Missing the Point on Gays

Washington Post ^ | September 5, 2003 | Alan Simpson

[Recourse]

Missing the Point on Gays

By Alan Simpson Friday, September 5, 2003; Page A21

For several weeks now a storm has been brewing in the Senate over just how homosexuals fit into the mainstream of American life. First, an honest debate on the criminalization of gay sex in Texas somehow gave rise to baseless fears about permitting bestiality and incest. Then, after the Supreme Court's reasonable ruling in Lawrence v. Texas that the government had no business policing people in their bedrooms, a panic developed. Some worried that the decision would lead to gay marriage, thus posing a threat to the survival of the American family.

[EdReform]

"Heh. Believe it or not, I finally found it yesterday by looking at *your* bookmarks..."

You actually found it?! Hope it didn't take too long! ;o) Sorry about the mess - I do need to get in there and clean up and better organize my public bookmarks. You can also use scripter's " Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links - it's much more organized!

[punster]

"Yeah, right, everything's just dead meat. That's the materialistic viewpoint, that everything is just machinery and chemistry. No soul, no one really in there, no responsibility, no real choices made, no free will at all. Just chemistry and DNA."

We do not live in a perfect world. People are born with birth defects and genetic disorders. The choice people have is to make the best of their situation.

The argument of 'Free Will' versus Determinism will go on for eternity. Total 'Free Will' does not exist, because of the limitations nature places upon people. Total 'Determinism' does not exist, either, because people can make some choices.

[WillowyDame]

Your bias and ignorance are showing. Why should your factless opinion be of any importance?
i was making a general comment.

---

basically all so called "lesbian" sites are run by men!
i don't know why i am bing antagonized for simply stating facts. i am not here to be of importance to anyone.

your opinions are important. mine are not! but i can still state them.

[punster]

"Re XX fetuses, the "cure" would be abstinence throughout pregnancy (presumably you can grasp what the primary source of in utero testosterone is)."

Actually, another source of androgens is the adrenal gland. Women do have some testosterone circulating in their blood stream, even if they are totally abstinent. Maternal stress may elevate the activity of the adrenal glands.

There may be conncection to the published paper that described how their were an unusually high number of male homosexuals born in Germany during the period of time surrounding the end of the Second World War. Some individuals have suggested that excess fetal exposure to androgenic compounds might contribute to male homosexuality.

Furthermore, the same mechanism might contribute to lesbianism.

Now, for the case of failure of the XY (male) brain to masculinize, some progesterones have an anti-androgenic effect. Those progesterones may sometimes act to block the action of testosterone on the brain. The other suggested explanation is the fetal testes turn off to soon, and fail to supply the testerone for masculinizing the brain.

[hawkaw]

No that was not my point and no, its not a strange idea of freedom. Nor do I appreciate your loaded language words "radical homosexual movement" and your attempt at an arguement shift.

Quite frankly this is about not disciminating a group of people who I do know for a fact have contributed a lot to society and to tolerate these people's choosen path in life just like we tolerate different religions, sexes, races and people with disabilities in society.

Enough said by me.

[tdadams]

Their is no law that states that someone who is attracted to the same sex cannot legally marry someone of the opposite sex.

This is the most absurd, asinine, and illogical line of reasoning I've ever heard, and unfortunately I see it a lot around here. I don't know who first proffered such maladroit sophistry, but it surely had to be a joke.

Only the homophobes here didn't realize it was a joke and they're all running with it as if it's the most convincing epiphany to come along in the history of this debate. That kind of illogic makes conservatives look like seriously ignorant jackasses.

[tdadams]

suppose you never heard of Paula Poundstone either, or that lesbian couple who kept the one woman's three boys locked in a closet and beat them and made them drink urine.

It is utterly ignorant to try to extrapolate any kind of maladjustment of a group of people based on the anecdotal actions of one particular person. That is completely counter to logic.

You wouldn't accept the premise that all white male Christians are like Eric Robert Rudolph, so don't be a hypocrite and pretend that all gays or lesbians are murderous child molesters based on isolated incidents.

[tdadams]

Please cite scientific references, preferably studies not performed by "gay" activists wanting to prove a pre-determined outcome.

I suppose you believe the studies cited and published by Judith Reisman and NARTH aren't perfomred by anti-gay "activists" and have no agenda to promote a pre-determined outcome.

[MEGoody]

"First, an honest debate on the criminalization of gay sex in Texas somehow gave rise to baseless fears about permitting bestiality and incest."

On what basis does this author claim these 'fears' are baseless.

Back in the 60s when the 'free love' movement began, they'd have called fears of open homosexuality 'baseless,' and look what we have today.

[hellinahandcart]

Nor do I appreciate your loaded language words "radical homosexual movement" and your attempt at an arguement shift.

I wasn't shifting the argument. I was responding to your post, which sure contained a lot of "must not" for a paragraph about freedom. I responded to that part. See how things work?

And I used the term "radical homosexual movement" because most of the gay men I know are not part of it. But then, those men are all older, and comfortable enough in their own skin not to insist on affirmation in the form of legislation and forced inclusion at the expense of the rights of others.

[hellinahandcart]

It is utterly ignorant to try to extrapolate any kind of maladjustment of a group of people based on the anecdotal actions of one particular person. That is completely counter to logic.

Tell that to Willowy Dame. She was the one who insisted that lesbians would never, ever do that (because only men do such vile things). In other words, she was extrapolating a maladjustment of all men based on her anecdotal evidence. I was merely correcting her. Women are every bit as capable of vile acts as men.

It does help to read all the previous posts before jerking both knees into the air at once, td...

[hellinahandcart]

Quite frankly this is about not disciminating a group of people who I do know for a fact have contributed a lot to society and to tolerate these people's choosen path in life just like we tolerate different religions, sexes, races and people with disabilities in society.

Oh, and while you're on the soapbox, repeat that lofty sentiment to the radical homosexuals who WILL NOT TOLERATE the Boy Scouts for not volunteering to be their chicken farm.

Tolerance isn't good enough for these people. You can pretend you don't know what I'm talking about all you want, but I won't believe you.

[First Amendment]

basically all so called "lesbian" sites are run by men! i don't know why i am bing antagonized for simply stating facts. i am not here to be of importance to anyone.

I am sorry if I was sharp, but you are making a blanket statement - "All "lesbian" sites are run by men!" with not a shred of evidence to back up your claim. If you care convinced that your statement is indeed true, please provide evidence.

There is evidence on FR (homoexual article archives) that some lesbians are indeed into seducing (or worse) young girls, and other weird stuff like S&M, bondage, torture, etc. To pretend that women who have sex with women are innocent and only want "love" is either incredibly naive, or deceitful.

[tdadams]

I did read all the posts, hell, and your rationalization doesn't hold up.

You're the one making illogical extrapolations based on anecdotes, not Willowy Dame. She may be simply naive, but that's excusable. What you did was intentionally dishonest.

[hellinahandcart]

Number one--it wasn't a "rationalization". I don't need to apologize or make excuses for anything I posted.

Number two-- *I* extrapolated nothing, I posted examples that ran counter to Willowy Dame's broad-brush statements about both lesbians and men. You're the one who's reading something into my posts that isn't there.

You can either admit that now, or you can copy any and all "illogical extrapolations and intentional dishonesties" you feel I have made on the subject of lesbians and child molestation/abuse and paste 'em right here, so I can finally see what the hell you're talking about. Otherwise I'll assume you're deliberately taking a sentence or phrase of mine out of context. That can also be intentionally dishonest, you know.

[hellinahandcart]

You can take your time about it, too. I have to go to bed.

[kuma]

Not if you realize that homosexuality is simply (hetero)sexual dysfunction. A homosexual can be attracted to the same sex all they like but factually speeking they are heterosexual by species. Facts don't feel things. They just are. Now should we base our laws on feelings or facts?

[kuma]

speeking = speaking

[tdadams]

You've very well capable of following the links to see which post of yours I replied to. That you're being so defensive about it only shows me you know exactly what I'm talking about and you know damn well you're guilty of doing exactly what I said, protestations of your innocence notwithstanding.

[tdadams]

Not if you realize that homosexuality is simply (hetero)sexual dysfunction. A homosexual can be attracted to the same sex all they like but factually speeking they are heterosexual by species.

Where on earth do you come about that belief? Certainly it's not supported, nor supportable, by science or the medical community in general.

You could also insist to me that the moon is made of cheese, and adamantly believe it too, but that is of little consequence if I know that's not true.