Posted on 01/29/2002 5:13:49 AM PST by simicyber
Encouraged in what way and by whom?
So that which is disadvantageous, must be prohibited by law?
Is that your point?
I'm really trying to understand your position, but I'm not getting it.
I think he's curious as to how you define "help".
Helping someone against their will isn't help at all.
Unless you believe in the old "Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you" line.
Are you so profound a dullard, that you cannot comprehend that it matters?
You are correct, there is disadvantageous heterosexual behavior. That should also be discouraged. In fact, any sexual activity outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage should be discouraged.
Shalom.
Discouraged how?
Prison?
The problem as I see it is thus:
You ostensibly argue for complete equality with respect to society's acceptance or tolerance of heterosexual and homosexual behavior. Presumably it is based on a general a priori principle/assumption of the right to equality of homosexuals v. heterosexuals.
The truth is that others are unwilling to accept, emotionally, and often intellectually that gays should have rights equal to heterosexuals.
I will give you two examples to support this point.
First, imagine that an expeditionary group of students had spent a year isolated from families and loved ones in Antarctica and upon their return they were met by a proud group of supporters at the dock or airport. I feel fairly certain that you wouldnt seek to oppose a boyfriend / girlfriend or husband wife from kissing on the lips in front of the group. Neither would heterosexuals or homosexuals be dsiturbed by such a display
On the other hand, I believe you fully realize, and perhaps even agree, that such a display in front of the families attending the arrival ceremony, by two homosexuals, for the identical display of affection (i.e. a prolonged kiss on the lips) would, or even should, not be perceived with the same tolerance.
Similarly, family TV shows, as for example the Cosby show, regularly stage displays of affection between husbands and wives without any moral indigestion, yet the identical display by say Ellen Degeneris with a "lifetime partner" would evoke strong negative feelings amongst most heterosexual individuals, including many if not most liberals, and particulary from those with children.
Why is this?
On the one hand we have been inculcated with the notion that we should treat everyone equally, and to not do so is an abrogation of that individuals basic rights, yet in our hearts, we feel that there is not true equivalence. Something about two guys kissing in prime time just isn't right, no matter how hard we try to make it so, and no matter how hard homosexuals attempt to convince us otherwise.
Even if we are not able to put the reasons for such feelings into words, we nevertheless experience them. Perhaps the reason is nothing more than an innate understanding of the unnaturalness of homosexual behavior. It is difficult to ignore the fact that a penis and a rectum were not made for each other- and never will be, no matter how many liberals think otherwise. In a very real sense, such behavior must at the very least be termed unnatual or a deviation from the norm.
But you say, much worse things than two homosexuals kissing are shown in prime time. True, however such displays (murder, violence etc) are not choreographed so as to legitimatize them or to suggest normalcy.
No, whatever else homosexual behavior is, it is not natural and regretably despite any desire for metaphysical egalitarianism, it is not normal, and as such should not be legitimized and therefore can not be made normal.
A - I don't want laws to enforce anything, I want the gay-les community to police itself, with the understanding that societies have the right to defend their standards (IMHO the only one of my rights I want the government to defend is my right to live my life without government interference, everything I can handle on my own thanks).
B - The behavior I'm objecting to is only related to homosexuality in that straight people don't do it. It's not that they can't, it's that they don't. There's no rule I've found that says only gays are allowed to walk around in nothing more than thong underware and chaps. The fact is that only gays, and a small percentage at that, chose to do so.
C - As soon as we have people running around without pants getting broadcast into my living room while I thought I was watching the evening new, we've got problems, those people need to put on some GD clothes and start acting normal. I don't care who they plook or with what, but when your butt is in my living room it better stop and it better stop quick.
See I really don't care what goes on in a person's life. I've been friends with gays and lesbians most of my life and by and large they're very nice people largely indistinguishable from everybody else. The problem is there's a radical subsection, the so called "loud and proud" gays and lesbians that aren't nice people. They're not expressing "love" as you so eloquently put it, they're flaunting the moral standards of our society in ways that already border on the criminal (we do have public decency laws in most of this country you know). Polite society doesn't do that stuff.
Here's a fun link, I realize it's an onion article and therefore a spoof, but look at those picture. Those aren't fake pictures, that's real stuff from real gay pride marches and if you've ever caught the coverage of those events you've probably seen much worse. People that will dress like that and march down the street have no place in polite society. Gay, straight or celebate doesn't matter, those people need to put some damn clothes on and stop scaring the horses.
Of course, ALL the residents will get to have a voice in the debate, and to vote on it.
Psst. It's a new fad that's been sweeping the nation since about 1700 or so. It's called "democracy."
I'm straining to make a point. That there is a certain subsection of the homosexual crowd who's public behavior is beyond the pale and would be regardless of their sexual orientation. The normal homosexuals need to reign these people in because they're making the whole subculture look not just bad but down right threatening to normal civilized culture.
Of course it is not normal. Nor am I suggesting that it be accepted or tolerated by others, in terms of their private associations.
In a society which values rights, men are free to accept or reject homosexuals as they see fit. If they do not wish to engage in commerce with homosexuals, the state has no business forcing them to. If they do not wish to allow homosexuals access to their clubs, homes, or businesses, that is their right. If they believe homosexuality is evil, they are well within their rights to state so emphatically, and to protest against homosexuality.
What they are NOT within their rights to do, is to prevail upon government to restrain the private sexuality of consenting adults at gunpoint.
I sure wish people would read the thread so I didn't have to type the same thing over and over.
Oh, yeah. Because everyone knows that people who do not seek a government seal-of-approval for their relationship (i.e. marriage) could not possibly be responsible people and should, under no circumstances, be having sex *gasp*
Yes, countless.
As it alread is encouraged. Primarily socially. I happen to agree with tax incentives and contractual rules, but I understand the argument against such and think it's an interesting debate.
Shalom.
Be sure and let us all know when you decide whether or not to imprison them.
Hmmm. So, by reverting to sarcasm does that mean that you no longer have any arguments?
Obviously I don't have the authority to establish such policy on my own. But I presume I am allowed an opinion, no?
Shalom.
There are other ways to discourage something other than prohibiting it by law. That is one method, but there are others.
I'm really trying to understand your position, but I'm not getting it.
In the past I have strongly questioned that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt once again.
Shalom
So, by reverting to sarcasm are you making the point that you can no longer argue your position?
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.