I'll Give You One Jerry Falwell and...

[starlifter]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
... I do not read no perversion into it. Just because they like to suck c*** or whatever don't mean they are untermensch or are going to hell.

You may read "perversion" into it or not, as you choose. The unchanging fact remains, however... homosexuals are perverts. This is not a judgement, but a simple recitation of fact that is documented by no less than the caretakers of the English language.

About going to hell... since I never said this, I'll assumed that it is meant for another. I would not presume to tell the Lord what his plans are, but note with extreme interest what He chose to do with Sodom and Gomorrah.

Hey, I just noticed something. Does the term "sodomy" and the ancient city destroyed by the Lord God with fire (as recounted in all versions of the Holy Bible) called "Sodom" seem similar? I wonder if there is a connection of some sort between the terms. Just thinking out loud. .

If you want to pull biblical ground on abominations, then we can bring in a lot of other things prescribed by the law of the Book. If starlifter, or others, find it distasteful or immoral, fair enough them, but don't mention all gays in the same sentence ( and therefore implication) as pederasts and the like. They are still human f*****g beings,

Since you mentioned my name, if you care to re-read my posts, I stated quite clearly and incontrovertibly that gays were not only human beings, but deserving of the full protection of the Constitution at all times. No more, no less, than any other citizen or resident of America.

So don't twist the meaning or words... you need to keep an open mind and not cloud it with preconceptions about what you WANT to see when you read posts .

just like annoying little finns. Have your personal distaste,

I can't tell if that is in reference to me, but if is was, then for the record I have not stated my own personal taste or "distaste" (no pun intended) for homosexuals, so please try harder to get your facts straight (darn, another pun!!) first, LOL!

 

[allan]

"I knew someone would think a one extremely creative use for Spam one day!"

Well, I can't take the credit you gave me for that one.... That was Ashoka's idea (I just quoted it in my post).

I like that Thai official's idea he talked about, too.... I always thought the Thai overall have a keen, sharp sense of humor....

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Mea culpa, Starlifter, I wrote without properly reading the entirety of your voluminous works. I have also reported you to the Interpol anti pun hotline, and hope they give you life in a sound proof cell for excessive punning.


But my "gripe", as I will put it,is your application of the term "perversion" and "pervert". A single definition from one of many dictionaries (not the sole guardians of the English language) of "an aberrant sexual practice especially when habitual and preferred to NORMAL coitus."

This would be an open and shut case if the same dictionary defined "normal coitus" as strictly heterosexual intercourse. Without access to this work at the present, I cannot say for sure, but most dictionaries I have encountered do not have the term "normal coitus" as a seperate heading.
This brings us to the wonderful word "normal". Can this be applied universally, like good or evil. Not without difficulty, which is why to a great extent it is replaced by "the norm", which does not carry so much of an implicit value judgement (ie there are set forms of behaviour that are normal, and anything outside of this is "abnormal", aberrant, and implicitly wrong)
The term abnormal, when applied to a person, is not generally seen as complimentary or positive.
The term "pervert" definitely is not. It carries with it an unavoidable stigma, and moral judgement of evil. You do not call someone a pervert as a compliment. It is an insult, or a negative label.

The premise that because one dictionary definition of perversion contains reference to "sexual practices especially where habitual and preferred to normal coitus", that this must equal homosexuality being a perversion is a shaky logical concept.
What else can be characterized as a perversion just because it is preferred to normal coitus? Fellatio? Masturbation? Flicking through Playboy? These are all sexaul practices that occur quite a lot, but are not viewed as perversions by the great majority of society, although I haven't done a survey (as I don't want to get slapped, get wierd looks and people think I am sex crazed).

BUT, by the definition you employed and exalted, these are perversions, and as a consequence, all those who engage in them are perverts. I would hazard to guess that this would drag in a large amount of people.

Are they perverts though? Not IMO.
It comes down to the notion that one form of sexual practice, when done legally, between consenting adults, is somehow wrong, whilst another is morally repellent.

That addresses the dictionary definition, and as for it being fact, I would like more than one piece of proof

The word "perversion" is more than a harmless definition, it carries implied moral and social condemnation. Would you let a "pervert" look after your kids? (sorry, cannot say what sort of perversion, as we are applying a blanket definition)

The association of homosexuality with pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality as all under the label of perversion does imply, unconciously or not, that they are all the same, deserving of the same condemnation.

Pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality are ALL perversions; anyone will agree. They are all sexual practices that involve exploitation of a usually unwilling party (no way a corpse is going to be able to give consent, animals cannot give legal consent, and children are protected under the law, even though some are manipulated and brainwashed into some form of agreement) Further, they are evil, and proscribed under law. They are probably legally defined as perversions.

But homosexuality cannot be ranked with them, unless it is under the heading of "different from male to female intercourse" Even so, some of these could fit under a male:female definition
"Just because she is dead/a frog/ 4 years old doesn't mean its wrong"

YES, IT DOES.

The stigma and evil associations attached to the label "pervert" are my gripe, as well as the shaky definition. If you were to say 'different from the most widely accepted social form', then it would be fact and true. The practice of homosexuality is not widely spread, and is not carried out by the majority of the community.
But it is not a perversion. This has totally different implications and conotations.
In conclusion, check out these synonyms from a thesaurus:

Perverted: Distorted, twisted, warped, contorted, unbalanced, misconstrued, misconceived, misunderstood; false, faulty, untrue, fallacious, unsound, erroneous, imperfect; degraded, depraved, debased, corrupt, unnatural, abnormal, aberrant, deviant.

All of these words, when applied to a person, cannot be seen as not associating bad, or attaching a moral label.

So, no matter how much the use of "perverted" is qualified with careful explanation, it is a word that always carries a moral stigma and judgement.

(He pauses to put on his dirty overcoat, brush the hairs on his palms, adopt a suitably disgusting yet alluring leer, and heads out to find some of those dead , female four year old frogs )

 

[Dogberry_Old]

There was a column in yesterday's Washington Post by Colbert I. King entitled Pat Robertson's Gold which adds a little heft to what I said about diamonds in the Congo. It seems that Mr. Robertson through a subsidary has gained a gold mining contract in Liberia with the government of the corrupt despot .. Charles Taylor. The column seems to be quite well researched. It is now archived .

Why Diamonds & Gold ?

Boy ... I sure don't know, but I will make a few observations:

1) These items are as good as cash, the world over.
2) Even better than cash, they leave a very faint trail & are hard to detect when transported.
3) They make ideal bribes for the above reasons.
4) The record keeping requirements in the Congo & Liberia are certainly quite laisse faire .
5) Their value zooms .. in times of crisis. The bigger the crisis, the bigger the increase in value.

It might very well be that the very reverend , Mr Robertson intends to use these things to succor himself & his flock in the coming End of Days .. which if you have followed this guy at all.... is a persistant theme.

Homosexuality et alia

Politics of the Genitalia ... ugh, trivial & disgusting ! I wonder about the people that go on about it so. I don't believe in prosecuting or discriminating against people for their sexual proclavities.. beyond certain norms, but I will say that historically, when a society or culture has been obsessed with these things, it has been a real poor lookout for that society & or culture.

Dog

 

[Shaolin]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Quit giving him the Joe McCarthy treatment - Falwell's a great guy, and when he makes even one mistake,

HA! That's pretty funny. Fallwell is everything that is wrong with this country. Intollerent and Ignorant. Using religion as a forum to make him rich and solicit people to do his dirty work. The only difference between him and Bin Ladin is that Bin Ladin is a murderer, but they are cut from the same cloth. They both fit in the category of fanatical idiots.

 

[allan]

Simon, I believe you hit the nail squarely on the head....

"Normal" is a rather ambiguous term as you say, plus pedophilia is IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BALLPARK than homosexuality between two consentling adults. Heterosexual rape of adults is also less moral than consensual homosexuality--yet would it be defined as perversion?

Like I said, I use the "would I say it to his face" test to guide my own use of terms: I WOULD call a pedophile a "pervert" to his face (and that should be the LEAST of his worries), but not a homosexual. Hence my use of terms reflects that....

P.S. To those wondering about polite terms for homosexuals (a few posts back): "gay" is universally accepted in that community, and I usually use that term when referring to them in conversation.

 

[starlifter]

...
The association of homosexuality with pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality as all under the label of perversion does imply, unconciously or not, that they are all the same, deserving of the same condemnation.

Pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality are ALL perversions; anyone will agree. They are all sexual practices that involve exploitation of a usually unwilling party (no way a corpse is going to be able to give consent, animals cannot give legal consent, and children are protected under the law, even though some are manipulated and brainwashed into some form of agreement) Further, they are evil, and proscribed under law. They are probably legally defined as perversions.

First, Americans have and generally still do place Homosexuality smack dab in your second paragraph's points. However, at some point in the future, it is possible that using the same exact legal basis that homosexual activists advocate, other perverts may well redefine their supposed acceptance. In 50 years, how would you view it if people that likes to sexually abuse dead bodies (whom gave their sonsent before death, BTW) were entitled to the same Civil Rights protection of minorities? What if a court decided to examine the percentage of necrophiliacs in a company to determine the Affirmative Action that should be implemented in order to increase the number of necrophiliacs?

The legal principle for granting additional laws and Constitutional status to those who choose to engage in one act apply to others, too. And BTW, how can one prove one is any form of pervert (or not)... and what if a person classified as a pervert changes (or is cured)?


While it is true that some may condemn "pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality", etc., my point is that everyone is deserving and entitled to protection from America and it's Constitution. The hot-button of Homosexuality is doubless sensitive to some at this small window in the history of the American Nation (e.g., it is currently Politically Correct to some people), but the original point was the Pope's view of it when it was singled out in the growth of this thread.

Now I will expand things a little more. All forms of human sex are a choice. That is an incontrovertible truism. One can do one's choice, or not.

HOWEVER, the choices that one makes are in no way of deserving of additional and special protection under the US Constitution. This includes singling out the particular choice of Homosexuality for special treatment/protection.

All basic rights already exist for Homosexuals in America. They can vote. They can run for Mayor. They can buy property. They can own a business. If they are lynched, their attackers are prosecuted.

At points in American history until the Civil rights Movement and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the same cannot be said about people of a minority race. Until about 100 years ago (Women's Sufferage), the same cannot be said about the treatment of women. Ditto for some of certain national origins, etc. Further, these conditions are externally manifest at birth, are not a personal choice, and imply absolutely no behavior or actions of any sort.

So it is an abomination to Minority goups, in particular, when Homosexuals attempt to compare themselves to those in the American Civil Rights movement. There is no comparison, only a slick lie. People born of a race or nationality or gender had no choice and no decision in the process, and moreover, one's race, creed, national origin, & gender in no way predicts one's actions or behavior.

It is apalling to see that any segment of American society can abuse (indeed, rape) the Constitution and courts by attempting to secure extra (or special) protections (or status) under our Constitution for one's personal choices. And it is utterly repulsive and insulting to every minority in America (though many are unaware of the true depth of the insult) when the "homosexual movement" attempts to ride the backs of minorities that for so long did not even have the right to life in America.

All minorites and women (and those that support them) should rise as one, with a terrible scream from deep within their very gut, and cast out the despicable lie that homosexuals (or anyone that chooses to engage/not engage in any perversion or personal choices) are somehow "deprived" of the basic liberties of America.

And finally, since it is a choice for anyone to engage in whatever sexual acts they prefer (perverted or not), it is both logical and a truism that they are not entitled to any form of additional consideration by America or it's Constitition (or derivatives) for making that choice.

Perverts and non-perverts (note that in this case, I have not ascribed homosexuals to either category, because it is irrelevant for the only logical outcome) alike must make their choice and live with it --- but don't ram it down my throat and expect me to take it smiling. To do so insults and dishonors anyone who was part of or supports Civil Rights, Women's rights, and the basic American way of life. The actions and goals of any groups like the Homosexual activists metaphorically rapes every American and freedom loving person who ever lived.

 

[starlifter]

Like I said, I use the "would I say it to his face" test to guide my own use of terms: I WOULD call a pedophile a "pervert" to his face (and that should be the LEAST of his worries), but not a homosexual. Hence my use of terms reflects that....

If one were angry at someone, that would be a commonly used term. Just like with homosexuals. If one is angry at an individual, or group, one might lash out "You Pervert", when in normal circumstances one would not rever to such perversion as "Pervert". And because of the meaning of the term "Pervert", it is quite natural that any people who would fit that term would like a differnt term used. Indeed, those to whom the long-standing definition of the term applies would very likely perfer to alter the definition and context of everyday use. In fact, one can see the steady "sanitization" of the linguistically defined variations of "pervert" over the last few years.

P.S. To those wondering about polite terms for homosexuals (a few posts back): "gay" is universally accepted in that community, and I usually use that term when referring to them in conversation.

Yes, gay is a common term, and even more sanitized than the term homosexual. Some do prefer the latter, though. And some women prefer to be called lesbians, instead of gay, homosexual, perverted, or queer. It is considered polite to refer to them with whatever term they prefer. The preferred terms change pretty rapidly, however.

Hey, how did the term "gay" ever get associated with homosexuals? It was sometime in the last 50 years, I think. The 1890's are known historically as the "Gay '90s", but it in no way refers to perversion or homosexual activity.

 

[starlifter]

The stigma and evil associations attached to the label "pervert" are my gripe
...
The practice of homosexuality is not widely spread, and is not carried out by the majority of the community.
...
But it is not a perversion. This has totally different implications and conotations. In conclusion, check out these synonyms from a thesaurus:
Perverted: Distorted, twisted, warped, contorted, unbalanced, misconstrued, misconceived, misunderstood; false, faulty, untrue, fallacious, unsound, erroneous, imperfect; degraded, depraved, debased, corrupt, unnatural, abnormal, aberrant, deviant.

All of these words, when applied to a person, cannot be seen as not associating bad, or attaching a moral label.

Most people in America even with the drumbeat of attempts to recast the historical perceptions Homosexuals, would ascribe the majority of terms you listed to homosexuals. I have boldfaced some of the ones that even extraordnarily tolerant Americans would likely use.

In terms of strict science and nature, the terms faulty, imperfect, degraded, depraved, unnatural, abnormal, aberrant, and deviant are proper descriptions of homosexual behavior in any higher life form, including humans. But I totally understand the desire of homosexuals to revise even established definitions and science in order to achieve ulterior political and social motives. It is human nature to desire and rationalize a more acceptable view of oneself, and I do not castigate any perverts, including homosexuals, for wanting and attempting to do so, instead of making personal choices and accepting responsibility for them.

 

[allan]

Starlifter: "All forms of human sex are a choice. That is an incontrovertible truism. One can do one's choice, or not."

While this is true as far as choosing to ACT, the jury's still out on whether or not the underlying impulses are in fact chosen. For example, I as a hetero tend to be attracted to women who look a certain way: have a certain figure, skin texture, scent, etc. If a law were established that said chubby, ugly men could only have sex with chubby, ugly women, well, I'd be screwed (no pun intended!), because I have by far the strongest sex drive for women who fit a different description! I cannot help that I am not attracted to fat, ugly women--that's just the way it is! Nothing against them--they can be just as sweet as anyone else (and often sweeter)--it's just that my dick doesn't easily get hard for them. Whereas some men prefer the beefy women....

So I imagine it is probably the same with homosexuals--for whatever reason, their dicks don't get hard for females, but they do for males. So in their case, the "choice" is either celibacy, or unenjoyable (if they even get it up) sex with females, or enjoyable sex with males. Same with gay women. Yes it is a choice ultimately, but I think it is a reasonably understandable one for them, given the nature of their sex drive....

Starlifter: "In fact, one can see the steady "sanitization" of the linguistically defined variations of "pervert" over the last few years."

Like it or not, languages DO change over time, and words either gain or lose certain connotations, or sometimes simply fall out of common usage. This is the difference between "living" languages like English or Spanish, and "dead" ones like Latin.... Now I do not believe we should have "language police" try to FORCE changes on the language--that's Orwellian--BUT if common usage changes or disappears, then dictionaries should reflect these organic changes when observed. And honestly, you are probably the first person I've heard in 20 years use the term "pervert" to mean homosexuals. And definitely the first to use the term without particular malice (everytime I've heard the word before, it was with malice or contempt, and usually referred to either pedophiles, rapists, slashers, "peeping toms", or "flashers"). As a sometime English teacher and tutor, I tend to keep an ear out for things like that.... Perhaps Falwell and company use that term for homosexuals (I never listen to fundies though), but most Americans do not (although plenty use the derogatory terms "faggot", "fudgepacker", or what have you).

Which I guess is why I was so surprised to hear you use the term--because it seems quite dated... not because of PC, but because of changing patterns of common usage. Languages cannot be artificially changed anyway, they don't work that way.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Tsk. It seems the point of what I was saying is swamped in a tide of rhetoric and premises that do not fully support conclusions.

I am not concerned with the efforts of homosexuals to get preferential treatment, or whatever we wish to call it, nor am I supporting their attempts to steal civil rights thunder.

My main thrust was that the term "pervert" does have undeniable negative connotations, to put it mildly. It is a word that evokes disgust and feelings of repugnance. That is beyond argument, or at least, it has not been refuted.

What has been given is a claim that one single dictionary definition, when manipulated out of context, and on rather shaky grounds, is the basis for utter fact. Now, we get that very measurable group "most people in America". Prove this, and I will be content. Of course, it would have to be done in a way where the question was put to the whole populace, and two thirds came in the favour of your definition. But this will not happen, as it is nigh on impossible to get an accurate poll of that size. My point? Do not claim the support of "most people in America" or the world for that matter just as a matter of rhetoric.

Your terms in bold, starlifter, are interesting. "Extraordinarily tolerant Americans would likely use" them. Homosexuals are therefore "misunderstood". By whom? Those who claim their opinions are incontrevertable fact, maybe Misunderstood in what way? Personally? As a group? In terms of ideology, or practice? This is perhaps one synonym that maybe some would ascribe to homosexuals, but i would not say the extraordinarily tolerant would use it.

As for unnatural and abnormal, these both carry negative connotations and value judgements. What is natural, what is normal. Give ironclad, eternal definitions, and then maybe these could get close to approaching, but they do not. There is some documented evidence of homosexual behaviour among animals; I cannot speak for its veracity, not being a scientist versed in this area, but it remains that there is not OBJECTIVE definition or label for NORMAL or NATURAL, only SUBJECTIVE labels based upon our moral beliefs, and what we find comfortable.

"But I totally understand the desire of homosexuals to revise even established definitions and science in order to achieve ulterior political and social motives. It is human nature to desire and rationalize a more acceptable view of oneself, and I do not castigate any perverts, including homosexuals, for wanting and attempting to do so, instead of making personal choices and accepting responsibility for them."

In saying this, it seems that you
1.) claim the established definitions of language and science behind your case, without proving them here.

2.) Ascribe ulterior political and social motives to all those who are in terms of your position, "revisionist". I revise nothing, and have no motive or gain in this argument, other than pursuit of the truth, and putting forth my case that your argument stands on invalid ground, namely a few convoluted definitions. My point from my last post on what is normal coitus and what is abnormal coitus was not addressed, and that, IMO , is a key point of your argument "One definition of perversion is abnormal sexual practice other than coitus; homosexuality is an abnormal practice other than coitus; therefore homosexuality is a perversion" (Which ascribes the full negative weight of that term upon it, even though I firmly believe your assertion that it is not your intention to do so)

3.)Yes, it is human nature to desire and rationalize a more accepted view of oneself. This works both ways, both for "perverts", and those who attempt to pass off a moral aversion as a logical point (present company excluded of course) But is not wanting to be called a pervert really a bad thing. Words are powerful labels, as can be seen in the events in Britain last year or so, when pediatricians were threatened as vigilantes confused them with pedophiles. Disliking the label "pervert" does not mean running from the truth, firstly because it has not been preoved to be the whole truth, and also because it is an ugly, violent term.

4.)"Instead of making personal choices and accepting responsibility for them" This comes across to me as implying that homosexuals can just get up out of bed one day and make a choice to become heterosexual, and that by not doing so, they are shirking responsibility, which IS A BAD THING. It implies that they are somewhat lesser beings for this shirking of an easy responsibility. It comes down to whether you believe homosexuality is a choice, like smoking, or catching a bus, or an ingrained part of someones personality. A gay can no more choose not to be attracted to men than someone who is black choose to become white (any reference to Michael Jackson is invalid)

If you do not believe this, it is for subjective reasons, as there is a great deal of study done to the effect that it is not a lifestyle choice, but rather an integral part of the person. Indeed, this is the widespread opinion in the medical, psychological and psychiatric faculties,a s can be seen with homosexuality no longer being treated as an illness. I would go so far as to ask if any evidence from credible sources to the contrary can be produced and presented, as I am that confident on the matter.

Attempting a rational objection to homosexuality, for that is exactly what trying to pass off as logical and irrefutable fact that homosexuality is a perversion is, cannot be backed up with science, logic or fact; it is not objective. The premises offered do not support the conclusion, even though they nominally follow logic.
But it is the logic of "All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat".

By all means object on moral and whatever religious lines you wish; I'll argue the theological basis another day. But do not label something as a perversion in an attempt to invoke the force of logic and reason behind a subjective opinion.

 

[starlifter]

While this is true as far as choosing to ACT, the jury's still out on whether or not the underlying impulses are in fact chosen.

LOL, I don't know if you intended it or not, but this is a subtle but massive alteration of what I originally said. All sexuality is a choice, and the underlying impulses are totally irrelevant. If impulse were relevant, all our foundation of laws would have to be changed... For instance, if I had an impulse to kill my boss and chose to act of it, but wanted to avoid the consequences of that choice because I could somehow demonstrate that it was unavoidable, inbred, or whatever.

So all homosexuality is a choice. All perversion is a choice. All heterosexuality is a choice. There are consequences to all choices in life. Homosexual groups, particularly activist groups and their supporters (no pun!), do not desire certain consequences of their choices (which is totally understandable and indeed human nature... even most killers wish to avoid consequences of their choice to kill).

To avoid social consequences of their choices, homosexuals (understandably) would like non-homosexuals relieve homosexuals of the of responsibility for this narrow aspect of their human behavior. Non-homosexuals are under no Constitutional (or even religious) to unburden homosexuals of the very consequences that they are aware of when they make their choices.

For example, imagine a "flaming" homosexual going up to, say, a conservative Iowa housewife (who strongly disapproves of all things homosexual) on her 7th generation farm and insisting that she accept the "flaming" actions, words, deeds, etc. She is under no obligation whatsoever. Yet, American taxpayer money is even used in attempts to force non-homosexuals to "accept" and in fact, embrace, an unacceptable set of choices.

Imagine the above paragraph, but substitute the word "necrophiliac" for "homosexual". So it just depends on the "political" spin that people who make certain choices put on it.

Like it or not, languages DO change over time, and words either gain or lose certain connotations, or sometimes simply fall out of common usage.

Quite true, and BTW I neither like nor dislike it. It simply "is". In fact, new words are created and new phrases used and entered into the lexicon every year.

However, at the moment it is simply more of a PC thing not to remind homosexuals that they are simply a subgroup of the much broader collection of perverts. And that is understandable, since even a necrophiliac or pedophile would likely not like to be referred to as the broader term of "pervert". And out of simple consideration, most Americans nowadays refrain from using the term pervert when applied to homosexuals, especially in first person discussions, as do I. Part of that is likely because most of the time when people say the word "pervert" it is meant as an attack, and could well substitute the work "jerk" or "*******".

And another part is the subtle attempt to equate the choice of homosexual perversion with innate characteristics defined by one's gender, race, origin, creed, handicap(s), and age. In fact, the line is successfully being blurred for many Americans... until one really considers the desired outcome of such campaigns drumming such associations into the general population.

And even more people do not appreciate the legal precedence which, if such campaigns are ultimately successful, will eventually grant special considerations (including preferred job considerations) for any perverse group. This is the abomination to the peoples of the Nation that have sought to equalize every citizen based on innate, readily discernable characteristics such as race, gender, are, handicap, national origin, etc.

BTW, there is no known way to determine if someone is a pervert (be they homosexual, or whatever) by initial observation. That choice is obvious only when the homosexual overtly states it or performs an external (e.g., not just one's private thought) act.

One cannot stand before an employer and state "I am a female" or "I am black" without some sort of visual evidence. However, if the employer needed 3 more homosexuals (or in 20 or 30 years, 3 more perverts of any category) to fulfill a mandated action or order, there is no way to verify the truth of this assertion. Further, the individual purporting to be a pervert to gain advantage may at any time change their own choice to be a pervert, thus altering the original premise for the action required of the employer.

This is not hypothetical. It is already reality in some states, like New Jersey. Except that the definition of pervert is currently limited to the specific subgroup called homosexuals, and is generally referred to as "Sexual Choice" or "Sexual Preference". It is interesting to note that the terms used in lieu of "Pervert" actually can be applied to all perverts, not just homosexuals. All that is lacking at this point is the test cases to push through the courts to further broaden, in case law, the concept of additional protection for more (or all) forms of perversion.

In the 1960, if you'd asked the leaders of the Civil Rights movement if perverts in general, or even homosexuals in particular, should be included in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you'd be laughed at. If you asked if Affirmative Action could ever be applied to someone solely on the basis of him (assume the male gender) enjoying ramming his penis into another man's rectum, for example, people would have thought you were nuts (no pun!). But is gets worse, because now not only do people who engage in perversion often wish to be absolve of the consequences of their personal decisions, but the expect everyone else to give up a part of their Constitutional rights in order to afford them protections based on both their choice to engage in perverted activity, but also to inform you about it and expect you to accept it.

So there are some of the fringes of the legal issues... and where they have come from, and where they are headed (no pun intended!).

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Therefore, the crux of the argument is that you believe sexuality is a choice, and purely a matter of personal decision.

"Underlying impulses are irrelevant". This goes far beyond impulses, and to associate sexuality with the impulse to murder is a cheap shot.

As previously said, I am not arguing the legal issues, but rather the false objective status of your argument. It is your opinion, all well and good, but it is not fact. Likewise, I do not claim irrefutable status to any but a few matters of medically accepted fact in my argument.

It is your opinion that sexuality is a choice.
OK, we agree to disagree on this, but do not attempt to pass off this opinion as objective fact through the agency of shaky logic and rhetoric.

"And even more people do not appreciate the legal precedence which, if such campaigns are ultimately successful, will eventually grant special considerations (including preferred job considerations) for any perverse group. This is the abomination to the peoples of the Nation that have sought to equalize every citizen based on innate, readily discernable characteristics such as race, gender, are, handicap, national origin, etc."

Just as a matter of OPINION, but a fairly educated guess as well, I can't see pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, or any bizarre combination of the above getting legal, social, or moral acceptance just becuase homosexuality has. There is a vast difference, and the logical jump is just too big.

On the issue of this being unthinkable in 1960, other things have been unthinkable previously, such as civil rights for the coloured, or votes for the unpropertied classes. Even the existence of a nation like the US was unthinkable as some stage prior to it establishment. But the flow of progress, justice and right has made it so. The acceptability of an issue changes over time. Homosexuality was regarded as a crime and perversion at some stage in the past. Now it is not.
But to ascribe this logic of a slippery slope of permissiveness to the notion that perversions that are forever beyond the pale will one day too be accepted is just facetious. I honestly think, trust and know that pedophilia, or its like will never be accepted. Only those reprobate scum at NAMBLA think otherwise. Thus, clouding the issue with this does not add to the case.

But, as I sense we have come to the root of our differences, I will leave it with this. You (starlifter) believe that sexuality is a matter of choice; I do not believe it to be so.

 

[allan]

Starlifter: "But I totally understand the desire of homosexuals to revise even established definitions and science in order to achieve ulterior political and social motives. It is human nature to desire and rationalize a more acceptable view of oneself, and I do not castigate any perverts, including homosexuals, for wanting and attempting to do so, instead of making personal choices and accepting responsibility for them."

I echo Simon's comments on this, and add that while I do not support "special privileges" for homosexuals (I believe in the consistent rule of law), my take on most homosexuals is that they just want to be left alone to pursue their happiness, like all Americans. They want to strike down "sodomy" laws that apply to consensual adult homosexual sex (as well as any consensual hetero sex that might apply also, like oral or male-female anal sex)--and I fully support that, seeing these as victimless "crimes" and thus their prohibition having no place in a free society. Now I don't support "hate crime" legislation, BUT I do believe that if laws today treat graffiti on houses that say "Class of 2001" and "Die faggot" as the same, that needs to change--because the latter is a terroristic threat (just like something "neutral" like "Die Motherf*cker" would also be treated, however). But a threat is a threat is a threat, I agree, and all should get the same prosecution. Same with all murders of the same degree, all batteries, etc.--I think we've established agreement there. Some homosexuals may feel paranoid of the people around them to support "hate crime" measures, but if we INSTEAD prosecute ALL violence vigorously with tough sentences (which we do not, partly because of prisons overcrowded with stupid drug convictions--another victimless "crime"), they should feel reassured that that will include violence against them.

In fact, there are probably just as many conservative homosexuals as liberal ones (there are many libertarian ones), who wouldn't want the Constitution to be further violated "on their behalf"--BUT they rightfully just want people (and laws) to leave them alone, since they are not hurting anyone and generally lead productive and peaceful lives.... They may also sometimes speak out to try and persuade people to accept them, to not be afraid of them, etc. And really, fear or hate of them IMHO is totally irrational, and many psychologists would say could indicate a fear of hidden homosexual tendencies in those who do so.

In short, most gays probably just want to be left alone, and perhaps understood as not intentional deviants, but people who have grown up with a sex drive a bit different from what most have. And like I said in another post, no I do not believe people "choose" what gets their dicks hard, lol! If they did, why would they choose something that will subject them to persecution? MANY homosexual teens commit suicide every year....

 

[Simon Darkshade]

allan, I could not have said it better myself:

"In short, most gays probably just want to be left alone, and perhaps understood as not intentional deviants, but people who have grown up with a sex drive a bit different from what most have. And like I said in another post, no I do not believe people "choose" what gets their dicks hard, lol! If they did, why would they choose something that will subject them to persecution? MANY homosexual teens commit suicide every year...."

 

[allan]

WOW, TWO posts while I was writing that last one....

Simon: "Just as a matter of OPINION, but a fairly educated guess as well, I can't see pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, or any bizarre combination of the above getting legal, social, or moral acceptance just becuase homosexuality has. There is a vast difference, and the logical jump is just too big."

To add to Simon's comment: consensual homosexuality is a victimless "crime", therefore should not be considered a crime at all, and I don't give a DAMN what the Fundies say.... Whereas pedophilia and bestiality ARE crimes with victims (minors aren't of consenting age by definition, and animals can't give consent either--the latter is "cruelty to animals"); and necrophilia is mutilation of a corpse, therefore (in a way) a crime with a victim.... The KEY, FUNDAMENTAL difference is whether or not there is a VICTIM.

Question, Starlifter: do you define heterosexual rape as "perversion"? A lot of people refer to rapists as "perverts" (as in, "watch out for the perverts out there when you walk home alone"), and yet they perform "normal" (by even YOUR definition of "normal") coitus--only by force....

"On the issue of this being unthinkable in 1960, other things have been unthinkable previously, such as civil rights for the coloured, or votes for the unpropertied classes."

Or (OH, the HORROR!) interracial dating. That too was actually illegal once in many places....

"I honestly think, trust and know that pedophilia, or its like will never be accepted. Only those reprobate scum at NAMBLA think otherwise. Thus, clouding the issue with this does not add to the case."

Even the lowest of violent prison inmates have a sense of moral disgust for them--and give them plenty of their own medicine....

"But, as I sense we have come to the root of our differences, I will leave it with this. You (starlifter) believe that sexuality is a matter of choice; I do not believe it to be so."

If a homosexual CHOOSES to be so, then tell me why they would choose a sexuality that will subject them to scorn and abuse, sometimes enough to lead homosexual teens to suicide? I'd say that most WOULD RATHER BE "the other way". Indeed, remember that gay friend I said I had? Well, he was in a straight marriage for MANY years, but ended up abusing and beating his wife because he was sexually frustrated--he finally divorced and now lives a satisfying sex life that is TRUE for him, thus no more violence.... (Not that it excuses his spousal abuse, and he knows that--just demonstrates that sexuality isn't something you can just adjust with a switch. And IMHO, he doesn't bother ANYBODY and thus has a right to be happy. There were some profound problems in his life when he REPRESSED his sexuality (he grew up in a small town whose people had problems with open gayness)--doesn't he deserve to seek peace and happiness in his life by changing that situation? Or should others presume to know what's "best" for him?)

 

[starlifter]

But, as I sense we have come to the root of our differences, I will leave it with this. You (starlifter) believe that sexuality is a matter of choice; I do not believe it to be so."

If a homosexual CHOOSES to be so, then tell me why they would choose a sexuality that will subject them to scorn and abuse, sometimes enough to lead homosexual teens to suicide?

Non sequitor, and this is not the point.

Humans are capable of choice and reason. Instinct and urges are not to be acted upon just because one has them. Examples are killers, rapists, wife-beaters, etc.

The fact that someone has an urge, or even a thought is not a crime. One may, for instance, imagine killing one's boss, or the President. But the moment that a person externalizes one's thoughts and urges, one is from that instant forward, accountable and responsible. If an Adult person is not responsible for one's actions, the term is insanity, and the individual is removed from society and treated.

Now, the "debate" that some argue over about any pervert (or even non-pervert) having certain tendancies, like pedophilia, is irrelevant. As a human, one is responsible for one's choice. However, some people that make their choices feel they should not be accountable for any criminal or even social consequences. Some people go so far at to try and make Society "responsible" by twisting the legal system in America (Note that I am not stating any particular group, like Homosexuals).

So now, on to your statement about homosexual responsibility. It does not matter where the homosexual urges, feelings, thoughts, etc. come from. What matters is when they manifest themselves externally to the individual in question... this means, in effect, that the person chooses to act out the homosexual urges. If a person is not in control of oneself, they are to be instutionalized until their humanity can regain control over unbridled translation of "instinct" into external manifestation.

On the other hand, if a person is in control of one's own faculties (and almost all homosexuals are), then their act is a choice made freely. And consequences flow from that, as consequences flow from all people's actions in a free society. There is no special "but I'm a pervert (homosexual or otherwise)" defense or excuse for one's actions. If one externalizes ones thoughts and desires, one is responsible and accountable. The motivation is irrelevant, both in common sense, and in fact under the law and Constitution. Due to hollywoood's steroetypical portrayal of the legal system, many people think motivation need be established to hold one legally responsible for actions. Not true. The actions, not the motivations, are what one is responsible for, especially under the law.

as I sense we have come to the root of our differences... You (starlifter) believe that sexuality is a matter of choice; I do not believe it to be so."

Then we likely have no differences, as the "choice of sexuality" is not an issue in the least. If a person "is" a homosexual, it is totally irrelevant until the individual manifests it externally to oneself.

At that point, the individual is both responsible and accountable for one's chosen course of actions. The "feeling" or "urge" (or whatever) to be homosexual (or heterosexual, or pedophilic, or whatever) is of no consequence, and so the origin of such feelings, urges, etc. are irrelevant.


So in summary, one is responsible for one's external manifested actions of any sort, be they perverted (any flavor), non-perverted, passive, violent, good, evil, or whatever.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

OK, now we have gone on from it being a perversion full stop to the actions being a perversion. Therefore, it is alright to have urges, but to act upon them is to accept responsibility. Fine well and good, of course I agree with you there. But I do not and cannot agree that homosexuality is a perversion. This last bit seems to be a tangent.

The manifestation of urge into action is something that people should take responsibility for, but this does not mean that the actions are perverted. Which is what I have been arguing, and will continue to do so,( but not in this thread as my typing finger had to be put down due to repetitive stress ) and I contend that this is where we differ: That following through the actions of urges (in this case) is natural, and not perverted. That is my gripe; that is my reason for argument.

 

[allan]

"Now, the "debate" that some argue over about any pervert (or even non-pervert) having certain tendancies, like pedophilia, is irrelevant. As a human, one is responsible for one's choice. However, some people that make their choices feel they should not be accountable for any criminal or even social consequences."

I highlighted "criminal" because I ask you this: Why SHOULD there be any "criminal" consequences for consensual homosexual sex? I don't care what percentage of people might find it "immoral"--it is a victimless "crime", and "tyranny of the majority" is NOT what a free society is about....

Again, I state (and will over and over again, until you respond to it) that VICTIMLESS "CRIMES" are NOT crimes in the true sense of the word, and thus should not be regarded as crimes by the legal system--there is no reason to, since the primary role of a government is to protect its people from force or fraud. You know, "That government is best, which governs least"--and the least government necessary is that which only serves to protect its people from force or fraud, not wasting time and resources on such irrelevancies as victimless "crimes" to appease certain people with busybody tendencies.

And sorry to be brutal, but lumping victimless "crimes", and crimes with victims, in the same moral category based on a subjective interpretation of a dictionary definition is AT BEST pedantic and AT WORST totally warped.... Homosexuals DO NOT HURT PEOPLE! Pedophiles DO! THAT is the fundamental difference that people need to realize (and by FAR, most DO)!

As for social consequences, NO, government has NO business legislating peoples' reaction to something, SO LONG AS IT IS NOT VIOLENT. And if it IS violent, then government should prosecute the VIOLENCE, not the underlying motive (i.e. no "hate crime" crap). We DO agree on that.

And we agree about "affirmative" action too--like you, I agree it goes against the rule of law as applied to everybody....

BUT if an individual homosexual (or a peaceful assembly of them) wants to speak out and try to persuade people to leave them alone and not fear or hate them, they have EVERY right in a free society to attempt to do so. And I think you agree with that.

But I DO ask, why should there BE social consequences for a victimless action? Why SHOULD homosexuals have to make a choice between unsatisfying (for them) sex (or celibacy) and social appeasement, or satisfying (for them) sex and social abuse? We heteros don't have to face that dilemma, so why should they? NOT asking that we legislate against social consequences, just that each of us CHOOSE not to exert such social consequences on our brethren.... NO ONE, IMHO, should have to go through what a homosexual teen no doubt goes through--and though we shouldn't change this by LAW, we CAN change it by CHOICE--and DAMMIT, we SHOULD.... "For ALL have sinned...", right?

And maybe you will even agree with me on that last paragraph. I sure hope so, we don't need any more stupid divisions in our society (especially NOW), no matter WHAT Fundies like Falwell say.... (Which is what started this whole thread. Full circle!)

 

[starlifter]

In short, most gays probably just want to be left alone, and perhaps understood as not intentional deviants, but people who have grown up with a sex drive a bit different from what most have. And like I said in another post, no I do not believe people "choose" what gets their dicks hard, lol! If they did, why would they choose something that will subject them to persecution? MANY homosexual teens commit suicide every year..

Boy howdy, that's quite a mixture of issues in a summary paragraph .

1. "most gays probably just want to be left alone," In the context of Constitutional (or even Societal) rights, what most gays want is irrelevant. The right is the issue. LOL, which is not to say they are "right".

2. "perhaps understood as not intentional deviants, but people who have grown up with a sex drive a bit different from what most have." - Once again, irrelevant. To carry this logic suggestion forward, one would have no responsibility for one's sexual actions. Indeed, no one would have true accountability for any of one's actions under the law. But your statement "sounds" good until examined.

3. "And like I said in another post, no I do not believe people "choose" what gets their dicks hard, lol! " - Sorry, but once again, motivation is not an issue under the law or the Consitition. If it were, we'd have most people in prison for simply having "motivations!"

4. "If they did, why would they choose something that will subject them to persecution?" GAG!! (no pun intended!) Rather than me just saying "Sorry, Irrelevant" once again... try applying this one yourself. This argument is sometimes made in court to "prove" a criminal's innocence. If this were true, we would have no crime, except by the criminally insane... since "obviously" a person would never do a criminal action that would subject them to either persecution or prosecution! The motivation of people in society is irrelevant for accountability.

5. "MANY homosexual teens commit suicide every year.." - Suicide is a tragic shame. Many other people commit suicide, too. About 40,000 die each year in Auto accidents, etc. Some are homosexual. Some are not. Many heterosexual lovesick teens commit suicide, too. So what is the point, besides being tragic? Suicide cuts across all demographics, and is not a homosexual teen phenomena. Are suicidal homosexual teens more important than other suicidal teens?

And IMHO, he doesn't bother ANYBODY and thus has a right to be happy.

Bother is irrelevant. Under the constitution, I do not advocate removal of rights of any pervert, homosexual or not, bother or not. All are entitled to equal protection. BTW, the "right to be happy" is in no way, shape, or form granted by the Constitution, or by law. The Constitution grants the pursuit of happiness... not happiness. There is a massive difference!

Indeed, remember that gay friend I said I had?

Assuming your account of his criminal activity is correct, he is nothing more than a criminal. Being gay, homosexual, perverted, straight, etc. has nothing at all to do with beating other people. Period. Your homosexual friend belongs in prison, not for being homosexual, but because he is responsible for his actions. He is responsible for external manifestions of behavior, and homosexuality is no defense.

he finally divorced and now lives a satisfying sex life that is TRUE for him

Then it is ironic that if he were in prison where he belongs for beating his wife, that he might be much happier there than many heterosexuals. He might even make some guy very happy in prison.

They want to strike down "sodomy" laws that apply to consensual adult homosexual sex (as well as any consensual hetero sex that might apply also, like oral or male-female anal sex)--and I fully support that, seeing these as victimless "crimes" and thus their prohibition having no place in a free society.

Sodomy is not a federal crime. It is the right of states to make state law. The citizens of each state are free to make their own laws by which they wish to govern themselves. It is not unconstitutional to outlaw Sodomy.

However, I should explain this: It is unconstitutional to unfairly enforce laws in such a manner as to deprive some citizens of equal rights. If Sodomy laws (or any other laws) are used or applied in an unconstitutional way, they can be sruck down in Federal court. This does not mean that if someone (or even a group of people) don't like a law (any law, not just Sodomy) they can use the Federal courts to strike it down.

The underlying principle is called "consent of the Governed".

Homosexuality was regarded as a crime and perversion at some stage in the past. Now it is not.

1. Partially true. Homosexuality is a crime in some states, and a crime in the US Military under the UCMJ.

2. Homosexuals are still considered perverts by millions of Americans, probably the vast majority... but the exact number and proportion is not know at this time. In any event, both the legal and societal definitions of perversion include, but are not limited to, homosexuality. One day, it may well become a term of the past tense, though that day has not yet arrived.

"Underlying impulses are irrelevant". This goes far beyond impulses, and to associate sexuality with the impulse to murder is a cheap shot.

Not a cheap shot at all. And I did not associate murder with sexuality... one does not flow from the other. Under the law (the law is our instrument of equal protection), one's impulse is not an exhonerating factor ascribing responsibility to one for their actions. Such actions include, but are certainly not limited to, homosexuality and murder. Both are crimes in the US, though most (but not necessarily all) people would consider murder the more heinous crime. Certainly more murderers are tried. To be fair, however, homosexuality (and indeed, most forms of sexual perversion) is currently not processed on a routine basis, even in the US Military.

Personally, I support suspending the routine prosecution of homosexuals in the civilian system. Homosexuals in the Military, however, should be prosecuted for reasons which are too lenthy do discourse here. But keep in mind, homosexuals and all perverts have been able to engage in their deviant sexual practices for centuries, as long as they truly keep their activies secret and private. Only when such behind the doors secrets are manifested to the rest of the world can any external legal authority even become aware of such acts, even in the Military.

In the end, homosexuals are accountable for their decisions and personal choices, just as all other people are accountable for their own decisions. There is no right of happiness guaranteed in America, Constitutional or otherwise, and certainly not to perverts or homosexuals that insist everyone else endorse, accept, and approve their choices.