I'M QUEER, I'M CONSERVATIVE...(A lesson in political correctness)

http://www.etherzone.com/port110201.shtml ^ | November 2, 2001 | Nathan Porter

[FormerLib]

You mean to tell me the people you know never talk about their wives and husbands?

Normal people talking about their families is not the same as a homosexual declaring his or her sexual perversity. Homosexuality requires indulging in the sin of sodomy while heterosexuality is the biological norm among humans.

Homosexuality is not the moral nor the legal equivalent of the heterosexual norm. And we will not permit that to change.

[FormerLib]

Great link, Lilly! I'll pass it along to someone who could surely use the help! www.cnlglfg.com

[Dimensio]

>You mean to tell me the people you know never talk about their wives and husbands?

Normal people talking about their families is not the same as a homosexual declaring his or her sexual perversity. Homosexuality requires indulging in the sin of sodomy while heterosexuality is the biological norm among humans.

Your definition is inaccurate. Homosexuality requires only sexual attraction exclusively to persons of the same gender. "Sodomy" nor any other action is required.

Homosexuality is not the moral nor the legal equivalent of the heterosexual norm. And we will not permit that to change.

Therein lies the problem. There are those -- some of whom are heterosexual -- who do not believe as you do regarding homosexuality. There are people who believe that sexuality is inherently morally neutral, and thus homosexuality is as morally equal to heterosexuality (inasmuch as they are also both the same shade of blue). As such NotOfTheDevil's answer seems legitimate: people who state their relationship with a person of the same gender are no more "flaunting" and "pushing" their sexuality than a person making a note of their marital status.

This does not necessarily address every aspect of what is viewed as the "gay pride" movement (which is much less of a single organized effort than some conservatives believe), though it could be argued that a heterosexual couple who introduces their children is "announcing" what goes on in their bedroom (not that I am attempting to equate the two).

[FormerLib]

There are people who believe that sexuality is inherently morally neutral, and thus homosexuality is as morally equal to heterosexuality.

Such people are as morally misguided as the Flat-Earth types are geographically confused.

Gentlemen: the pro-homo cheerleaders are popping up like mushrooms! We need to use the truth to turn them away much as one uses sunlight to combat fungus.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

No! Anyone who can read and understand english got that the author is an hetero from the beginning.

who cares whether hes straight or a queer ? ..... not me its a dung beetle aticle

although it wouldnt have made sence this small paragraph explains the whole article short and to the point if fags are offended so be it .........

In the real world the word hardly has any meaning beyond that. So it made perfect sense when one of our brave servicemen decided to scrawl “Hijack this, fag” on an Afghanistan-bound bomb. It was not an anti-gay slur, for it was not directed at homosexuals, it was an insult to Osama bin Laden, nothing more

but thats just my opinion

regards the PUNK

[Dimensio]

>There are people who believe that sexuality is inherently morally neutral, and thus homosexuality is as morally equal to heterosexuality.

Such people are as morally misguided as the Flat-Earth types are geographically confused.

You did cut off the bit where I added that the morality equality is only applicable inasmuch as they are the same shade of blue. To elaborate further, there are those who do not see sexual orientation as a moral issue and thus assigning moral "value" to homosexuality or heterosexuality is as sensible as trying to determine what colour they are.
Regardless, your statement is simply argument by analogy. You accuse people who have no moral qualms with homosexuality of being as misguided as flat-earthers, yet you offer no reason as to why they should be regarded as misguided. It may be obvious to you, but to someone who does not find homosexuality as morally objectionable it is apparently not obvious to them and merits an explanation. For your comparison to flat-earthers to be valid you need to explain what emperical evidence exists to show your position as the correct (or more logically sound).

Gentlemen: the pro-homo cheerleaders are popping up like mushrooms! We need to use the truth to turn them away much as one uses sunlight to combat fungus.

Do my statements and questions sound like cheerleading? I am not really trying to push any viewpoints; I just attempt to ask questions and possibly point out logical flaws when I spot them. I would be interested in hearing "the truth", though I doubt it will cause me to "turn away".

[Dimensio]

What do Kinsey's studies or his later activism have to do with the definition of homosexuality?

[FormerLib]

You accuse people who have no moral qualms with homosexuality of being as misguided as flat-earthers, yet you offer no reason as to why they should be regarded as misguided.

Arguing with those who proclaim the moral neutrality of human sexuality is akin to discussing paint schemes with the color blind.

One merely need to research the effects of homosexuality on the human body. If you are unwilling to do the research yourself (as opposed to just pretending that you are ignorant of it), I will call upon one of my distinguished comrades to enlighten you.

Manny, could you supply this individual with some links about the effects of homosexual acts on the human body? Thanks!

[Dimensio]

>You accuse people who have no moral qualms with homosexuality of being as misguided as flat-earthers, yet you offer no reason as to why they should be regarded as misguided.

Arguing with those who proclaim the moral neutrality of human sexuality is akin to discussing paint schemes with the color blind.

So you are saying that people who do not apply morality to sexual orientation are physically incapable of doing so?

One merely need to research the effects of homosexuality on the human body. If you are unwilling to do the research yourself (as opposed to just pretending that you are ignorant of it), I will call upon one of my distinguished comrades to enlighten you.

Manny, could you supply this individual with some links about the effects of homosexual acts on the human body? Thanks!

Do you mean the effects of homosexuality or homosexual acts? Homosexuality and homosexual acts are two different things -- and by "homosexual acts" I assume that you are referring to same-sex sexual activity. I would be interested in what these effects are and why such effects never occur with any form of heterosexual coupling.

[FormerLib]

So you are saying that people who do not apply morality to sexual orientation are physically incapable of doing so?

While it is within the realm of possibility that the suffer from some sort of brain defect that keeps them from acknowledging the reality of sexual morality, I would be more inclined to believe that they are morally afraid to do so (perhaps out of fear of then judging their own actions) or mentally deficient (such as with those who simply cannot learn to do simple math).

But we would be unwise to discount the possibility of a physical defect, nonetheless.

There have been a number of posts concerning the effects of homosexual acts on the human body. Did you know that it is now recommended that they seek out yearly anal pap smears to detect their higher rates of anal cancer? Anyway, Manny maintains an excellent library of such links and he will be able to point you to them for your education.

As to differentiating between someone who merely suffers from Same Sex Attraction Disorder but keeps his or her deviant impulses in check and someone who actually commits deviant sexual acts, it is doubtful that we need to defend our society from the former.

[RightOnline]

To the author: I don't care if you're queer. I DO care that you're Conservative........and that makes you an ally in The Struggle. God bless, Jesus loves ya, and let's keep sexuality out of it. It's about the Constitution, God-given, inalienable rights, and the protection of our civil liberties as citizens. I say to you: welcome, friend.

[VaBthang4]

Wow...

Your posts are overwhelmingly insightful!

The depth....the wisdom....the salient, sobering syntax.

You are definitely a comer!

Of course....

....that bitterness, that bluster, that inconsolable bruise your soul obviously bares....

...that might slow you down.

:o)

SEE YA!

[FormerLib]

Manny, you are the man! Well done.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Ooooh. You're a homo trying to win my approval. Sorry still destructive behavior. Not too conservative to me.

[Twodees]

Well, Nathan's a queer. I guess that means he can tell the PC nellies to shut up about "derogatory gay terms". As long as queers don't try to make me approve of their sexual behavior, they don't catch any grief from me.