Racism wrong, Homophobia acceptable?

Irrational I mean. D'oh!

 

Too late, Fire_Ice_Death, we've already lost all respect for you, irregardless of the corrections you done gone made now.

EDIT - Can't get the erghing smiley right

 

Meanie. I'm gonna tell mod on you!

 

Furthermore, there is no injustice against cell phone users, nor are people often found to be taunted, abused, beaten, or called sinners for having cell phones.

Actually, I often am found taunting and abusing cell phone users. However, I hate cell phones, not the people using them.....usually. The same with homosexuality, while I hate homosexuality, I don't hate homosexual people.....usually.

 

one day, all the cell phone users will burn in hell, the rotten dirty lot of 'em....

..... hang on, I've got a call

 

What about homosexuals with cell phones? Double damned, I tell you.

 

Fire_Ice_Death displayed a confusion made by many regarding the particle homo. While I am no linguist, I happen to know why this happens and let me explain to you.

Homo in Latin language means man. So the name Homo sapiens means really wise man, Homo erectus standing man, etc. Of course there are other words in Latin for man, like viro, but homo is one of them.

But homo, or home in greek language comes from a word that means equal, and it can mean equal, the same, even, balanced, etc. Hence homeothermic (animals that can keep their body heat), homophones (words that have the same pronounciation), homosexual (people that are sexually atracted by people of the same sex).

Some people still get confused with the root hemo, that comes from the greek word for blood (hemoglobin, hemophilic).

 

I have a question for those of you who don't approve of homosexuality:

How do you feel about all the gays in the media?

Will & Grace, that Queer as Folk show, etc?

 

CwrnPuppet:

We DO know with certainty that homosexual men tend to have enlarged cell clusters and glands in the brain: Of course, we still don't know if this causes homosexuality or is caused by it.

Can you please point to a reference on this? If the study was done on a Gay man who dies with AIDS, it could be that those cell clusters are were damaged as a result of the AIDS.


No, I think this is a fair point - the gist being that homosexuals have the option to be in the closet and maintain a straight identity before society. People have no way to hide their race. It may be a hypothetical argument, but I would say that it is a valid one.

This is the secular aspect of the argument and as such people do not want Gay people to have special protection under tne law because of their sexual behavior.

Most parents don't want Gay teachers teaching their kids about their sexuality and if the types of laws get passed that Gay activists want to see passed, these parents will not only lose the right to object but as laws get stiffer, they may be fined and jailed for hate crimes and lose custody of their children.

It's a slippery slope and this is what concerns parents.


If people COULD change the color of their skin, then much like homosexuality, race would be labeled as a choice and the debate would be similar to the one that we are having now.

Again, the debate is much deeper than that. Most people don't care if you're Gay. I certainly don't. The best people that I know are Gay and I would do anything to help my friends. What people are most concerned about is how the "Gay agenda" affects them and their families.

You don't see Black people organizing school classes on how to engage in sexual intercourse as a Black person.

Parents don't want public funding to go to classes that espouse homosexuality and people don't want homosexuals being given the equivalent to marriage rights.

These reasoning for these issues are vastly different than a skin-color vs. sexuality debate.

By the way, I love "Will & Grace". Sure, it's over the top sometimes, but it's still a great show.

 

"We DO know with certainty that homosexual men tend to have enlarged cell clusters and glands in the brain: Of course, we still don't know if this causes homosexuality or is caused by it."

Can you please point to a reference on this? If the study was done on a Gay man who dies with AIDS, it could be that those cell clusters are were damaged as a result of the AIDS.

Here ya go Based on this, it seems that I was only half right: Sorry about that. My fault for foregoing my research properly.

This is the secular aspect of the argument and as such people do not want Gay people to have special protection under tne law because of their sexual behavior.

What do you mean, "special protection"? I'm certainly not asking for anything more than heterosexuals already have. If you consider the right to have any job of which I am capable of doing, the right to marry the human being with whom I am in love, the right to live my life without fear of violence against myself or my mate, the right to adopt children, the right to serve my country in the armed forces, the right to oh, say "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to be "special rights", then man oh man are we on different planets.

Most parents don't want Gay teachers teaching their kids about their sexuality and if the types of laws get passed that Gay activists want to see passed, these parents will not only lose the right to object but as laws get stiffer, they may be fined and jailed for hate crimes and lose custody of their children.

Yo, I'm gay and I wouldn't want my kids to have some teacher telling them all about their sexuality, regardless of its nature. Teachers aren't meant to go into too many personal details with their students - that isn't their job and if they are found to be doing so, their job should be on the line.

However, gay people can teach kids about history, science, math or any other subject just as well as their hetero counterparts. What they do in their own bedroom should never enter into it.

What people are most concerned about is how the "Gay agenda" affects them and their families.

Once again, whatever this ominous "gay agenda" is, the fags have left me out of the loop. I've only heard that term out of the mouths of straight people and never from gay-friendly straights (present company excluded, I suppose).

Look, if we have an agenda (and I hesitate to say "we" - I can't really speak for the gay community: they hate me) it's to be able to live our lives in peace and pursue our dreams. Why does that scare the feces out of everyone?

You don't see Black people organizing school classes on how to engage in sexual intercourse as a Black person.

Um... No, I would imagine not. I'm not sure what you're trying to convey with this, but I don't see what it has to do with anything. As far as I know, the ever-so-repulsive details of homosexuality aren't taught in school. Sex ed is important IMHO but as 90% of kids aren't gay, having a class for such a thing would waste almost more time than phys. ed.

I'm all for support groups or optional classes for gay kids, but if someone is trying to make it mandatory for ALL kids to be taught Homo 101, I'd be on your side in saying that such a silly endeavor.

Parents don't want public funding to go to classes that espouse homosexuality and people don't want homosexuals being given the equivalent to marriage rights.

Really? You speak for all of humanity, here? Wow. That's bold.

EDIT: Will & Grace offends me on every level; only minimally because of the horrid stereotypes, but mostly because of the cliche humor.

 

Also, would someone please explain to me why so many heterosexuals even CARE if gay people get married?

Besides a religious argument, which shouldn't enter into the law, I can't see a decent reason.

I've said it before, but here I go again:

If it so offends you, we don't have to call it marriage.

We can call it "Legally sanctioned dirty, filthy sodomy", if you like.

We could call it "Icy cold pork chops".

We could call it "Neener neener neender boo", perhaps.

How about something simple like "Shirley"?

We're not asking for this sanctified institution that some heterosexuals seem so adamant to hoard. We just want the legal rights that all of you already have.

Werd.

 

Most parents don't want Gay teachers teaching their kids about their sexuality

If most parents were really thinking it through, would they want ANY teacher teaching their kids about human sexuality? You're supposed to learn the 50 states in school, too, and I've had at least 300 people over the course of my lifetime call me a liar when I tell them West Virginia is a separate state from Virginia. If parents don't take responsibility for teaching something as personal as sex at home, then they don't get a say in who teaches it at school. We're so lucky to have teachers at all, we really can't discriminate.

The solution to all of it is, of course, keep sex ed at home. Religious ed, too. Make parents take some responsibility. It's bad enough they have no responsibility when their kids make bombs in the garage and keep guns in their rooms and then kill a dozen or so kids. They should at least be there for their kids when the kids go through puberty and have to deal with that nightmare of confusion.

What people are most concerned about is how the "Gay agenda" affects them and their families.

Crwn, I'm sure you know this, but "[whatever] agenda" is a convenient catch-phrase that lumps in people asking for EQUAL protection along with people asking for special protection. White men are the one group that has enjoyed special protection since 1776, and they are fighting hard against anything that might force them to relinquish any piece of their 3/4 of the pie. Any demand for equal rights is met with ridicule and language appropriate to a paranoid delusional conspiracy theory.

I had a white friend who once made the statement - in front of me and a black friend of ours - that blacks, Jews and Latinos all get together and conspire to vote democrat and take over the world. My first thought was "no one hates blacks more than Jews or Latinos, unfortunately" but what I actually said to her was, "If all those groups ever get together and decide to make Whitey share his toys, that fight will be so brief you'll never have a chance to discuss it in the present tense." LOL!

EDIT - I agree "W&G" is cliched. I know some intelligent, clever, funny people who think it's great, and I'm just lost. Every time I've watched it, it's been a bad remake of a Lucy episode that wasn't so great to begin with. Then again, I don't get why people think Lucy was so funny. Not my style of humor, I guess.

 

The solution to all of it is, of course, keep sex ed at home. Religious ed, too. Make parents take some responsibility.

I agree and I don't. I'm a bit torn on this. In a perfect world, I would say that yes, parents should and will do this, but it seems that reality continues to prove us wrong. Parents seem fixated on making everyone else teach their kids the hard-to-speak issues.

Not only does it ease their emotional burden, it gives them a scapegoat when their kids do something wrong.

Fun, fun, fun.

Perhaps what we REALLY need is education on how to be a good parent and a parent with balls, at that. If you don't have the guts to tell your kids how babies are made, you have no place having babies, if you ask yours truly.

Crwn, I'm sure you know this, but "[whatever] agenda" is a convenient catch-phrase that lumps in people asking for EQUAL protection along with people asking for special protection.

Can I get an Amen?

White men are the one group that has enjoyed special protection since 1776, and they are fighting hard against anything that might force them to relinquish any piece of their 3/4 of the pie.

White, Christian, heterosexual men. Let's be realistic, here.

I had a white friend who once made the statement - in front of me and a black friend of ours - that blacks, Jews and Latinos all get together and conspire to vote democrat and take over the world.

If only they would, my friend. If only...

(if anyone takes that as some sort of genuine anarchist statement, I'll find a way to moon you via the internet.)

 

Perhaps what we REALLY need is education on how to be a good parent and a parent with balls, at that. If you don't have the guts to tell your kids how babies are made, you have no place having babies, if you ask yours truly.

This is what I believe. The percentage of horrifically irresponsible parents is getting higher, I think, and it's really sad. At least when childless people are irresponsible, they only hurt themselves and those who chose to have relationships with them. Kids don't have that choice.

As far as parenting and marriage for homosexuals go, I say give them a chance - they can't do much worse than the hets have done. Over 50% (and rising) divorce rate, more teenage pregnancies than any other industrialized nation, etc. It's clear to me a large percentage of hets have a serious lack of respect for this "sanctity of marriage" they so want to protect until they see homosexuals advancing on it.

And to anyone who reads this who really DOES respect marriage, hasn't been divorced, and who told the kids about sex personally... kudos to you, but you might better serve your cause by taking issue with really terrible het spouses and parents than with simply assuming gays will be a bad influence.

 

Looks like you and I are the only people who care, TreeCave. ;c)

C'mon people - let's hear some diverse thoughts on this.

 

There are very few times I will state a quasi-universal sexual moral (and this one only applies to hets), but I believe if you aren't ready to be a parent (AND I CAN'T STRESS ENOUGH, THIS GOES FOR YOU, TOO, MALES!) just don't have sex. By "ready", I just mean emotionally prepared to take care of a child or give it to adoptive parents without making a huge fuss - you can rise to the occasion if you really give a crap. And in the case of guys, you must also be prepared for the woman you're boinking to do as she sees fit with the fetus, as no matter what the law says, her body has "custody" of the fetus and she can feed it heroin if she likes. How many guys look at every woman they sleep with and think, "Gee, would it be okay if she had my kids?" Apparently, very few. Or if they do think of it, they must not feel any attachment to a child just because it's genetically theirs. Maybe that's a good thing, I don't know. It's why I didn't sell my eggs for extra $1000's in college - it would bother me to think of my kids being people I could meet and not recognize as my own. My only conclusion is that males have different programming in their brains to ensure population - just do it, and don't worry about the consequences.

And here's my sad attempt to bring this back on-topic - at least gays have to go out of their way to get kids to raise. This alone will probably make them better parents, on the statistical whole - the simple fact they wanted it and prepared for it, unlike an alarming number of het parents.

 

You know, I would really love to meet some kids who were raised by gay parents, to get their perspective on this - they must see it differently than we could and most likely would have some interesting stories.

 

Agreed.

I am of course coming from the perspective of someone who was irreparably harmed at the hands of a very nasty het marriage. Sure looked like the whole picket fence American dream from the outside, though, and that's what matters to people. Ugh.

 

Well, I really can't add much to this. I mean, my parents have had a very loving marriage, been very loving to me and my older brother and sister, my parents were married at 25 and are still together (they're both 53). All the kids in my family were planned. My parents have always answered all our questions, unless it was something we really shouldn't know, and I mean really. They've always been able to provide for us, and give us what we need, and more besides. (They just bought me a brand-new car, they're waaaay too generous) It would be great if every family could be like mine....

 

Rebecca, I'd be curious to know what you think is the reason why so many families aren't like yours. What is it they're doing wrong, for example? Or what is it yours did right? Or is it just the luck of the draw?

 

Well, it could be that the parents married for the wrong reasons, chose to have kids they really weren't ready for, stayed married when they really shouldn't, or had kids by accident when they weren't ready. I don't know. I think it can be a combination of factors. I got lucky to be born into a good family.

 

CwrnPuppet:

What do you mean, "special protection"? I'm certainly not asking for anything more than heterosexuals already have.

If I were your employer, I could fire you for any number of things. But with a special protection, I could not fire you for being Gay. Now, for me, I couldn't care less what your sexual practices are. But there are many employers who have a problem with homosexuality, usually based upon religious convictions.


If you consider the right to have any job of which I am capable of doing, the right to marry the human being with whom I am in love, the right to live my life without fear of violence against myself or my mate, the right to adopt children, the right to serve my country in the armed forces, the right to oh, say "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to be "special rights", then man oh man are we on different planets.

We're definitely on different planets if you think that's really the issue.


Yo, I'm gay and I wouldn't want my kids to have some teacher telling them all about their sexuality, regardless of its nature. Teachers aren't meant to go into too many personal details with their students - that isn't their job and if they are found to be doing so, their job should be on the line.

However, gay people can teach kids about history, science, math or any other subject just as well as their hetero counterparts. What they do in their own bedroom should never enter into it.

I agree but there are those in the militant Gay Rights movement that think homosexuality should be taught side by side with heterosexuality.


Look, if we have an agenda (and I hesitate to say "we" - I can't really speak for the gay community: they hate me) it's to be able to live our lives in peace and pursue our dreams. Why does that scare the feces out of everyone?

That doesn't but then again you said it yourself, you're not exactly part of the Gay Rights agenda that does scare the poopy out of straight people.


Really? You speak for all of humanity, here? Wow. That's bold.

You know I don't but I am reflecting what has been the issue for many people.


EDIT: Will & Grace offends me on every level; only minimally because of the horrid stereotypes, but mostly because of the cliche humor.

I respect your perspective. Thank you.

 

But there are many employers who have a problem with homosexuality, usually based upon religious convictions.

Same is true of blacks. Dark skin is the "mark of Cain" according to some Southern fundamentalists. Should they be allowed not to hire blacks?

 

I just saw an interesting commentary on this subject on the O'Reilly Factor. Bill was going off on people who hold Gay Pride Parades. Basically, what he said was that by holding such parades and displays, gays and lesbians are only hurting their cases. He said he doesn't care what you do in private, but why flaunt it? Those who do care but aren't actually attacking you only become more opposed to you when you hold displays like this. If you are wishing to be accepted, just live out your lives. There are always going to be people who oppose you, but if they aren't physically hurting you, ignore it (Bill threw in his own experience of being shunned for his comments, but just ignoring those who did so). Some people don't really care what you do (or they quietly disapprove) but when you start exposing their children to ideas that are far beyond their comprehension, they get angry. When the gays respond with "So what?"...Here's what he said. His most poignant thought on the matter, in my opinion was this: Gays and Lesbians who hold parades in public and push their ideals on other people are just as bad as the homophobes they so hate

Thoughts? I for one, agree completely.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

I agree with you on that. They're more hurting their cause IMO.