|
Grex > Glb > #37: gay bashers in the news again (long -- 163 lines) |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
void
|
|
response 190 of 404:
| 
Oct 28 20:59 UTC 1998 |
re #175: kenton, would you please tell me exactly when you made a
conscious choice to be heterosexual? is it a natural choice or a
learned action?
|
lumen
|
|
response 191 of 404:
|
Oct 29 02:46 UTC 1998 |
Ah, love that liberalism vs. conservatism at work
it's all a matter of perception and paradigm
and I'm tired of the subject..can we go on?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 192 of 404:
|
Oct 29 03:04 UTC 1998 |
On to what? The course of the discussion here is up to you, too.
|
senna
|
|
response 193 of 404:
|
Oct 29 11:31 UTC 1998 |
Uh, yeah, drift away.
My choice to be a heterosexual was carefully made. At the age of 12, when
encountered with the issue, I took it very seriously. First, I read all the
material I could explaining the advantages and disadvantages of the various
choices of sexual orientations. Then I listened and attended lectures
outlining the various issues involved. Then I talked to people who had made
both choices about why they made those choices and how they thought their
choice had panned out. I carefully investigated the activities both choices
would involve until I knew the ins and outs of everything, and scheduled a
viewing so I could see the processes in action. And, finally, to make my
choice, I went to a beach. I saw a couple women walking buy in thongs, said
"Oh, daaaaaammmmmnnnnn," and decided to be heterosexual.
The preceeding paragraph is sarcastic.
|
headdoc
|
|
response 194 of 404:
|
Oct 29 16:07 UTC 1998 |
lol senna. Very clever.
|
suzie
|
|
response 195 of 404:
|
Oct 30 01:48 UTC 1998 |
ROTFL!!
|
kenton
|
|
response 196 of 404:
|
Oct 30 02:06 UTC 1998 |
I guess the only reason that the supreme court decided the Roe vs. Wade in
the way they did, was because the baby had a joke for a legal team. So it
all boils down to how good of an attorney do you have.
Public opinion is a powerful tool and drives society. With proper answers
to the questions I asked, a more moderate approach could be taken to making
abortions so readily available. If babies lives could be saved within the
process of abortion, I wouldn't care how many abortions happened.
I see abortions as murder, because they end a life, a human life. I care and
obviously lots of others care too.
Unwanted pregnancies are a tragedy, but killing does not make it right.
I would like to see a law that would give all aborted babies the same rights
as those born by Caesarean section. They are both extracted from their mothers
by unnatural means. Such a law would help mothers to be, to realize that
their babies are truly human beings.
In addition, if human rights were unconditionally given to the unborn
(regardless of fetal age), where wife beating, etc. occurred, resulting in the
death of the child, greater penalties could be imposed on the assailant.
I firmly believe that a woman should have the right to decide whether she wants
to have a child or not. But the time to exercise that right is before the child
exists. I do not believe that any human has the right to murder or cause to be
murdered any human regardless of age, physical development, ability, worth,
heredity, or stage of mental development, etc.
|
lumen
|
|
response 197 of 404:
|
Oct 30 02:33 UTC 1998 |
Put the abortion issue to bed-- I grow tired of it. Opinions are like
buttocks-- everyone's got one, and they all stink.
Anyway, I thought we were talking about Matthew Shepard's untimely death and
homophobia in general.
Anyone see the ABC News special on it? They had a gay filmmaker who did a
documentary of interviews with men who had murdered homosexuals. They talked
a little about perceived attitudes, etc., etc.
|
senna
|
|
response 198 of 404:
|
Oct 30 09:56 UTC 1998 |
The abortion issue will die when it dies. It's easy to ignore the responses
and the item is forgettable if necessary.
|
mta
|
|
response 199 of 404:
|
Oct 30 15:19 UTC 1998 |
I didn't catch that documentary, Jon. Could you give a brief synopsis?
|
brighn
|
|
response 200 of 404:
|
Oct 30 20:18 UTC 1998 |
The only post that will irritate me every single time I read it is one that
says, "Shut up because I'm sick of hear ing it."
Of course, Joe, you're free to be irritating.
=}
|
void
|
|
response 201 of 404:
|
Oct 31 11:53 UTC 1998 |
kenton, i'll repeat my question: when, exactly, did you make a
conscious choice to be heterosexual?
|
lumen
|
|
response 202 of 404:
|
Nov 1 00:51 UTC 1998 |
Misti, I'll do my best-- it was a while ago, and I didn't take notes..
but I gotta go now. I'm sure you could get a copy from ABC News..they do
videotapes for educational purposes.
more to come..
|
kenton
|
|
response 203 of 404:
|
Nov 1 03:31 UTC 1998 |
Re #201 I don't recall saying I was a heterosexual. But I am. And I don't
recall making a choice. Should I? Because I grew up observing all
heterosexual relationships, I was not aware that any other existed. But am
I a product of what I have seen in an impressionable age range, or did
heterosexuality come natural to me?
At age 10 I thought that girls were the pits, yet had a girl for a buddy.
She was 11, played catch, climbed trees, went fishin', and bikin' and could
beat the tar out of me. She lived about 1/2 mile from me and was about 1 mile
closer than any guy. Because my brother (12 years my elder) was married to her
sister, she and I had occasion to spend a good deal of time together.
When I got around guys, she ceased to exist, even if present. When she got
around girls, she persisted in chasing me until I slipped or got cornered.
Then I got a kiss for every girl present (from my girl buddy). As I remember,
this was very humiliating for a 10 year old macho man. When both of us were
around our own gender, we had a different perception of each other.
The point is, although we spent a lot of time together, neither was influenced
to become anything other than what we were. I moved away at age 11.
At age 14, I saw her again and my interests were radically different from
those of a 10 year old. But unfortunately our wrestling days were over.
If a man in a mental institution thinks he is Napoleon, he obviously needs
help. He thinks he is someone, who he is not. A women trapped in a man's body
is in the same condition, yet acceptance of homosexuality denys this type of
person mental help. Do I miss the flight with this analogy?
|
snowth
|
|
response 204 of 404:
|
Nov 1 04:33 UTC 1998 |
(Not that I agree with the statement, I just don't feel like arguing about
it tonight...)
But to pick a different point... Why does the guy who thinks he's Napoleon
*need* help? He's not hurting anybody, and as long as it doesn't interfere
with the way he lives _his_ life, how does it matter?
Or maybe that's just me.
|
senna
|
|
response 205 of 404:
|
Nov 1 05:00 UTC 1998 |
Kenton, you're using extremely bad arguments to support a point. It makes
it very difficult to respect your position if that's all you can offer. I
know quite a few people who hold similar views to you but are much, much more
intelligent about it. How do you know what it's like to be a homosexual?
Have you ever been a homosexual? Try to look at things from the other side
occasionally. It's possible to be intelligent and rational and not agree with
you. This applies to everybody.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 206 of 404:
|
Nov 1 06:05 UTC 1998 |
I don't understand why kenton thinks it matters at all what sexual preference
a person has. There is no such thing as "a woman trapped in a man's body".
There are just people, with varying degrees and types of sexual drives.
Why are they not all considered equal?
|
mdw
|
|
response 207 of 404:
|
Nov 1 07:36 UTC 1998 |
There are people who feel they are a "woman trapped in a man's body",
and there are homosexuals. The two are entirely different things. The
former is likely to consider an operation in sweden; the latter is
perfectly happy "as is". In classical greece, homosexuality was
considered more or less the norm--if anything, people who were only into
heterosexual sex would have been considered "sick" and "in need of
help". Genetics isn't as simple as XX/XY. There are also XO, AIS, &
various other oddities. For most of these, there is no "cure" or "quick
fix", and society doesn't always deal well with these people.
|
kenton
|
|
response 208 of 404:
|
Nov 1 22:21 UTC 1998 |
Re 205 I don't know any homosexuals nor have I practiced homosexuality. I
never made any claims to being particularly intelligent. Perhaps you can
point out the error of my responses, so I can amend my ways. Show me how
homosexuality benefits the home and family and the nation. Show how it
benefits the individual, especially the one who was beaten to death. Do the
same with heterosexuality.
Rane, everyone is not equal. They all (in USA) have a constitutional right to
pursue happiness, but some are much better equipped to do that.
I don't understand women, because I am not one. And I don't understand
homosexuals
because I am not one. Anyone who wants to twist these two sentences beyond what
I mean is welcome. Anyway, I don't throw rocks at either group.
I want to know what causes a homosexual to be homosexual. Is it learned or
hereditary? Or is it just plain perverted?
Classic Greece, ancient Rome and Sodom and Gomorra are all history. May they
rest in peace.
|
scott
|
|
response 209 of 404:
|
Nov 1 23:02 UTC 1998 |
Ah, so all the ancient Greeks are now dead, so they must have been doing
something wrong?
OK, I'll bite.
Homosexuality might be a very valuable response to overpopulation. By
redirecting sexual drives to unions that cannot produce offspring, population
growth is slowed and massive die-offs (from limited resources) prevented.
|
klg
|
|
response 210 of 404:
|
Nov 2 00:21 UTC 1998 |
So that's the reason why most of the population in China is
homosexual?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 211 of 404:
|
Nov 2 00:46 UTC 1998 |
Re #208: Well Kenton, if contibuting to culture can be considered a "benefit"
to a nation, then there are far too many contributions to list here.
Homosexuals' contibutions to art, music and literature are well documented
and have been lauded and embraced by heterosexuals as well . . . .
|
mta
|
|
response 212 of 404:
|
Nov 2 00:50 UTC 1998 |
Homesexua;ity can also be a benefit in a "traditional" family/tribal setting
since a certain number of non-reproducing adults will (at least theoretically)
be free to help with the care of their siblings children, improving the odds
that more of those indirect descendents will grow up to pass on the family
genes.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 213 of 404:
|
Nov 2 03:16 UTC 1998 |
Re #208: the question should be, how does homosexuality (or any other
sexual preference, including heterosexuality) *harm* "the home and family and
the nation"? There are more than enough heterosexuals to maintain the
population, and homosexuals (and others) are just as capable as heterosexuals
to have fine homes and families. And don't go into issues of "public health".
Heterosexuals were the main public health problems in the days of syphillus
and many other sexually related diseases. These are public health questions,
not life style questions. I don't know how homophobia arose, but I
suspect it arose in primitive tribes where public health problems were
less controllable for lack of information.
|
katie
|
|
response 214 of 404:
|
Nov 2 03:53 UTC 1998 |
kenton, you most probably know several homosexuals.
|