Poll

How will the Supreme's Rule on Queer Marriage?

The feckless Roberts Court will invent a new "right" like the Warren Court did with abortion and will make queer marriage legal across the nation and further send us into the depths of depravity.
11 (84.6%)
It will be a narrow 5-4 decision against that merely postpones the day when deviant behavior is made legal by mortals in robes.
2 (15.4%)
It will be defeated and never surface as an issue again.
0 (0%)
Doesn't matter/who cares? We're all doomed anyway!
0 (0%)
I have no opinion because I am just not paying attention at all.
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 12

Author Topic: How will the Supreme's Rule on Queer Marriage?  (Read 5345 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 19529
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Re: How will the Supreme's Rule on Queer Marriage?
« Reply #40 on: April 14, 2013, 07:27:03 PM »
Interesting observations by VDH ...

"Gay Marriage

Sometime about a year ago, the long-held position of Barack Obama and the Clintons on gay marriage — No! — became, in Emmanuel Goldstein fashion, abhorrent. Indeed, they’ve become harsh critics of those who still believe as they recently did.

Most Americans are fine with civil unions and, in live-and-let-live fashion, don’t worry all that much about gay marriage. Nonetheless, why the sudden dramatic change, if not for brilliant messaging and well-funded liberal gay donors whose pledges were made contingent on fluidity on the issue?

Key to the transformation in popular culture was the radical change in the perception of male homosexuality. In the 1980s and 1990s — read the work of the late gay investigative journalist Randy Shilts, or the old videos of San Francisco parades or arguments over bath houses — there was the general impression that male homosexuality was both more promiscuous than either heterosexual or lesbian practice, and that passive sexual intercourse was a catalyst for the spread of the AIDS virus and hepatitis (suddenly a venereal disease in a way it had not been in the past) in a manner that “normative” heterosexual intercourse was not.

Mention of male homosexuality in the news was usually linked with sexual practice, and the result was not favorable to the majority of the public. The age-old word “sodomy” was not then the taboo term that it is now. That perception — reality, whatever one calls it — has now vanished. “Gay” is a non-sexual sobriquet that involves vaguely defined expressions of affection. To suggest that anal intercourse is statistically more likely to be unhygienic or, if practiced with frequency, to run the risk of either hepatitis or AIDS is now proof of homophobia. Indeed, so is the use of “homosexual” for “gay.”

Most of us do not think too much about it, other than to ensure that we treat people — in my case whether in evaluating students, grant applicants, or scholars — equally, with no interest at all in their sexual lives.

That said, the transformation in gay-advocacy strategy has been nothing short of remarkable, its signature achievement being that there is absolutely nothing much different between gay male and straight male sexual congress — and that those who believe there is are themselves bigots.

If so, we should soon expect the liberal popular culture — from the movies of Quentin Tarantino to the recent Spartacus series — to stop presenting anal penetration as an especially unwelcome sort of act, or a particular nasty sort of sexual coercion.

In the logic of gay marriage, liberal culture — art, cinema, movies, journalism, politics — will soon represent gay male sexual practice as an act as natural as any other, without value judgments of any sort attached to it. Also, I would expect in the years ahead that the law, as it does now, will not add enhanced charges like “anal penetration” or “sodomy” to sexual criminal complaints. I am confused in this progressive era why I still read that a particular sex offender suspect is to be considered especially odious, by adding details to his charges like “sodomy” or “anal penetration.” Why qualify, much less legally enhance, the particular details of rape?

Incidentally, in matters of sexual consistency, there should be no longer suspicions of adult males being Brownie or Girl Scout Masters, given that the gay rights movement has made the Boy Scouts themselves suspect for unfairly discouraging gay Scout Masters. Is a forty-year old heterosexual male any more likely to look upon young girls in untoward fashion than a forty-year old gay male would young boys? Gay marriage is not the end of a long struggle, but the very beginning of a brave new world whose contours we can only imagine."
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: How will the Supreme's Rule on Queer Marriage?
« Reply #41 on: April 14, 2013, 08:29:02 PM »

 [blockquote]passive sexual intercourse was a catalyst for the spread of the AIDS virus and hepatitis (suddenly a venereal disease in a way it had not been in the past) in a manner that “normative” heterosexual intercourse was not.[/blockquote]
Really?  I didn't get the memo.  I thought that homosexual intercourse buttf^&***g gay physical association was the number one way that aids,  in the US, was transmitted.
[blockquote] liberal culture — art, cinema, movies, journalism, politics — will soon represent gay male sexual practice as an act as natural as any other,[/blockquote]
That's when they start burning the books and the movies too.[blockquote]

Gay marriage is not the end of a long struggle, but the very beginning of a brave new world
                                                                                                                                      ::outrage::

Offline Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8747
  • Get some!
Re: How will the Supreme's Rule on Queer Marriage?
« Reply #42 on: April 14, 2013, 10:51:09 PM »
AIDS was introduced to the US by a homo male flight attendant in the late 1960s, who had been having their abominable sort of liaisons in Haiti. Everything about the homo male lifestyle and aberrant sexual practice is an ideal vector for diseases such as HIV. This is indisputable biological fact, and they can deny it all they want.

But to offer a point in support of what VDH describes (the rapid transformation in public attitudes), I remember even as recently as the early 90s it was still an ubiquitous playground taunt to call other kids "faggot". It was considered uncouth perhaps, but it definitely didn't prompt collective freakouts from the busybodies who would today order mandatory tolerance workshops in every classroom. When I was in elementary school in the 80s "Fag!" was just one of several slams against other kids, and it was almost never even in reference to suspected homo orientation, it was just a general purpose taunt. Really within the span of a single decade it went from being a common word to something as unacceptable as "nigger". That's an incredibly rapid transformation in the values of an entire society.
"The Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: How will the Supreme's Rule on Queer Marriage?
« Reply #43 on: April 14, 2013, 11:04:42 PM »

The transformation is mostly with persons younger than you. As colleges graduate increasingly more indoctrinated teachers the transformation increases exponentially.  It's that old "give me a boy when he's four and when he's a man..." .

And that flight attendant..... a Frenchman.

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63641
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: How will the Supreme's Rule on Queer Marriage?
« Reply #44 on: April 15, 2013, 07:00:57 AM »
"That said, the transformation in gay-advocacy strategy has been nothing short of remarkable, its signature achievement being that there is absolutely nothing much different between gay male and straight male sexual congress — and that those who believe there is are themselves bigots."

Pretty much encapsulates the process behind which our descent into Hell is achieved.   ::gaah::

We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline pisskop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
  • Bump me, America!
Re: How will the Supreme's Rule on Queer Marriage?
« Reply #45 on: April 15, 2013, 08:41:44 AM »
I wrote this for another site, and I'm not sure if I shared it here, but


Homosexuality is a Choice


The essence is that we are free to choose our behavior. In order to empirically study homosexuality we have to define it as a behavior, which is already the definition of it. Who you feel attracted to is a moot point, and any other chemicals in your body (i.e. emotions) are not important because no matter how we feel we have complete control over our actions, whether or not we exercise it.

    I think the issue needs to be pushed. We need to clarify that homosexuality is a choice. From there, with it established that you can choose to or not to engage in sordid activities, we can then sort the issue out nice and impersonally.

    If I could have feedback or suggestions, honestly that would help. I feel my logic is up to par and completely objective, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved!

--------------

Homosexuality is a choice.

-Why is it a choice?

    Well, by defining the concept of homosexuality we are setting a definition. One that, if it is to carry any real, scientific weight, has to be based on the empirical (what we can observe). That's behavior. We can't use 'I felt attracted to him,' or 'I felt like a man in a woman's body'; these aren't objective or measurable to a reliable extent.

    Can you tell me, to a reliable, concise, and accurate degree, how much you love your significant other? How physically turned on they make you? You can't, not in a way I can use to judge every other member of that gender. But you can describe behaviors, can't you? Because behaviors are visible and measurable.

    So, we can define homosexuality wherever on the spectrum of behaviors (kissing, hand holding, fondling, sodomy, w.e. you choose). Now, once you engage in the agreed behavior (and for the sake of this exercise let's put it at fondling or better) you are engaging in homosexual behavior and thus scientifically definable as a homosexual at that moment.

    Now, did anyone force you to engage in such behavior? No? Well what if they had a gun to your head and said they would kill you if you didn't? Then are you forced?

This is where Aristotle's idea of indeterminism and free will come into play. Don't worry; we've been using the foundations of his works in the formation of our ideals almost since they were first put forth.

Indeterminism and Aristotle

The gist of it is that, even with a gun you are not forced to do anything. You choose to.

    You chose to make the decisions you make today, and they shape tomorrow, in which you are free to choose again your own decisions. Who you are is a direct result of who you were and what choices you made.

-"But gay is who I am!"

    No. Being a gay is not who you are. It's your self identity. You identify with homosexuality, and thus you attempt to meet that schema (mental image) in aspects of your daily life. You choose to believe you are gay, you choose to engage in gay behavior; you chose to be gay by definition.

Okay, so far so good.
-But, what about genetics? The gay genes made me this way!

    Aside from skirting responsibility again, this is not true. For all the research done, there is no identified gay gene. I doubt there will be.  However, it has been shown that there are genetic predispositions towards homosexuality. Anyone familiar with cancer or diabetes knows what that means, and I use these examples because they are the most prominent in our society. You have an increased likelihood of being at risk for homosexual tendencies.

    Like any biological factor, the environment plays a fairly large role in it too. If you take a child from a family known to be tall and malnourish it chances are it will not grow to their full (height) potential. If you take a child with a predisposition towards homosexuality and fill him with a high level of sexual anxiety (caused by either extreme sexual repression or over-exposure to sex) then you are exasperating his risk, just like sitting in a tanning booth for a few hours a week will increase the risk of skin cancer.

-"This is stupid. You say I'm gay because of my actions and not how I feel? My feelings are chemical reactions and thus scientific! I feel attracted to men, so I'm gay, I can't help it! Anyone can choose to go out and get sodomized! Do you choose not to be gay? When did you realize you felt attracted to men?"

   The first of a long line of emotional appeals laid bare; and attacking me personally to boot! Like any good scientist would do, we define homosexuality not off subjective emotions or feelings of attraction (which are indeed chemicals, triggered by environmental conditioning. In other words, your body releases chemicals because of signals from your mind, which was conditioned by your experience) but off of empirical and measurable behavior.

    We explain how free will works, and how freedom of expression works. You were not forced to be gay. You are not guaranteed to be gay by genetics, the same way that genetics cannot force you to be creative or force you to be aggressive. Personality traits are conditioned after (and before) birth, although there are dispositions for them in the genes.

    We explain that they are simply appealing to emotion. Society is capable of being swayed by emotion, and the media tends to support this with filtered reports only conveying one side of a story. But reality is objective, not subject to emotional appeal. Science simply attempts to follow.
[/spoiler]
[MANNERISM_THREAD:lurk]

Today's ??? (_01OCT13_):

 
Quote from: midcan5;1330627
'Conservative' in America has come to be taken over by 'power.'