If you don't want to be called a bigot and a witch hunter, then stop behaving like one. If might frustrate the hell out of Right wingers, but frankly, you are incapable of conducting research about the very people you put in the social closet. Wasn't that the whole point of putting them there in the first place?
The worst place you could even attempt to go is to some junk statistics - and I don't care where the sources are. You cannot classify an entire group of people based on a random speculative study of a population in which the numbers have not even been identified. Of course, if you'd like to apply those same principles to research about heterosexuality, how difficult do you think it is to locate some drug addicts, sex offenders, divorced dads, irresponsible child abusers, and rapists and manufacture "facts" about the instability and danger of the heterosexual choice? That would be far easier to create than this kind of nonsense - after all, since this thread was about marriage, how many institutions are usually supported by the taxpayers indefinitely with a nearly 50% rate of failure?
Deal with your own social ills and stop projecting your standards on my community. Conservatives failed for decades to consider our lives worth spending any amount of time and money on - the sudden interest is flattering, in a sense, but much too little and way too late. Figure out some other way to make yourself feel superior to other human beings.
Posted by: Kevin at August 11, 2005 05:49 PM
I may be missing something, not being Canadian, but here in the USA, a competent adult can leave a will which has the force of law no matter what his relatives want. This is what I don't get about the whole "perk" thing. Why wait for the govt. to do it for you when you can designate a beneficiary for your insurance or pension plan of your choosing, execute a medical power of attorney, a financial power of attorney, a will, hold your real estate as joint tenants w/right of survivor ship, etc. etc. The only thing the left to the govt. is your social security and today, with most people working, most people collect on their own, rather than their spouses anyway. What other "perks" is marriage going to get you other than not having to do any of this yourself? Of course, any responsible hetero couple will have done all of this anyway to make sure things are buttoned up.
That said, marriage wasn't about perks historically but about paternity, family, protection for women who couldn't work outside the home until modern times, about division of labor when obtaining food and preparing it was a full time occupation in itself, it was about how people grouped themselves to propagate and survive as we moved from agriculture to manufacturing to office, from large family groups to the nuclear family. And that's my .02.
Posted by: MC at August 11, 2005 09:19 PM
To my first comment on this post, David responded with: "The thousand 'perks' are specifically related to being married and not to having children. Examples would be the flow of pension funds, the sharing of health benefits, taxation rates, deductions, property and inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights..."
I concede that there are "perks" for married people without children, though I will argue that the original intent of many of these "perks" was to give families a financial break ("sharing of health benefits, taxation rates, deductions", etc.) or otherwise promote and aid in the stability of the family (though obviously there are powerful counter-forces that would break up families). Why? Because generally speaking marriages have historically assumed the social "burden" of producing and raising the next generation. So again, since marriage no longer serves a public purpose (at least not in the context of Bill C-38), we should do away with marriage as a public institution, or restore it's original definition and promote it's original purpose.
Back to the words that inspired Angry in T.O.'s post spoken by a typical gay activist: "Generally speaking, marriage should be for love." This is puzzling because we can't just marry anyone that we love, such as family members (related or adoped) and friends. What the gay lobby has been trying to do is get society to buy into their claim that their long-term relationship of "love" is essentially the same and as valuable to society as a marriage between a man and a woman. But the only difference between two "pals" who would get married and live together (as in the case that inspired this discussion), and two gay people who get married and live together is the sexual component.
There is no way that the gay lobby can say that their "love" is more important to society than the love between "pals" or siblings, for example. Why wouldn't two "pals" (opposite or same gender) who are prepared to accept the legal commitments want to enjoy the "perks" of marriage if gay couples can enjoy these "perks"? Of course, roommates together for the long-run weren't looking to get "married", but why not now? The term "marriage" doesn't mean anything anymore (it's basically a synonym for long-term legal relationship), so why not enjoy the "perks" doled out by our ever so generous and compassionate government.
Posted by: dragev at August 11, 2005 09:40 PM
MC - that is all partially true. However, wills can and ARE challenged, and the most popular historical examples of this in the gay community was when distant relatives were able to use the "mental illness" designation approved (until 1973) by the APA as evidence that the deceased couldn't have been of sound mind when designating heirs. If we go even farther into that history, gays would attempt to "adopt" each other in order to secure some form of legal recognition and protection.
It should go without saying that if a simple will and other simple arrangements that "single" people can use were adequate protections, the government would have no need to install over 1000 statutes defining particular relationships with automatic or special treatment. Moreover, laws governing those without spouses ONLY recognized LEGAL family members for everything as simple as a funeral arrangement. And there are plenty of experiences among gays of being shut out of their own partner's funerals by the family of the deceased simply because they did not "approve" of their relationship.
In essence, the State's role in many of those statutes is supposed to ensure the smooth transfer of property and disposal of bodies, etc. . .not to designate them as marriage only arrangements. However, it was conservatives who decided these were perks of marriage, even though many of these events are not only universal, but uniquely individual moments in life.
We know that society has changed and understand the history, including those parts which excluded women from owning property and limited their resource ability if they were unable to marry or were widowed. I don't know of any time in human history where there were exactly as many marriageable males ans marriageable females in the population, so for whatever "natural" reason, perfectly capable reproducing heterosexuals were eliminated from participating in this custom.
Posted by: Kevin at August 11, 2005 11:34 PM
Dragev -
I don't believe that Bill C-38 fundamentally changed any of the purposes of civil marriage in the least. Much greater changes in the function of marriage evolved over time, so I'll assume here that advocating society move back to the "original" intent means that either the tribal leader, the government, or the patriarch make the selection for spouse for the children. This would also require reinstuting the tradition of dowries and transfer of land for the "purchase" of the daughter's hand.
As for the concept of marriage for "love", that is purely a heterosexual development that started taking much deeper root in culture about 300 years ago. Love is the ideal on which marriage is founded upon now - there aren't many popular songs about wanting to buy a wife to procreate with. . .
And trying to compare choices to limitations without families doesn't work either. The State has long had an interest in preventing marriages in which birth defects could seriously damage a subsequent child, particularly when that may impose large costs upon the state for upbringing. And in many states in the U.S., some provisions for familial matrimony do exist - in my own state, for example, first cousins may marry as long as the woman is over 50 and cannot produce a child.
If you want to restore marriage to its original intention, then it would be the responsibility of adults to defer to the choices of their parents or the government in securing partners purely to maximize property ownership and create a next generation that would meet certain genetic characteristics desired by society.
Your attempt at providing insight into what you characterize as "love" between members of the same sex is not only arrogant, but obviously based on nothing. You have no more right to an opinion about the validity of a love relationship between gay partners than you do the love between any heterosexual couple, and you should certainly have enough personal experience in life to see that relationships vary widely among every pair of partners of any orientation. To try to degrade them to mere friends or roommates is a product of your own insecurity rather than any real knowledge about their feelings, particularly since that statement wouldnt' be limited to a generic description of one kind of relationship as if it doesn't exist in the others. We all know better than that - heterosexuals invented the marriage of convenience, the marriage for money, the marriage for citizenship, and thousands upon thousands of marriages that are never consummated. Does the State police the heterosexual couple after the first couple of months to guarantee they are not living just as friends? Does the State arbitrarily dissolve the hetero relationship without the consent or request of any partner if it hasn't met some list of requirements?
Nope.
And there is some way you can tell me that Britney Spear's 24 hour marriage is somehow more valuable to society than the 40 years a gay couple has spent together raising children and taking care of each other? That Elizabeth Taylor's multiple weddings somehow has more social value? Get over it - the benefit to society is the encouragement of a monogamous, committed relationship for life. Conservatives can't complain about gays being "promiscuous" and then deny them access to the only institution created that encourages monogamy and commitment. Nor can they contend that we should be ordered to remain celibate for our entire lives because you have some sort of disorder about something that doesn't involve you.
Posted by: Kevin at August 11, 2005 11:54 PM
Kevin-I'm glad you see the reason in what I wrote. And yes, 30 years ago, wills were broken just as you said. And as a little girl in the 1950's, the only options I thought I had for careers were nurse, teacher, secretary or homemaker. Times change and I think they have changed rapidly for both women and gays. Straight, married people have problems with wills too. I'm a 2nd wife of a man w/ 2 children from a previous marriage. If he didn't specify the division in his will, our state would divide his estate into equal 1/3's. Although I raised his children and we all get along, our intent is that, should he predecease me, the money all goes to me for my old age and then the remainder (there should be plenty) is left to the kids. This is a long winded way of saying that marriage does not automatically make things happen the way you want. You still have to take responsibility for your own wills, property, etc.
In fact, I just got back for a week vist w/ a dear friend in San Francisco, a gay man who 3 years ago lost his partner of 28 years. They had property, mingled funds, lives and of course, love. I don't really see what marriage would have changed. Once again, they had done all the legal work years ago.
Coming from the 60's, 70's when we wanted the freedon the be together without a marriage license, I have to say that a lot of the gay marriage push looks like an attempt to get $ out of companies in the form of health insurance and govts. in the form of social security (or whatever you have in Canada). I don't think many younger people realize that women either collect on their earnings or 1/2 of their husband's earnings, whichever is higher. In a gay couple, how will you collect the social security? That is almost moot as just about everyone works anymore and will collect on their own earnings but I have heard social security as an argument in the US for gay marriage. Can you imagine the confusion?
Posted by: MC at August 12, 2005 09:38 AM
I pondered for a long time about whether to respond to Colin's basic insecurities or not. The attempt by heterosexuals to create the term "heterophobia" to illustrate some fantasy that gay citizens are phobic about straights is a rather quaint notion. Usually this is grounded on some kind of fictional assumption that either gays, if they weren't heterophobes, would somehow submit to the Right's reparative therapy camps to repair them, or it relates to the natural reaction of heterosexuals who naturally don't feel that it is fair to ask them to live by the same standards by which they judge entire groups of other citizens.
In the former case, history explains to us that heteros who advocate such a policy really didn't need any kind of scientific evidence of a dysfunction; they merely had to make one up and devise appropriate torture devices, like shock treatment to images that affect a gay man's penis, or Hitler's rather interesting research into castration in order to change the gender.
In the latter case, heterosexuals attempt to create an illusion that they are somehow victimized by being classified as part of the group which utilized such barbaric approaches - and in which case they flee behind the castle walls of "don't hold ME responsible for the actions of those before me." Yet they fail to grasp the similarities in their own attitudes and concepts with those same ancestors, opting to contend that they alone are entitled to treatment based on their own individual behavior regardless of the antics of other members of their social group.
The problem remains the double standard, and yet even that challenge is denied recognition in favor of cliches like "heterophobia." As it is, there is some degree of truth in the notion that gays have much more evidential reasons to be phobic of straights than vice versa. . .after all, who wouldn't be wary of a group of people who tried just about every deceptive idea to deprive another set of people of human dignity and basic rights?
Perhaps if they took on the responsibility of being the object of those actions for a change, rather than the perpetrator of this nonsense, they would have a much deeper understanding of the world around them and might qualify having an opinion that is based on something of substance.
Posted by: Kevin at August 12, 2005 06:44 PM
Dragev writes: I concede that there are "perks" for married people without children, though I will argue that the original intent of many of these perks was to give families a financial break...
I have no doubt the government wants to give families a tax break but the perks we're talking about here are not those. Marriages "perks," as you point out, are not restricted to families with children. And child rearing "perks" are accessible to people who are unmarried. These are two separate sets of laws with different intents.
Perks that refer to or are associated with child rearing are separately defined and distinct from marriage rights. Where one gives you a tax break or a support payment the other gives you access to your spouse in the hospital and time off work for their funeral. These child rearing "perks" and marriage "rights" are distinct.
But this really isn't the point. Allowing homosexuals to marry, as you would any two responsible adults, has no effect on heterosexual reproduction, nor does it have any impact on any "perks" or "rights" heterosexuals currently enjoy. This is really a non-issue yet some groups are straining ferociously to make it a religious one.
As for the two heterosexual men who want to marry for the tax break, more power to them. If they feel they can live happily that way and the arrangement does offer them some benefit then who am I to stick my nose into their personal affairs?
Posted by: David at August 13, 2005 07:47 PM
The ancient Greeks and Romans knew something about what we now call "gays" in the media. In reality, there is little 'gay' about this lifestyle choice.
Oh Edward, homosexuals don't choose their sexual orientation. That's a gift from God. And as for the Greeks and Romans, they were just as ignorant about homosexuality 2000 years ago as conservatives are today.
In freedom, we have choice; but choice should not entail promotion at the expense of objective factual reality...
Since when have homophobes ever used facts to criticize homosexuality? You yourself a textbook case of someone who misinforms. Social conservatives thrive on lies and selective biblical interpretation.
Posted by: David at August 13, 2005 08:16 PM
Toad: "You like to spout off demonizing others as bigoted, hate filled witch hunters, but yet continually choose to ignore some of the horrible truths of homosexuality."
You didn't mention that:
- pro-homo activists use every phony rhetorical device possible. ‘Gay’ is a euphemism. ‘Homophobia’ is a blame-shifting rhetorical device. ‘Gay-marriage’ is a contradiction in terms.
- pro-homo activists lie about what the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association has recently disclosed: "Domestic violence is a hugely ignored health issue in the LGBT communities, affecting one in three LGBT relationships."
- pro-homo activists lie about other bad consequences of homosexualizing society: creating in people's minds a stereotype of every older single person as a closeted homosexual - which entails much more homosexual harassment of these individuals by homo and bisexuals
-pro-homo activists push for closeted homosexual prostitution, including adolescents, and pornography, and cover for the homo pedophiles they know about, including NAMBLA and child abuse tourism in developing countries
-garbage of homos now posit themselves as "authorities" in sexuality, simply because they are not heterosexual, as if being sexually disfunctional made one an authority on anything
- pro-homo activists waste millions of dollars on absurd research looking for a homo gene that does not exist
- homosexuals and bisexuals have taken the concept that a homosexual orientation is not wrong to mean that anything done within homosexuality is approved of (not matter how diseased, unethical, or violent) - and they often label it as the pursuit of their sexual freedom
Posted by: Alessandra at August 14, 2005 02:04 PM
Toad: "You like to spout off demonizing others as bigoted, hate filled witch hunters, but yet continually choose to ignore some of the horrible truths of homosexuality."
These so-called "horrible truths about homosexuality" you mention exist between your ears and not in reality.
I remember when Falwell went on television and declared to his flock that AIDS was God's punishment on sodomites. They believed this man without question. The fact that the majority of people with AIDS are heterosexual never even enters the consciousness of religious conservatives. Lies and misinformation are the tools of cowards.
Gay groups and the scientific and medical communities have been exemplary in their use of facts. And nowadays the courts are also beginning to separate facts from religious nonsense. The religious right, which has no facts to work from, has taken its cue from the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe you. That's no surprise when you consider that the Pope himself is a former member of the Nazi party.
As for terms like "gay" and "gay-marriage" those are heterosexual constructs, as are "fag," "queer," "fruit," and the like. If you don't like them then stop using them and they'll go away. Homosexuals don't use the term "gay marriage" heterosexuals do.
And in Massachusetts, Canada and Spain there is no such thing as "gay-marriage". There is only "marriage" but conservatives keep making up euphemisms to appease their bigotry. Please criticize yourselves for the language you invent and the misinformation you propagate.
Posted by: David at August 14, 2005 04:39 PM
Good one, David ! ! !
It absolutely amazes me how far these people will go to justify their hatred. And it has increasingly helped me understand why the number of conservative public officials (at least in the U.S.) seem to have the greatest problem with their own personal sexual behavior.
I've come to the conclusion that they need to restrict same-sex couples and vilify a long list of behaviors because through law because that is the only way they are capable of disciplining themselves.
Posted by: Kevin at August 15, 2005 01:09 AM
"Gay groups and the scientific and medical communities have been exemplary in their use of facts. "
I'm glad no one aside from anti-pro-homosexuals uses the euphemism "gay". You have proved my point.
That's your kind of "fact," isn't it? Facts for pro-homosexuals are nothing but in-your-face lies.
We could do nothing but blog on how homo activists (whether inside or outside medical communities) have lied and distorted reality about human sexuality according to their lack of conscience, or character.
"Domestic violence is a hugely ignored health issue in the LGBT communities, affecting one in three LGBT relationships."
To use the word "gay" to describe such a horribly violent group of people is a Goebbels type joke, is it not?
Or is the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association another boogie-man religious right group?
"Lies and misinformation are the tools of cowards."
Not only cowards, but of violent people. That's why pro-homos use them so much.
Not only that, but to characterize anyone and everyone who can criticize the problems with homo and bisexuality as having the same views as Falwell shows how ignorant you are.
But we know being extremely ignorant suits you just fine.
Posted by: Alessandra at August 15, 2005 07:24 AM
Oh btw, Kevin, most people who are critical of non-heterosexuality (including homosexuality) are not *afraid* of homosexuality - so the label "homophobe" is just another ignorant rhetorical device.
It seems you can't speak without spouting off a bunch of ignorant labels constantly.
Posted by: Alessandra at August 15, 2005 08:59 AM
Nonsense, Allessandra.
People who aren't afraid of homosexuality wouldn't have any reason to be using rhetorical devices. Your obvious inability to develop any understanding of real character serves as your own foundation for phobia - the assumption that somehow instinctive heterosexual sexual reactions (those aren't choices, are they?) are indications of goodness and innate character.
One does wonder how heterosexuals could perpetrate so many varied sexual crimes when their very existence should negate such possibilities. In your fantasy, domestic violence was invented by recognizing the existence of gay families, another easy way to defer heterosexual responsibility for their own behaviors.
It's not uncommon for certain conservatives to suffer a cerebral misfire when claiming to understand groups with whom they rarely associate. But I've seen no figures that indicate there are overwhelming domestic violence rates in gay relationships, and I've known many over the years. That it may exist I certainly don't doubt - just as Alessandra surely isn't so naive to pretend that wifebeating hasn't been a fixture of heterosexual marriage since women were first declared property. That alone should negate the sanctity of marriage for anyone, don't you think?
Since you seem to believe it is in your domain to write about my life as if you have so much experience in it, I believe labeling you for what you are is certainly appropriate. It may be refreshing to you to not think of yourself as a Falwell supporter, but ignorance comes in many forms and loves to justify itself in superstition.
Posted by: Kevin at August 15, 2005 12:32 PM
Alessandra, I agree that nowadays most Americans use the term "gay" to refer to homosexuals. But that's because heterosexuals have made this part of the popular vocabulary.
We can't take your denials at face value. You need to prove that what you're saying is true and that what we're saying is false. But there is a caveat.
Within a generation I believe most will come to understand that homosexuality is not a choice. When that happens your religion, which has advocated distortions and lies for so long, will be badly undermined. Spread your lies with caution because when the reckoning comes we're going to attack your intolerant belief system with the sledgehammer of truth.
The medical communities aren't lying to you. Someone else is. If you want to disagree with the national medical, psychiatric and psychological associations you'll need more than a few cherry-picked quotes from Leviticus.
You're simply propagating misinformation. You have no genuine facts to work from.
"Gay" is merely a euphemism for homosexual. The Goebbelsesque element is found in misleading statements that declare homosexuals to have very short life spans, that one in three LGBT relationships involve domestic violence or that AIDS is a gay disease, etc.
Alessandra, you're the first person who's ever accused homosexuals of being violent. As soon as the military realizes how dangerous we homos are the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy will fall by the wayside. Finally, we can bolster our armed forces with those fierce hair stylists and interior decorators.
You are more than welcome to criticize anything you like, that wasn't the point. However, when you present misinformation as the truth, like Mr. Falwell does, then you'll be considered just as foolish as he is.
Posted by: David at August 15, 2005 02:38 PM
I wrote: pro-homo activists lie about what the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association has recently disclosed: "Domestic violence is a hugely ignored health issue in the LGBT communities, affecting one in three LGBT relationships."
David wrote: You're simply propagating misinformation. You have no genuine facts to work from.
Either you think Alessandra = the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (false), or you are completely ignorant about their research and public statements (true), or you are illiterate (congnitively true).
In any of the above cases, you are proof of what their research shows: "Domestic violence is a hugely ignored health issue in the LGBT communities"
Notice the "ignored" above? Ignore the problem is exactly what you do. And I might add, everytime research proves a violence problem with homosexuals, what do homo activists do? Deny, lie, ignore.
Completely irresponsible and having long-term destructive results.
Posted by: Alessandra at August 17, 2005 12:39 PM
Within a generation I believe most will come to understand that homosexuality is not a choice. When that happens your religion, which has advocated distortions and lies for so long, will be badly undermined.
-------------------------------
My religion? It's quite ignorant of you to deposit a certain religion on me, given that you don't know what religious/spiritual beliefs I have.
As we can see, ignorance suits you just fine. Furthermore, people don't need a specific religion to propagate lies and distortion, that's what you do in every post.
I am starting to see society move a little bit to grasp that human sexuality is not determined by some little inexistent gene, but it's an incredibly complex sphere of the human mind and of individual development and/or dysfunction, not to mention cultural and social conditioning, aside from choice questions.
Given how ignorant and fanatical and irresponsible pro-homosexuals are, and their terrible job in public education regarding the complexity of human sexuality and its problems, how effective they will be in spreading their self-serving lies about homosexuality is something that remains to be seen.
At the same time that people like you will spread your ignorant, misinformed, simple-minded views of human sexuality, the questionings of the shifty underpinnings of your mindset will increase with time.
We look forward to that.
Posted by: Alessandra at August 17, 2005 12:58 PM
People who aren't afraid of homosexuality wouldn't have any reason to be using rhetorical devices.
================
This is so irrational that I did wonder if I should spend time responding. We know that it will go over your head, but other people might catch the drift.
Since you are also using rhetorical devices, according to your logic, you must be profoundly afraid of homosexuality.
No rationality in your posts whatsoever...
However, the point is: people criticize pro-homosexuality because it entails a myriad of destructive and detrimental attitudes and practices. Similar criticism is made to other sexuality problems (pro-pornography, pro-prostitution, pro-SM, pro-pedophilia, etc). It's not a question of fear, but of knowledge and responsibility.
Posted by: Alessandra at August 17, 2005 01:13 PM
The medical communities aren't lying to you. Someone else is. If you want to disagree with the national medical, psychiatric and psychological associations you'll need more than a few cherry-picked quotes from Leviticus.
--------------------------------------
I don't recall using quotes from Leviticus. You can't argue with what I write, always bringing in these stupid strawmen arguments.
In case you didn't know, the medical community is not a solid block of pro-homosexual morons.
In addition, if you ever care to read about medical history, by the way, you will see that medical, psychiatric, and psychological associations have propagated enormous lies/misinformation about a variety of issues at different points in time. What you take as dogma today, which is an echo of certain political factions, will be completely debunked in the future.
It is only a question of time.
There was a time, for example, when people from these associations that you idolize believed that the shape of the head of someone determined if they were going to be a criminal. Sometimes it's the shape of the head, sometimes it's an unexistent gene, blame human behavior on anything that does not entail responsibility and knowledge, social conditioning, culture, choice, psychological and character dysfunctions, and certain people are happy.
Posted by: Alessandra at August 17, 2005 01:28 PM
Alessandra -
Your failure to compare statistics that you claim come from the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association with those numbers involving heterosexual families is part of what makes your motives suspect. Moreover, your insistence that homosexual relationships are therefore "destructive and detrimental" is even more nonsensical. Talk about information that goes over the head - hon, where I come from, people would be asking you what your inherent interest is in the relationships of these people, when it is obvious that you attempt to hold them to a different standard than you would hold heterosexual relationships.
While I'm sure that in your own mind, you've chosen to believe that somehow other people are required to make life sacrifices for your social insecurities, it must be difficult to understand why these same people have rejected that notion. Perhaps, if we assume here that you are a woman, we should take your gender back to the days where your role was more biblically correct and your place in relationships to men was clearly and irrevocably defined.
Let me point out one obvious issue with studies of populations of gay citizens, even those conducted by some gay organizations. There is no population census. Get it? It becomes rather difficult to point out things like "2 out of 3" gay households love pink flamingoes because no one knows how many gay households there are. You see, that is the magic of oppression - when you institutionalize and stigmatize a group of people long enough, there isn't any count of them because, well, society has been pretending they don't really exist. So, while I haven't perused this Medical Association study, I highly doubt it was completely representative because they would have limitations that, for example, a study of heterosexual relationships would have simply because there is a definitive total of numbers to draw a sample from.
However, your domestic violence argument, even if it were true, would be rather meaningless. For centuries, domestic violence among heterosexual marriages was not only rampant, but part and parcel of the relationship, since the woman was regarded as property. And since that is, frankly, much more the picture of traditional marriage than the modern version which heterosexuals have embraced today, I'd venture that all the pretense about pretending "traditional" definitions of marriage seem to easily overlook such historical notions.
However, when you attempt to stake the claim that an entire group suffers simply because of choice (which isn't supported bymuch more than junk science created especially for wingnut organizations) it doesn't help your case at all. Most social dysfunctions that gays suffer are generally attributable to the wondrous ability of people like you to stigmatize them enough to create them - a fabulous method of asserting a bit of hetero S/M fantasy into crucifying the lives of others. I suspect your anger at gays rejecting your "facts" has more to do with their rejection of the whole of the "less than you" argument, something that seems part and parcel of the right wingnut agenda.
I'll be more than happy to consider your argument, provided you place yourself back into the proper and traditional role that a woman should play - which would, unfortunately, limit the ability to interact on any intelligent level with men.
It is curious that you only attempt to cite one study, fail to compare it to figures about domestic violence among hetero relationships (wouldn't this mean that marriage should have been dissolved centuries ago?) and then try to pin a bunch of wished for stereotypes upon the gay population. Even more impressive, you want to do this while preserving your own rights, fought for by those who came before you.
Sorry. We ain't buyin' it. No one is going to consider you an expert about gay relationships except those who desperately look for some other way to stigmatize others.
As for your rhetorical device remarks, there are certain areas where someone is entitled to special rights - in particular, writing about my own life. You are the outsider in that respect and have no personal stake in the curious obsession right wingnuts have over people they prefer not to interact with in their culture.
Perhaps the discussion should be about the elimination of heterosexual marriage for some of the very same reasons you've mentioned.
Posted by: Kevin at August 17, 2005 10:03 PM
Your failure to compare statistics that you claim come from the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association with those numbers involving heterosexual families is part of what makes your motives suspect.
--------------------------------
You claim these stats aren't from the Homo Medical Association, prove it.
You claim the study is not true, prove it.
Otherwise you are just another shoddy homo trying to cover up an ugly facet of reality with your false claims and fanatical denial.
This is what makes your motives so shoddy, the aim of every fanatical homo is to lie about any very real ugly aspect of the GLBT population. The only way homos are going to succeed in legitimizing their stupid mindset is by lying about all their serious problems.
"Moreover, your insistence that homosexual relationships are therefore "destructive and detrimental" is even more nonsensical."
Pro-homosexuality, with its ignorance and irresponsibility, is highly destructive. You and David, and all your lies and misinformation here, are but a small example.
"However, your domestic violence argument, even if it were true, would be rather meaningless."
Only the most inhumane kind of people think domestic violence is trivial. Your stupid obsession with homosexuality and lying about how much of domestic violence exists in the GLBT population shows that homos are usually highly unfit to do research and public education. What you do is dictated by shoddy selfish politics, not ethics.
"Let me point out one obvious issue with studies of populations of gay citizens, even those conducted by some gay organizations. There is no population census."
The lack of precision with which one can stipulate the percentage of homos and bisexuals does not invalidate every study. Researchers are aware of the problem.
And what you said shows how disgusting homo activists are when they want to affirm that the percentage of homos everywhere is the same. They can't know who's what for sure, they are just lying about the genetic percentage claim, since we get different percentages in different times/places.
Regarding the percentage stats, if anything, we know that a number of married people (that homo activists would call hetero folks simply because they are married), are bisexual.
In any case, people like you only confirm what the study stated, you ignore the problem of domestic violence and everything you write here is but a different attempt to be in denial and lie about it.
"Most social dysfunctions that gays suffer are generally attributable to the wondrous ability of people like you to stigmatize them enough to create them"
That's another irresponsible bit of homo propaganda that is getting unmasked. When we look at how violent and lacking in character so many GLBT people are, it is clear these are problems that have little to do with homo social approval, specially since many of the violent or unethical homos are fanatical pro-homos. This is the same as saying pedophiles are conflicted because society doesn't approve of them. Total homo propaganda. You need to stop blaming the external world for all the crap you keep engendering inside.
Most homos are just too stupid and dysfunctional to deal with their homosexuality, just like many pedophiles are uncapable of dealing with their pedophilia.
"fail to compare it to figures about domestic violence among hetero relationships (wouldn't this mean that marriage should have been dissolved centuries ago?)"
Why should we need to make comparisons with any other population to have veracity? If you find cigarette smoking killed 3 out of 10 people you don't need to compare it with auto accidents (which might have killed 1 out of 10 people) to prove your cigarette study is true.
Everyone knows there is a big domestic violence problem in society (among the heterosexual population) and we don't need to compare with the homo population to say it exists for real.
"Perhaps the discussion should be about the elimination of heterosexual marriage for some of the very same reasons you've mentioned."
I imagine you say this because you only know dysfunctional relationships. You have no idea what a good heterosexual relationship is like, much less a marriage. All you want is to destroy in society that which you cannot have, simply because you don't want to deal with all your mental problems.
"You are the outsider in that respect and have no personal stake in the curious obsession right wingnuts have over people they prefer not to interact with in their culture."
You are just too irresponsible to understand that I don't need to be a pedophile to write about pedophilia. What you don't want is for people to point out how many problems your mindset has. Everyone has the right to know of and discuss human sexuality/psychology.
You think only pedophiles have the right to say what is right about adult and child sexual interactions? Just because a person is a pedophile, it doesn't mean they know anything about what is healthy/unhealthy. Same with homosexuals.
It just so happens every person has every right to talk about everything that happens under the sun.
Posted by: Alessandra at August 20, 2005 07:24 PM
.
The new pope is travelling around, correctly criticizing flaky religious consumerism.
Another article in a similar vein, criticizing the Dem's "born-again-religious-conversion-after-the-2004-defeat":
DEMS: Website religion page does not a moral party make
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Ironically, the more the Dems go for appearing as the "values political party," the more they lose their souls. How can that happen? It can happen by lying in order to appear honest.
The more the Dems manufacture a spiritual presence while being void of genuine spirituality, the more the Dems damn themselves.
It’s as if the Dems actually conclude that real values persons are stupid. Values persons have reached their values foundation because of much thinking, research and living out real time convictions. Values just don’t happen. They grow in time because of being tested against the adversities of life.
Therefore, when Dems conclude overnight to be values friendly to America, they don’t understand that an overnight conversion like that just doesn’t happen. In fact, the Dems are acting out political opportunism and not a spiritual experience. Therefore, all the more the Dems are losing out in the spiritual department.
[more...]
This "lying to appear honest" is exactly what homo activists do.
Here is the latest part of another discussion on homosexuality at Angry in the Great White North blog:
The ancient Greeks and Romans knew something about what we now call "gays" in the media. In reality, there is little 'gay' about this lifestyle choice.
European history has had an ebb and tide relationship with this phenomenological choice by certain males dissing biological relations with women even as 'the women's movement' elevates 'gay' males to sacrosanct status. Go figure...
In freedom, we have choice; but choice should not entail promotion at the expense of objective factual reality of what this choice means. Martin 'Liberal' "human rights" laws try to stifle objective information about such a choice.
Posted by: edward mills at August 11, 2005 01:58 AM
Edward -
Nonsense. This constant and consistent attempt by right wing groups to create "objective" information about people they wish to vilify is as revolting as the ways the left has contributed to degrading individual choices in other parts of life.
The argument about promotion would have been more convincing had society quietly allowed same-sex marriages in the first place. Instead, the history is about nailing an entire group of people to the cross - first by claiming they are mentally ill and using bogus research to support the notion, then by claiming they were too promiscous to have meaningful committed relationships. Obviously both positions were despicably wrong.
One wonders how any group can argue about the superiority of their moral viewpoint when they have willingly engaged in outright deception to crucify an entire class of people, and yet demand that they themselves be treated as an individual. Our society has a history - and that history involves the existence of gay citizens even when there wasn't a single representation of them in any format of media or public statement. Of course, that made it easier for the dominant group to develop all kinds of myths about gays to reinforce their own insecurities.
One of the most outrageous things we see today is the attempt by American "family" groups to cart out the oldest, most horrifying attitudes and present them as "objective" information. One such recent directive by James Dobson explains how to instruct your child on proper gender identification in order to prevent them from becoming gay. These directions include having the father shower with the son so the child can see the size of Dad's peepee.
This isn't the 13th Century. If some people need superstitious nonsense to make them feel better about their innate hatred of others, then at least learn how to accept that reality about yourselves. And if that leads anyone to self-hatred, then you might get the first clue about how effectively you've worked for centuries to force gays to live that for their entire lives.
Posted by: Kevin at August 11, 2005 10:33 AM
Kevin -
You like to spout off demonizing others as bigoted, hate filled witch hunters, but yet continually choose to ignore some of the horrible truths of homosexuality.
This is a lifestyle CHOICE that is typified by:
- Higher than average STD transmission, including AIDS; coupled with abnormally high levels of regular unprotected sex with many partners
- RISING HIV infection rates regardless of modern education
- Higher than average depression, alcoholism, and suicide rates.
- Lower life expectancy as a whole
- Supression of treatment that has helped many Ex-Gays; regardless of many people admitting improvement and happier lives
- A biological phenomenom incapable of sustanance without support from the heterosexual community
Until I see the homosexual community deal with its own problems, I find little sympathy for their public escapades.
Posted by: Toad at August 11, 2005 04:39 PM
Toad -
Since you are talking about MY life (and I'm assuming it isn't YOURS) exactly what is your experience in gathering information and interaction with this community that you claim to have so many "facts" about?
Again, you seek legitimacy for your own bigotry by attempting to compare statistics between the gay population and the heterosexual population. There are two different cultural/social situations there. Why? Because people like you created the environment that encouraged a culture of depression and self-hatred based on manufacturing blatant and hostile lies.
Moreover, there are no studies which indicate homosexuals are incapable of reproduction - their reproductive abilities are not inhibited. Women still produce eggs and men produce sperm. They are not dependent on the heterosexual community.
It is rather arrogant for you to believe anyone should accept or give you credibility on whether homosexuality is a "choice" - frankly, unless you've experienced making such a choice, you really don't have any basis for a speculative opinion. And since you failed to explain to us when you made your own choice to become heterosexual, you again detract from your own basic argument.
Attempting to fake interest in the causes of homosexuality ring quite hollow when it really has nothing to do with you. Perhaps if you would focus on the social and health ills caused by the history of heterosexual behaviors, you could draw the same conclusions about the well-being of that orientation. Surely there have been enough incidents of in-family relationships, birth defects, unfaithful partners, STD transmissions,deadbeat spouses, alcoholism and drug addiction to label the entire heterosexual population incapable of meeting the obligations of monogamous relationships.
How would you know what the rates of promiscuity are among the gay population? Are there even definitive census figures about the number of identified gay citizens in the country? Do you honestly believe that a gay citizen should even think of giving credibility to "research" where the base population cannot even be identified and represented?
If you don't want to be called a bigot and a witch hunter, then stop behaving like one. If might frustrate the hell out of Right wingers, but frankly, you are incapable of conducting research about the very people you put in the social closet. Wasn't that the whole point of putting them there in the first place?
The worst place you could even attempt to go is to some junk statistics - and I don't care where the sources are. You cannot classify an entire group of people based on a random speculative study of a population in which the numbers have not even been identified. Of course, if you'd like to apply those same principles to research about heterosexuality, how difficult do you think it is to locate some drug addicts, sex offenders, divorced dads, irresponsible child abusers, and rapists and manufacture "facts" about the instability and danger of the heterosexual choice? That would be far easier to create than this kind of nonsense - after all, since this thread was about marriage, how many institutions are usually supported by the taxpayers indefinitely with a nearly 50% rate of failure?
Deal with your own social ills and stop projecting your standards on my community. Conservatives failed for decades to consider our lives worth spending any amount of time and money on - the sudden interest is flattering, in a sense, but much too little and way too late. Figure out some other way to make yourself feel superior to other human beings.
Posted by: Kevin at August 11, 2005 05:49 PM
I may be missing something, not being Canadian, but here in the USA, a competent adult can leave a will which has the force of law no matter what his relatives want. This is what I don't get about the whole "perk" thing. Why wait for the govt. to do it for you when you can designate a beneficiary for your insurance or pension plan of your choosing, execute a medical power of attorney, a financial power of attorney, a will, hold your real estate as joint tenants w/right of survivor ship, etc. etc. The only thing the left to the govt. is your social security and today, with most people working, most people collect on their own, rather than their spouses anyway. What other "perks" is marriage going to get you other than not having to do any of this yourself? Of course, any responsible hetero couple will have done all of this anyway to make sure things are buttoned up.
That said, marriage wasn't about perks historically but about paternity, family, protection for women who couldn't work outside the home until modern times, about division of labor when obtaining food and preparing it was a full time occupation in itself, it was about how people grouped themselves to propagate and survive as we moved from agriculture to manufacturing to office, from large family groups to the nuclear family. And that's my .02.
Posted by: MC at August 11, 2005 09:19 PM
To my first comment on this post, David responded with: "The thousand 'perks' are specifically related to being married and not to having children. Examples would be the flow of pension funds, the sharing of health benefits, taxation rates, deductions, property and inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights..."
I concede that there are "perks" for married people without children, though I will argue that the original intent of many of these "perks" was to give families a financial break ("sharing of health benefits, taxation rates, deductions", etc.) or otherwise promote and aid in the stability of the family (though obviously there are powerful counter-forces that would break up families). Why? Because generally speaking marriages have historically assumed the social "burden" of producing and raising the next generation. So again, since marriage no longer serves a public purpose (at least not in the context of Bill C-38), we should do away with marriage as a public institution, or restore it's original definition and promote it's original purpose.
Back to the words that inspired Angry in T.O.'s post spoken by a typical gay activist: "Generally speaking, marriage should be for love." This is puzzling because we can't just marry anyone that we love, such as family members (related or adoped) and friends. What the gay lobby has been trying to do is get society to buy into their claim that their long-term relationship of "love" is essentially the same and as valuable to society as a marriage between a man and a woman. But the only difference between two "pals" who would get married and live together (as in the case that inspired this discussion), and two gay people who get married and live together is the sexual component.
There is no way that the gay lobby can say that their "love" is more important to society than the love between "pals" or siblings, for example. Why wouldn't two "pals" (opposite or same gender) who are prepared to accept the legal commitments want to enjoy the "perks" of marriage if gay couples can enjoy these "perks"? Of course, roommates together for the long-run weren't looking to get "married", but why not now? The term "marriage" doesn't mean anything anymore (it's basically a synonym for long-term legal relationship), so why not enjoy the "perks" doled out by our ever so generous and compassionate government.
Posted by: dragev at August 11, 2005 09:40 PM
MC - that is all partially true. However, wills can and ARE challenged, and the most popular historical examples of this in the gay community was when distant relatives were able to use the "mental illness" designation approved (until 1973) by the APA as evidence that the deceased couldn't have been of sound mind when designating heirs. If we go even farther into that history, gays would attempt to "adopt" each other in order to secure some form of legal recognition and protection.
It should go without saying that if a simple will and other simple arrangements that "single" people can use were adequate protections, the government would have no need to install over 1000 statutes defining particular relationships with automatic or special treatment. Moreover, laws governing those without spouses ONLY recognized LEGAL family members for everything as simple as a funeral arrangement. And there are plenty of experiences among gays of being shut out of their own partner's funerals by the family of the deceased simply because they did not "approve" of their relationship.
In essence, the State's role in many of those statutes is supposed to ensure the smooth transfer of property and disposal of bodies, etc. . .not to designate them as marriage only arrangements. However, it was conservatives who decided these were perks of marriage, even though many of these events are not only universal, but uniquely individual moments in life.
We know that society has changed and understand the history, including those parts which excluded women from owning property and limited their resource ability if they were unable to marry or were widowed. I don't know of any time in human history where there were exactly as many marriageable males ans marriageable females in the population, so for whatever "natural" reason, perfectly capable reproducing heterosexuals were eliminated from participating in this custom.
Posted by: Kevin at August 11, 2005 11:34 PM
Dragev -
I don't believe that Bill C-38 fundamentally changed any of the purposes of civil marriage in the least. Much greater changes in the function of marriage evolved over time, so I'll assume here that advocating society move back to the "original" intent means that either the tribal leader, the government, or the patriarch make the selection for spouse for the children. This would also require reinstuting the tradition of dowries and transfer of land for the "purchase" of the daughter's hand.
As for the concept of marriage for "love", that is purely a heterosexual development that started taking much deeper root in culture about 300 years ago. Love is the ideal on which marriage is founded upon now - there aren't many popular songs about wanting to buy a wife to procreate with. . .
And trying to compare choices to limitations without families doesn't work either. The State has long had an interest in preventing marriages in which birth defects could seriously damage a subsequent child, particularly when that may impose large costs upon the state for upbringing. And in many states in the U.S., some provisions for familial matrimony do exist - in my own state, for example, first cousins may marry as long as the woman is over 50 and cannot produce a child.
If you want to restore marriage to its original intention, then it would be the responsibility of adults to defer to the choices of their parents or the government in securing partners purely to maximize property ownership and create a next generation that would meet certain genetic characteristics desired by society.
Your attempt at providing insight into what you characterize as "love" between members of the same sex is not only arrogant, but obviously based on nothing. You have no more right to an opinion about the validity of a love relationship between gay partners than you do the love between any heterosexual couple, and you should certainly have enough personal experience in life to see that relationships vary widely among every pair of partners of any orientation. To try to degrade them to mere friends or roommates is a product of your own insecurity rather than any real knowledge about their feelings, particularly since that statement wouldnt' be limited to a generic description of one kind of relationship as if it doesn't exist in the others. We all know better than that - heterosexuals invented the marriage of convenience, the marriage for money, the marriage for citizenship, and thousands upon thousands of marriages that are never consummated. Does the State police the heterosexual couple after the first couple of months to guarantee they are not living just as friends? Does the State arbitrarily dissolve the hetero relationship without the consent or request of any partner if it hasn't met some list of requirements?
Nope.
And there is some way you can tell me that Britney Spear's 24 hour marriage is somehow more valuable to society than the 40 years a gay couple has spent together raising children and taking care of each other? That Elizabeth Taylor's multiple weddings somehow has more social value? Get over it - the benefit to society is the encouragement of a monogamous, committed relationship for life. Conservatives can't complain about gays being "promiscuous" and then deny them access to the only institution created that encourages monogamy and commitment. Nor can they contend that we should be ordered to remain celibate for our entire lives because you have some sort of disorder about something that doesn't involve you.
Posted by: Kevin at August 11, 2005 11:54 PM
Kevin-I'm glad you see the reason in what I wrote. And yes, 30 years ago, wills were broken just as you said. And as a little girl in the 1950's, the only options I thought I had for careers were nurse, teacher, secretary or homemaker. Times change and I think they have changed rapidly for both women and gays. Straight, married people have problems with wills too. I'm a 2nd wife of a man w/ 2 children from a previous marriage. If he didn't specify the division in his will, our state would divide his estate into equal 1/3's. Although I raised his children and we all get along, our intent is that, should he predecease me, the money all goes to me for my old age and then the remainder (there should be plenty) is left to the kids. This is a long winded way of saying that marriage does not automatically make things happen the way you want. You still have to take responsibility for your own wills, property, etc.
In fact, I just got back for a week vist w/ a dear friend in San Francisco, a gay man who 3 years ago lost his partner of 28 years. They had property, mingled funds, lives and of course, love. I don't really see what marriage would have changed. Once again, they had done all the legal work years ago.
Coming from the 60's, 70's when we wanted the freedon the be together without a marriage license, I have to say that a lot of the gay marriage push looks like an attempt to get $ out of companies in the form of health insurance and govts. in the form of social security (or whatever you have in Canada). I don't think many younger people realize that women either collect on their earnings or 1/2 of their husband's earnings, whichever is higher. In a gay couple, how will you collect the social security? That is almost moot as just about everyone works anymore and will collect on their own earnings but I have heard social security as an argument in the US for gay marriage. Can you imagine the confusion?
Posted by: MC at August 12, 2005 09:38 AM
I pondered for a long time about whether to respond to Colin's basic insecurities or not. The attempt by heterosexuals to create the term "heterophobia" to illustrate some fantasy that gay citizens are phobic about straights is a rather quaint notion. Usually this is grounded on some kind of fictional assumption that either gays, if they weren't heterophobes, would somehow submit to the Right's reparative therapy camps to repair them, or it relates to the natural reaction of heterosexuals who naturally don't feel that it is fair to ask them to live by the same standards by which they judge entire groups of other citizens.
In the former case, history explains to us that heteros who advocate such a policy really didn't need any kind of scientific evidence of a dysfunction; they merely had to make one up and devise appropriate torture devices, like shock treatment to images that affect a gay man's penis, or Hitler's rather interesting research into castration in order to change the gender.
In the latter case, heterosexuals attempt to create an illusion that they are somehow victimized by being classified as part of the group which utilized such barbaric approaches - and in which case they flee behind the castle walls of "don't hold ME responsible for the actions of those before me." Yet they fail to grasp the similarities in their own attitudes and concepts with those same ancestors, opting to contend that they alone are entitled to treatment based on their own individual behavior regardless of the antics of other members of their social group.
The problem remains the double standard, and yet even that challenge is denied recognition in favor of cliches like "heterophobia." As it is, there is some degree of truth in the notion that gays have much more evidential reasons to be phobic of straights than vice versa. . .after all, who wouldn't be wary of a group of people who tried just about every deceptive idea to deprive another set of people of human dignity and basic rights?
Perhaps if they took on the responsibility of being the object of those actions for a change, rather than the perpetrator of this nonsense, they would have a much deeper understanding of the world around them and might qualify having an opinion that is based on something of substance.
Posted by: Kevin at August 12, 2005 06:44 PM
Dragev writes: I concede that there are "perks" for married people without children, though I will argue that the original intent of many of these perks was to give families a financial break...
I have no doubt the government wants to give families a tax break but the perks we're talking about here are not those. Marriages "perks," as you point out, are not restricted to families with children. And child rearing "perks" are accessible to people who are unmarried. These are two separate sets of laws with different intents.
Perks that refer to or are associated with child rearing are separately defined and distinct from marriage rights. Where one gives you a tax break or a support payment the other gives you access to your spouse in the hospital and time off work for their funeral. These child rearing "perks" and marriage "rights" are distinct.
But this really isn't the point. Allowing homosexuals to marry, as you would any two responsible adults, has no effect on heterosexual reproduction, nor does it have any impact on any "perks" or "rights" heterosexuals currently enjoy. This is really a non-issue yet some groups are straining ferociously to make it a religious one.
As for the two heterosexual men who want to marry for the tax break, more power to them. If they feel they can live happily that way and the arrangement does offer them some benefit then who am I to stick my nose into their personal affairs?
Posted by: David at August 13, 2005 07:47 PM
The ancient Greeks and Romans knew something about what we now call "gays" in the media. In reality, there is little 'gay' about this lifestyle choice.
Oh Edward, homosexuals don't choose their sexual orientation. That's a gift from God. And as for the Greeks and Romans, they were just as ignorant about homosexuality 2000 years ago as conservatives are today.
In freedom, we have choice; but choice should not entail promotion at the expense of objective factual reality...
Since when have homophobes ever used facts to criticize homosexuality? You yourself a textbook case of someone who misinforms. Social conservatives thrive on lies and selective biblical interpretation.
Posted by: David at August 13, 2005 08:16 PM
Toad: "You like to spout off demonizing others as bigoted, hate filled witch hunters, but yet continually choose to ignore some of the horrible truths of homosexuality."
You didn't mention that:
- pro-homo activists use every phony rhetorical device possible. ‘Gay’ is a euphemism. ‘Homophobia’ is a blame-shifting rhetorical device. ‘Gay-marriage’ is a contradiction in terms.
- pro-homo activists lie about what the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association has recently disclosed: "Domestic violence is a hugely ignored health issue in the LGBT communities, affecting one in three LGBT relationships."
- pro-homo activists lie about other bad consequences of homosexualizing society: creating in people's minds a stereotype of every older single person as a closeted homosexual - which entails much more homosexual harassment of these individuals by homo and bisexuals
-pro-homo activists push for closeted homosexual prostitution, including adolescents, and pornography, and cover for the homo pedophiles they know about, including NAMBLA and child abuse tourism in developing countries
-garbage of homos now posit themselves as "authorities" in sexuality, simply because they are not heterosexual, as if being sexually disfunctional made one an authority on anything
- pro-homo activists waste millions of dollars on absurd research looking for a homo gene that does not exist
- homosexuals and bisexuals have taken the concept that a homosexual orientation is not wrong to mean that anything done within homosexuality is approved of (not matter how diseased, unethical, or violent) - and they often label it as the pursuit of their sexual freedom
Posted by: Alessandra at August 14, 2005 02:04 PM
Toad: "You like to spout off demonizing others as bigoted, hate filled witch hunters, but yet continually choose to ignore some of the horrible truths of homosexuality."
These so-called "horrible truths about homosexuality" you mention exist between your ears and not in reality.
I remember when Falwell went on television and declared to his flock that AIDS was God's punishment on sodomites. They believed this man without question. The fact that the majority of people with AIDS are heterosexual never even enters the consciousness of religious conservatives. Lies and misinformation are the tools of cowards.
You didn't mention that: - pro-homo activists use every phony rhetorical device possible. 'Gay' is a euphemism. 'Homophobia' is a blame-shifting rhetorical device. 'Gay-marriage' is a contradiction in terms.
Gay groups and the scientific and medical communities have been exemplary in their use of facts. And nowadays the courts are also beginning to separate facts from religious nonsense. The religious right, which has no facts to work from, has taken its cue from the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe you. That's no surprise when you consider that the Pope himself is a former member of the Nazi party.
As for terms like "gay" and "gay-marriage" those are heterosexual constructs, as are "fag," "queer," "fruit," and the like. If you don't like them then stop using them and they'll go away. Homosexuals don't use the term "gay marriage" heterosexuals do.
And in Massachusetts, Canada and Spain there is no such thing as "gay-marriage". There is only "marriage" but conservatives keep making up euphemisms to appease their bigotry. Please criticize yourselves for the language you invent and the misinformation you propagate.
Posted by: David at August 14, 2005 04:39 PM
Good one, David ! ! !
It absolutely amazes me how far these people will go to justify their hatred. And it has increasingly helped me understand why the number of conservative public officials (at least in the U.S.) seem to have the greatest problem with their own personal sexual behavior.
I've come to the conclusion that they need to restrict same-sex couples and vilify a long list of behaviors because through law because that is the only way they are capable of disciplining themselves.
Posted by: Kevin at August 15, 2005 01:09 AM
"Gay groups and the scientific and medical communities have been exemplary in their use of facts. "
I'm glad no one aside from anti-pro-homosexuals uses the euphemism "gay". You have proved my point.
That's your kind of "fact," isn't it? Facts for pro-homosexuals are nothing but in-your-face lies.
We could do nothing but blog on how homo activists (whether inside or outside medical communities) have lied and distorted reality about human sexuality according to their lack of conscience, or character.
"Domestic violence is a hugely ignored health issue in the LGBT communities, affecting one in three LGBT relationships."
To use the word "gay" to describe such a horribly violent group of people is a Goebbels type joke, is it not?
Or is the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association another boogie-man religious right group?
"Lies and misinformation are the tools of cowards."
Not only cowards, but of violent people. That's why pro-homos use them so much.
Not only that, but to characterize anyone and everyone who can criticize the problems with homo and bisexuality as having the same views as Falwell shows how ignorant you are.
But we know being extremely ignorant suits you just fine.
Posted by: Alessandra at August 15, 2005 07:24 AM
Oh btw, Kevin, most people who are critical of non-heterosexuality (including homosexuality) are not *afraid* of homosexuality - so the label "homophobe" is just another ignorant rhetorical device.
It seems you can't speak without spouting off a bunch of ignorant labels constantly.
Posted by: Alessandra at August 15, 2005 08:59 AM
Nonsense, Allessandra.
People who aren't afraid of homosexuality wouldn't have any reason to be using rhetorical devices. Your obvious inability to develop any understanding of real character serves as your own foundation for phobia - the assumption that somehow instinctive heterosexual sexual reactions (those aren't choices, are they?) are indications of goodness and innate character.
One does wonder how heterosexuals could perpetrate so many varied sexual crimes when their very existence should negate such possibilities. In your fantasy, domestic violence was invented by recognizing the existence of gay families, another easy way to defer heterosexual responsibility for their own behaviors.
It's not uncommon for certain conservatives to suffer a cerebral misfire when claiming to understand groups with whom they rarely associate. But I've seen no figures that indicate there are overwhelming domestic violence rates in gay relationships, and I've known many over the years. That it may exist I certainly don't doubt - just as Alessandra surely isn't so naive to pretend that wifebeating hasn't been a fixture of heterosexual marriage since women were first declared property. That alone should negate the sanctity of marriage for anyone, don't you think?
Since you seem to believe it is in your domain to write about my life as if you have so much experience in it, I believe labeling you for what you are is certainly appropriate. It may be refreshing to you to not think of yourself as a Falwell supporter, but ignorance comes in many forms and loves to justify itself in superstition.
Posted by: Kevin at August 15, 2005 12:32 PM
I'm glad no one aside from anti-pro-homosexuals uses the euphemism "gay". You have proved my point.
Alessandra, I agree that nowadays most Americans use the term "gay" to refer to homosexuals. But that's because heterosexuals have made this part of the popular vocabulary.
That's your kind of "fact," isn't it? Facts for pro-homosexuals are nothing but in-your-face lies.
We can't take your denials at face value. You need to prove that what you're saying is true and that what we're saying is false. But there is a caveat.
Within a generation I believe most will come to understand that homosexuality is not a choice. When that happens your religion, which has advocated distortions and lies for so long, will be badly undermined. Spread your lies with caution because when the reckoning comes we're going to attack your intolerant belief system with the sledgehammer of truth.
We could do nothing but blog on how homo activists (whether inside or outside medical communities) have lied and distorted reality about human sexuality according to their lack of conscience, or character.
The medical communities aren't lying to you. Someone else is. If you want to disagree with the national medical, psychiatric and psychological associations you'll need more than a few cherry-picked quotes from Leviticus.
"Domestic violence is a hugely ignored health issue in the LGBT communities, affecting one in three LGBT relationships."
You're simply propagating misinformation. You have no genuine facts to work from.
To use the word "gay" to describe such a horribly violent group of people is a Goebbels type joke, is it not?
"Gay" is merely a euphemism for homosexual. The Goebbelsesque element is found in misleading statements that declare homosexuals to have very short life spans, that one in three LGBT relationships involve domestic violence or that AIDS is a gay disease, etc.
Not only cowards, but of violent people. That's why pro-homos use them so much.
Alessandra, you're the first person who's ever accused homosexuals of being violent. As soon as the military realizes how dangerous we homos are the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy will fall by the wayside. Finally, we can bolster our armed forces with those fierce hair stylists and interior decorators.
Not only that, but to characterize anyone and everyone who can criticize the problems with homo and bisexuality as having the same views as Falwell shows how ignorant you are.
You are more than welcome to criticize anything you like, that wasn't the point. However, when you present misinformation as the truth, like Mr. Falwell does, then you'll be considered just as foolish as he is.
Posted by: David at August 15, 2005 02:38 PM
I wrote: pro-homo activists lie about what the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association has recently disclosed: "Domestic violence is a hugely ignored health issue in the LGBT communities, affecting one in three LGBT relationships."
David wrote: You're simply propagating misinformation. You have no genuine facts to work from.
Either you think Alessandra = the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (false), or you are completely ignorant about their research and public statements (true), or you are illiterate (congnitively true).
In any of the above cases, you are proof of what their research shows: "Domestic violence is a hugely ignored health issue in the LGBT communities"
Notice the "ignored" above? Ignore the problem is exactly what you do. And I might add, everytime research proves a violence problem with homosexuals, what do homo activists do? Deny, lie, ignore.
Completely irresponsible and having long-term destructive results.
Posted by: Alessandra at August 17, 2005 12:39 PM
Within a generation I believe most will come to understand that homosexuality is not a choice. When that happens your religion, which has advocated distortions and lies for so long, will be badly undermined.
-------------------------------
My religion? It's quite ignorant of you to deposit a certain religion on me, given that you don't know what religious/spiritual beliefs I have.
As we can see, ignorance suits you just fine. Furthermore, people don't need a specific religion to propagate lies and distortion, that's what you do in every post.
I am starting to see society move a little bit to grasp that human sexuality is not determined by some little inexistent gene, but it's an incredibly complex sphere of the human mind and of individual development and/or dysfunction, not to mention cultural and social conditioning, aside from choice questions.
Given how ignorant and fanatical and irresponsible pro-homosexuals are, and their terrible job in public education regarding the complexity of human sexuality and its problems, how effective they will be in spreading their self-serving lies about homosexuality is something that remains to be seen.
At the same time that people like you will spread your ignorant, misinformed, simple-minded views of human sexuality, the questionings of the shifty underpinnings of your mindset will increase with time.
We look forward to that.
Posted by: Alessandra at August 17, 2005 12:58 PM
People who aren't afraid of homosexuality wouldn't have any reason to be using rhetorical devices.
================
This is so irrational that I did wonder if I should spend time responding. We know that it will go over your head, but other people might catch the drift.
Since you are also using rhetorical devices, according to your logic, you must be profoundly afraid of homosexuality.
No rationality in your posts whatsoever...
However, the point is: people criticize pro-homosexuality because it entails a myriad of destructive and detrimental attitudes and practices. Similar criticism is made to other sexuality problems (pro-pornography, pro-prostitution, pro-SM, pro-pedophilia, etc). It's not a question of fear, but of knowledge and responsibility.
Posted by: Alessandra at August 17, 2005 01:13 PM
The medical communities aren't lying to you. Someone else is. If you want to disagree with the national medical, psychiatric and psychological associations you'll need more than a few cherry-picked quotes from Leviticus.
--------------------------------------
I don't recall using quotes from Leviticus. You can't argue with what I write, always bringing in these stupid strawmen arguments.
In case you didn't know, the medical community is not a solid block of pro-homosexual morons.
In addition, if you ever care to read about medical history, by the way, you will see that medical, psychiatric, and psychological associations have propagated enormous lies/misinformation about a variety of issues at different points in time. What you take as dogma today, which is an echo of certain political factions, will be completely debunked in the future.
It is only a question of time.
There was a time, for example, when people from these associations that you idolize believed that the shape of the head of someone determined if they were going to be a criminal. Sometimes it's the shape of the head, sometimes it's an unexistent gene, blame human behavior on anything that does not entail responsibility and knowledge, social conditioning, culture, choice, psychological and character dysfunctions, and certain people are happy.
Posted by: Alessandra at August 17, 2005 01:28 PM
Alessandra -
Your failure to compare statistics that you claim come from the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association with those numbers involving heterosexual families is part of what makes your motives suspect. Moreover, your insistence that homosexual relationships are therefore "destructive and detrimental" is even more nonsensical. Talk about information that goes over the head - hon, where I come from, people would be asking you what your inherent interest is in the relationships of these people, when it is obvious that you attempt to hold them to a different standard than you would hold heterosexual relationships.
While I'm sure that in your own mind, you've chosen to believe that somehow other people are required to make life sacrifices for your social insecurities, it must be difficult to understand why these same people have rejected that notion. Perhaps, if we assume here that you are a woman, we should take your gender back to the days where your role was more biblically correct and your place in relationships to men was clearly and irrevocably defined.
Let me point out one obvious issue with studies of populations of gay citizens, even those conducted by some gay organizations. There is no population census. Get it? It becomes rather difficult to point out things like "2 out of 3" gay households love pink flamingoes because no one knows how many gay households there are. You see, that is the magic of oppression - when you institutionalize and stigmatize a group of people long enough, there isn't any count of them because, well, society has been pretending they don't really exist. So, while I haven't perused this Medical Association study, I highly doubt it was completely representative because they would have limitations that, for example, a study of heterosexual relationships would have simply because there is a definitive total of numbers to draw a sample from.
However, your domestic violence argument, even if it were true, would be rather meaningless. For centuries, domestic violence among heterosexual marriages was not only rampant, but part and parcel of the relationship, since the woman was regarded as property. And since that is, frankly, much more the picture of traditional marriage than the modern version which heterosexuals have embraced today, I'd venture that all the pretense about pretending "traditional" definitions of marriage seem to easily overlook such historical notions.
However, when you attempt to stake the claim that an entire group suffers simply because of choice (which isn't supported bymuch more than junk science created especially for wingnut organizations) it doesn't help your case at all. Most social dysfunctions that gays suffer are generally attributable to the wondrous ability of people like you to stigmatize them enough to create them - a fabulous method of asserting a bit of hetero S/M fantasy into crucifying the lives of others. I suspect your anger at gays rejecting your "facts" has more to do with their rejection of the whole of the "less than you" argument, something that seems part and parcel of the right wingnut agenda.
I'll be more than happy to consider your argument, provided you place yourself back into the proper and traditional role that a woman should play - which would, unfortunately, limit the ability to interact on any intelligent level with men.
It is curious that you only attempt to cite one study, fail to compare it to figures about domestic violence among hetero relationships (wouldn't this mean that marriage should have been dissolved centuries ago?) and then try to pin a bunch of wished for stereotypes upon the gay population. Even more impressive, you want to do this while preserving your own rights, fought for by those who came before you.
Sorry. We ain't buyin' it. No one is going to consider you an expert about gay relationships except those who desperately look for some other way to stigmatize others.
As for your rhetorical device remarks, there are certain areas where someone is entitled to special rights - in particular, writing about my own life. You are the outsider in that respect and have no personal stake in the curious obsession right wingnuts have over people they prefer not to interact with in their culture.
Perhaps the discussion should be about the elimination of heterosexual marriage for some of the very same reasons you've mentioned.
Posted by: Kevin at August 17, 2005 10:03 PM
Your failure to compare statistics that you claim come from the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association with those numbers involving heterosexual families is part of what makes your motives suspect.
--------------------------------
You claim these stats aren't from the Homo Medical Association, prove it.
You claim the study is not true, prove it.
Otherwise you are just another shoddy homo trying to cover up an ugly facet of reality with your false claims and fanatical denial.
This is what makes your motives so shoddy, the aim of every fanatical homo is to lie about any very real ugly aspect of the GLBT population. The only way homos are going to succeed in legitimizing their stupid mindset is by lying about all their serious problems.
"Moreover, your insistence that homosexual relationships are therefore "destructive and detrimental" is even more nonsensical."
Pro-homosexuality, with its ignorance and irresponsibility, is highly destructive. You and David, and all your lies and misinformation here, are but a small example.
"However, your domestic violence argument, even if it were true, would be rather meaningless."
Only the most inhumane kind of people think domestic violence is trivial. Your stupid obsession with homosexuality and lying about how much of domestic violence exists in the GLBT population shows that homos are usually highly unfit to do research and public education. What you do is dictated by shoddy selfish politics, not ethics.
"Let me point out one obvious issue with studies of populations of gay citizens, even those conducted by some gay organizations. There is no population census."
The lack of precision with which one can stipulate the percentage of homos and bisexuals does not invalidate every study. Researchers are aware of the problem.
And what you said shows how disgusting homo activists are when they want to affirm that the percentage of homos everywhere is the same. They can't know who's what for sure, they are just lying about the genetic percentage claim, since we get different percentages in different times/places.
Regarding the percentage stats, if anything, we know that a number of married people (that homo activists would call hetero folks simply because they are married), are bisexual.
In any case, people like you only confirm what the study stated, you ignore the problem of domestic violence and everything you write here is but a different attempt to be in denial and lie about it.
"Most social dysfunctions that gays suffer are generally attributable to the wondrous ability of people like you to stigmatize them enough to create them"
That's another irresponsible bit of homo propaganda that is getting unmasked. When we look at how violent and lacking in character so many GLBT people are, it is clear these are problems that have little to do with homo social approval, specially since many of the violent or unethical homos are fanatical pro-homos. This is the same as saying pedophiles are conflicted because society doesn't approve of them. Total homo propaganda. You need to stop blaming the external world for all the crap you keep engendering inside.
Most homos are just too stupid and dysfunctional to deal with their homosexuality, just like many pedophiles are uncapable of dealing with their pedophilia.
"fail to compare it to figures about domestic violence among hetero relationships (wouldn't this mean that marriage should have been dissolved centuries ago?)"
Why should we need to make comparisons with any other population to have veracity? If you find cigarette smoking killed 3 out of 10 people you don't need to compare it with auto accidents (which might have killed 1 out of 10 people) to prove your cigarette study is true.
Everyone knows there is a big domestic violence problem in society (among the heterosexual population) and we don't need to compare with the homo population to say it exists for real.
"Perhaps the discussion should be about the elimination of heterosexual marriage for some of the very same reasons you've mentioned."
I imagine you say this because you only know dysfunctional relationships. You have no idea what a good heterosexual relationship is like, much less a marriage. All you want is to destroy in society that which you cannot have, simply because you don't want to deal with all your mental problems.
"You are the outsider in that respect and have no personal stake in the curious obsession right wingnuts have over people they prefer not to interact with in their culture."
You are just too irresponsible to understand that I don't need to be a pedophile to write about pedophilia. What you don't want is for people to point out how many problems your mindset has. Everyone has the right to know of and discuss human sexuality/psychology.
You think only pedophiles have the right to say what is right about adult and child sexual interactions? Just because a person is a pedophile, it doesn't mean they know anything about what is healthy/unhealthy. Same with homosexuals.
It just so happens every person has every right to talk about everything that happens under the sun.
Posted by: Alessandra at August 20, 2005 07:24 PM
.
