Missing the Point on Gays

Washington Post ^ | September 5, 2003 | Alan Simpson

[hellinahandcart]

I'm not being defensive. What was my extrapolation?

[hellinahandcart]

You can take your time with this one, too; I have a long computerless day ahead of me.

[WillowyDame]

To pretend that women who have sex with women are innocent and only want "love" is either incredibly naive, or deceitful.

---

you are right. but i was just generalizing.

[spunkets]

"there was a circumsion accident. The infant boy had is penis burned off, and the medical establishment...

What the hell'd they use, a blow torch?

[lugsoul]

"It is not OK to be a homosexual/lesbian. These people need to be demonized for the perverts they are."

Peace be upon you.

[tdadams]

Do you have that much trouble following the links??? I stated exactly what your extrapolation was when I first posted a reply to you.

[First Amendment]

but why would you think that our conciousness is anything other than the chemical interactions in our brains? Your position confuses me.

This is a topic which has occupied deep thinkers since time immemorial. I can't do it justice right at the moment (eating dinner) but here's only one reason (and not even an important one, but none-the-less compelling) - many people (self included) have exited the body (which includes the brain) and experienced this in a WAKING, NON-DRUGGED condition. If consciousness is brain based, it couldn't possibly separate itself from it's locus.

[punster]

"What the hell'd they use, a blow torch?"

Somebody overdid it with the electrocautery.

[kuma]

I learned that in a basic Biology class. Sexual Organs are Reproductive Organs. The whole reason for all those chemical highs is so our species is motivated to reproduce. Homosapiens reproduce heterosexually hence we are heterosexual. Is there a scientist out there today that doesn't understand this? I wouldn't be surprised.

[tdadams]

So, you're an evolutionary Darwinist now?

You have to deliberately frame the debate in the most simplistic perspective possible to support that position. The survival of the species is in no way threatened if 3% of the population isn't reproducing.

Animals engage in reproduction without the faintest clue as to why. For them, survival biology is a valid theory. Humans, however, have advanced to become more than animals. We humans are more than the sum of our biological parts.

Better think of something more plausible to support your prejudice.

[hellinahandcart]

I know what I wrote. I want you to point out what part of that post you consider to be an illogical extrapolation, or in fact any extrapolation at all. (Yes, I already know there isn't one in there. I'm just trying to get you to admit it.)

[weegee]

Animals eat what prey they can catch (sometimes even their own offspring) or that they can dig up, chew off the branch.

Humans can make a choice as to what to eat and what to prohibit consuming.

In different nations, civilized people have set laws against eating cats, dogs, horses, etc. Certainly baby humans are off limits.

Why? Because we are civilized and can make choices. We don't have to sink down to our basic instinct. Man is above animal.

[tdadams]

My point exactly. Thank you.

[tdadams]

You're a real piece of work. I've told you twice now precisely what I was responding to, your original post #59.

In that you wrote: "I 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. This while they spoiled and cosseted her girl child."

To that I wrote, in post #107: "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... You wouldn't accept the premise that all white male Christians are like Eric Robert Rudolph."

You're quite capable of following the links and reading the posts yourself, and you know damn well what extrapolation I was talking about because I explicitly pointed it out from my very first reply to you.

So let's not play these stupid games, OK?

[hellinahandcart]

Congratulations. You've just comfirmed that I was correct when I said you had taken my remarks out of context. The sentence you took exception to is a direct response to #58:

i have never heard of lesbians suddenly becoming like some men and having sexual interests on little kids.

Paula Poundstone went down on her 14-year-old foster daughter; caught in the act, that's a fact.

To answer someone who thinks such things don't happen, with proof that it does happen, is not not an extrapolation, a conclusion, a swipe with a broad brush, or anything near it. You inferred that erroneously. You can't provide anything to back up your accusation except the accusation itself.

[tdadams]

First of all, I don't recall you stating that I'd taken your remarks out of context, so it seems you're inventing new accusations and rewriting history as we go.

Secondly, your post in 59 may have been in response to a previous post, and if you had confined your comments to the Paula Poundstone case specifically, maybe you would have a point. But by your tone, and by piling on with another unrelated case, the inference was clear. You intend to extrapolate that gays in general are hideous child molestors and abusers.

[hellinahandcart]

First of all, I don't recall you stating that I'd taken your remarks out of context, so it seems you're inventing new accusations and rewriting history as we go.

I said it up in #115: 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.

So much for my inventing new accusations and rewriting history. As I said before, I'm well aware of everything I wrote.

Secondly, your post in 59 may have been in response to a previous post</ i>

There's no "may have been" about it, it was a response to a previous post, which was why I included the specific part I was replying to in italics.

< i> and if you had confined your comments to the Paula Poundstone case specifically, maybe you would have a point.

The poster in question said she had never heard of such behavior, in spite of the fact that Paula Poundstone's arrest got a lot of publicity when it happened. If she hadn't heard of the one case I thought she might have heard of the most recent one I could remember. I had not yet tracked down the Butterfly Kisses link at that time.

But by your tone, and by piling on with another unrelated case,Two examples is not piling on. I could have posted dozens of links if I'd wanted to go the cumulative route. I knew the one link would suffice, if I could only find it.

the inference was clear.Only to you. But then, I did say you were inferring.

You intend to extrapolate that gays in general are hideous child molestors and abusers.

Did you mean to say "intended", past tense, or are you saying that I "intend" to do so in the future? And is this your way of admitting that I didn't do what you accused me of doing---but you think I must have "intended" to? I just want to be very clear here.