The Homosexual Double Standard, Ad-hoc, Cavalcade!

[JimL]

OK I don't want to be accused of burning straw here so I want to make sure I understand your last argument against killing undesirable people being good for society.

Are you saying that is is not good for a society to eliminate the undesirable people and that it is better for society and everyone as individuals in that society to allow undesirable people to live?

What i'm saying is that it is good to eliminate those behaviors that are detrimental to society as a whole, such as theft, murder, fraud, assault, rape, etc etc. etc. without at the same time infringing upon the individuals right to free self expression. I never said anything about eliminating people from society as that is the opposite of the actual goal of a free people living together as a group. What some in the religious community advocate for, i.e. in a theocracy, the goal is to not only eliminate behavior that is detrimental to society as a whole, but also to eliminate the individuals right to free expession whether it be detrimental to the whole of society or not. Homosexuality for example is no more detrimental to society than is heterosexuality but some in the latter group would like to impose their own morals upon those in the former not because their behavior is detrimental to society, but because they don't really believe in the individuals right to freedom of expression unless it is in agreement with their own personal moral beliefs.

[Epoetker]

The “homosexual movement” is not merely “like” the Civil Rights movement it’s a part of it.

Agreed.

It is the demand for full equality before the law as guaranteed in the US by the Constitution.

Nah, it's a demand for words and laws to be redefined to the advantage of the people doing the redefining.

The main aim of the Civil Rights Movement has been to ensure that the rights of ALL people are equally protected by the law, including the rights of minorities, women and homosexuals.

No, not really. It doesn't actually take when those citizens are white, male, or law-abiding. That's enough for me to dismiss it.

And, given that these rights have only been obtained via long, tedious, campaigns often subjected to violence (e.g. martin Luther King) and mockery (e.g. jeering blogs of the type you favour), were a Machiavellian elitist conspiracy when clearly the majority of citizens, including the elite, implacably opposed them at the time (and still do in many instances) is paranoid nonsense.

Your statement makes no sense and can be safely ignored as typical liberal pointing and sputtering to simulate a response when you haven't got one.

I said that the Civil Rights movement succeeded because elites, i.e., the most powerful and influential people in the country, were behind it. They chose George Wallace to make an example of because their elitist people hate hicks. But in the end, George Wallace was proven right in "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" in actual practice, as those elitists themselves can be found almost without exception in 95-100% white neighborhoods. But beating up on hicks is good fun for elites, I suppose.

What you don’t want to admit is that is that the opinions of the likes of you concerning marginalized citizens promote injustice.

Please provide your personal definition of "injustice" before throwing around that word in a manner offensive to those to whom it actually means something.

It’s to the credit of the majority that, sooner or later, it comes to recognize this; e.g. most now agree that the Jim Crow Laws were unjust.

Most people are indoctrinated in schools to believe so, most with any experience of integrated schools come to appreciate the wisdom of the arrangement. Ironically, those who grow up in effectively segregated schools are the ones most likely to believe in integration, having no particular life experience with your vibrant liberal pets. Like you, for example.

Although it took a long time to bring about the slow dismantling of the state-sponsored, elitist enforced racial segregation imposed by these popular laws. Them dang liberal bleeding hearts against “popular opinion”!!!

If by 'took a long time,' you mean "Issued immediately by federal dictate and enforced by out-of-state personnel", then yes.

Tassman, you seem to be posting without any clear direction or argument. I would suggest slowing down a bit, maybe de-stressing by feeding the koalas, riding the kangaroos, or watching the aborigines before posting again.

[Sparko]

Boy, it is hard to get through to someone that doesn't deliberate at all before answering. Your own best overall interests as an individual resides in being part of a social group, ergo we live in societies. But in order for the individual to earn those interests he/she needs to comply with the values of the society as a whole. In other words by being part of a social order you gain more than you lose, so it is in your best interests overall.

See above. And btw, thinking through ones argument doesn't in itself mean you've got it right.



If it in some way effects the overall good of the whole of society, then yes. But that does not define it as abnormal in the absolute. Society balances the interests of the individual with that of the group. But again, that doesn't in itself define the individuals interests as abnormal in the absolute. In nature there are many animals that practice incestuous relationships. From the beginning of life the only form of sex was asexual. Would you call those practices abnormal?

You thought this through did you?

You haven't refuted it in the absolute yet Sparko, you have only defined normal/abnormal, good/evil, natural/unnatural, from a cultural perspective. Show me how you know these things to be true in the absolute.

OK I don't want to be accused of burning straw here so I want to make sure I understand your last argument against killing undesirable people being good for society.

Are you saying that is is not good for a society to eliminate the undesirable people and that it is better for society and everyone as individuals in that society to allow undesirable people to live?

[Tassman]

Your history, like JimL's, is backwards, i.e., Satanic. The Civil rights movement, like the homosexual movement, or indeed like most liberal movements, from "immigration reform" to "spreading democracy," was an elitist movement against popular opinion. It also had the full support of the ruling class, so unless you seriously intend to maintain that George Wallace's local cops and good old boys were more powerful and influential than the US Council of Churches and the US National Guard, I would retract that statement immediately.

The “homosexual movement” is not merely “like” the Civil Rights movement it’s a part of it. It is the demand for full equality before the law as guaranteed in the US by the Constitution. The main aim of the Civil Rights Movement has been to ensure that the rights of ALL people are equally protected by the law, including the rights of minorities, women and homosexuals.

And, given that these rights have only been obtained via long, tedious, campaigns often subjected to violence (e.g. martin Luther King) and mockery (e.g. jeering blogs of the type you favour), were a Machiavellian elitist conspiracy when clearly the majority of citizens, including the elite, implacably opposed them at the time (and still do in many instances) is paranoid nonsense.

What you don’t want to admit is that is that the opinions of the likes of you concerning marginalized citizens promote injustice. It’s to the credit of the majority that, sooner or later, it comes to recognize this; e.g. most now agree that the Jim Crow Laws were unjust. Although it took a long time to bring about the slow dismantling of the state-sponsored, elitist enforced racial segregation imposed by these popular laws. Them dang liberal bleeding hearts against “popular opinion”!!!

[Epoetker]

And your argument is neither valid nor invalid since you haven't given one.

You can't argue without shared premises, which are ultimately based on shared experiences, whether in going to similar schools or speaking the same language. What sort of ass-backward experiences did you have that led you to accept all things on faith? I know faith means being "sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see", but it's the sort of thing that generally gets internalized for most people after experimentation and following their moral duties seriously rewards that faith.

When criticizing anothers thought process, at least, for arguments sake, try to supply one of your own. And btw, invoking imaginary beings as the source of ones thought doesn't help your credibility standing.

You, Tassman, and now even lao tzu have all made your primary arguments with a premise that fundamentally inverts realities as experienced by men with truth in their souls. You're either possessed by demons or all hitting your monthly cycle at the same time.

[JimL]

Just thinking of myself? It was YOU who said it was "the reason that norms of behavior are in our best interests as a society is because they are in our best interests as individuals living within that society."

Boy, it is hard to get through to someone that doesn't deliberate at all before answering. Your own best overall interests as an individual resides in being part of a social group, ergo we live in societies. But in order for the individual to earn those interests he/she needs to comply with the values of the society as a whole. In other words by being part of a social order you gain more than you lose, so it is in your best interests overall.

Now you are saying it is back to the good of the society as a whole. Make up your mind. You really don't think through your arguments do you?

See above. And btw, thinking through ones argument doesn't in itself mean you've got it right.

Let's suppose that for the moment that pedophilia or having a predisposition toward incest (between adults not children) is a normal condition and that for the sake of argument that you want to marry your own brother. In such a case would it be in your best interest as an individual to be denied the right to self expression? blah blah blah.

If it in some way effects the overall good of the whole of society, then yes. But that does not define it as abnormal in the absolute. Society balances the interests of the individual with that of the group. But again, that doesn't in itself define the individuals interests as abnormal in the absolute. In nature there are many animals that practice incestuous relationships. From the beginning of life the only form of sex was asexual. Would you call those practices abnormal?

And as many murders as we have in society, it seems to be a normal human predisposition. Anyone is capable of it under the right circumstances. So why should murderers be denied their right to self expression?

You thought this through did you?

See how weak your argument is? Of course you don't.

You haven't refuted it in the absolute yet Sparko, you have only defined normal/abnormal, good/evil, natural/unnatural, from a cultural perspective. Show me how you know these things to be true in the absolute.

[Sparko]

No we all don't become richer, some of us individuals would be eliminated and always will be, so they certainly would not become richer. You are not thinking about the society of man, you are thinking of yourself, whose imperfections might also be called into question one day. Also you are basing your idea of a better society solely on how financially wealthy we would all be.

Just thinking of myself? It was YOU who said it was "the reason that norms of behavior are in our best interests as a society is because they are in our best interests as individuals living within that society."

Now you are saying it is back to the good of the society as a whole. Make up your mind. You really don't think through your arguments do you?

Do you appreciate your individual freedom? Lets assume for the moment that homosexuality is a natural condition and that, for the sake of argument, you yourself are homosexual rather than just homophobic. In such a case would it be in your best interests as an individual to be denied the right to self expression? The way in which considering homosexuality normal benifits you and society is that you can be assured that in that society your freedom to be who you are will also be respected.

Let's suppose that for the moment that pedophilia or having a predisposition toward incest (between adults not children) is a normal condition and that for the sake of argument that you want to marry your own brother. In such a case would it be in your best interest as an individual to be denied the right to self expression? blah blah blah.

And as many murders as we have in society, it seems to be a normal human predisposition. Anyone is capable of it under the right circumstances. So why should murderers be denied their right to self expression?

See how weak your argument is? Of course you don't.

[JimL]

You were almost coherent and straightforward there, and then you had to go and add that last sentence. But 3 out of 4 sentences that make any sense in a row ain't bad for you! Combined with you unequivocally stating a belief in the illegitimacy of contracts among consenting adults, this thread may be made legendary as "the one where Jim actually made an effort to think!"

But you know what, that last sentence is so idiotically declarative that I think it's a trap. The true insanity is in the second sentence:



And here is the backwards thinking that lies at the heart of all Satanic thought processes, ladies and gentlemen! Shared social agreements, great or small, of any lasting value, always come after the collective and continuous experience of previous societies, not before. Your argument is invalid.

And your argument is neither valid nor invalid since you haven't given one. When criticizing anothers thought process, at least, for arguments sake, try to supply one of your own. And btw, invoking imaginary beings as the source of ones thought doesn't help your credibility standing.

[JimL]

It is in the best interests of the individuals of a society to eliminate the drains of that society. If there are no poor, or disabled or diseased persons, then the economy goes up, while spending less money. We all become richer while spending less.

No we all don't become richer, some of us individuals would be eliminated and always will be, so they certainly would not become richer. You are not thinking about the society of man, you are thinking of yourself, whose imperfections might also be called into question one day. Also you are basing your idea of a better society solely on how financially wealthy we would all be.

How does considering homosexual behavior normal benefit me? I am an individual. How is it in my best interest? and what does "best interest" have to do with "normal" which is what you were defining in the first place?

Do you appreciate your individual freedom? Lets assume for the moment that homosexuality is a natural condition and that, for the sake of argument, you yourself are homosexual rather than just homophobic. In such a case would it be in your best interests as an individual to be denied the right to self expression? The way in which considering homosexuality normal benifits you and society is that you can be assured that in that society your freedom to be who you are will also be respected.

[Epoetker]

Your thinking is muddled. The civil rights movement, which is what the demands for homosexual equality before the law is all about, has nothing to do with the cultural hegemony of the ruling class; quite the reverse if anything. Until relatively recently the ruling class was implacably opposed to it.

Your history, like JimL's, is backwards, i.e., Satanic. The Civil rights movement, like the homosexual movement, or indeed like most liberal movements, from "immigration reform" to "spreading democracy," was an elitist movement against popular opinion. It also had the full support of the ruling class, so unless you seriously intend to maintain that George Wallace's local cops and good old boys were more powerful and influential than the US Council of Churches and the US National Guard, I would retract that statement immediately.

[Epoetker]

Normal according to societal agreed upon norms defines normal as that which is in accord with the culture. The reason for the consistent patterns, the collective and continuous experience, is because that is what the general population of a society has agreed upon as normal behavior. If the norms were different, and they were and are in different cultures, then the collective patterns would differ as well. So, how do you define what is abnormal in the absolute sense? You don't!

You were almost coherent and straightforward there, and then you had to go and add that last sentence. But 3 out of 4 sentences that make any sense in a row ain't bad for you! Combined with you unequivocally stating a belief in the illegitimacy of contracts among consenting adults, this thread may be made legendary as "the one where Jim actually made an effort to think!"

But you know what, that last sentence is so idiotically declarative that I think it's a trap. The true insanity is in the second sentence:

The reason for the consistent patterns, the collective and continuous experience, is because that is what the general population of a society has agreed upon as normal behavior.

And here is the backwards thinking that lies at the heart of all Satanic thought processes, ladies and gentlemen! Shared social agreements, great or small, of any lasting value, always come after the collective and continuous experience of previous societies, not before. Your argument is invalid.

[Sparko]

No, the reason that norms of behavior are in our best interests as a society is because they are in our best interests as individuals living within that society. You just don't understand what is meant by society. Society means acceptance of individual differences along with comliance to the norms of the group.

It is in the best interests of the individuals of a society to eliminate the drains of that society. If there are no poor, or disabled or diseased persons, then the economy goes up, while spending less money. We all become richer while spending less.

How does considering homosexual behavior normal benefit me? I am an individual. How is it in my best interest? and what does "best interest" have to do with "normal" which is what you were defining in the first place?

[JimL]

well if you murder all of the disabled, dumb and poor people, then you are lowering the drain on the economy and getting rid of undesirables. So I guess you could argue that murder is good for society. right? and if everyone did it, then it would be "normal" according to your definition.


Basically the holocaust was "normal" according to you.

No, the reason that norms of behavior are in our best interests as a society is because they are in our best interests as individuals living within that society. You just don't understand what is meant by society. Society means acceptance of individual differences along with comliance to the norms of the group.

[Sparko]

No, not unless it actually was good for a society, which, i think you would agree, it is not.

well if you murder all of the disabled, dumb and poor people, then you are lowering the drain on the economy and getting rid of undesirables. So I guess you could argue that murder is good for society. right? and if everyone did it, then it would be "normal" according to your definition.


Basically the holocaust was "normal" according to you.

[JimL]

but is normal good?

If you had a society that said that murder was normal and legal, would that make it good?

No, not unless it actually was good for a society, which, i think you would agree, it is not. But it is not as if these notions of good and evil are arbitrarily chosen, we adopt them understanding them to be in our own best interests as a society. We call compliance with these societal norms, normal behavior only in so far as we understand it to be in the best interests of the group. We don't call the murder of an non human animal abnormal or bad behavior, we call that hunting.