On the constitutionality of being Homosexual
- Thread starter AMonger
- Start date
- Status
I can't help but wonder if there isn't maybe a little bit of classic overcompensation going on. Quite often those who rant and rave the longest, loudest and hardest against something are found to be engaging on the down-low the very things they rail on about.
I'm just sayin'
I have been saying that for a long time..he is a very gay person who can't deal with it because his good book says its wrong.... so he takes his anger at himself out on others of the group he is actually in..any psychologist will tell you that..text book example....guaranteed..
I know this is what he likes is to ruffle feathers..but he has no right to use derogatory names as he does it..
Sure he does, long as he's not pointing them at any of the board members. Others do it all the time, except they're namecalling politicians or liberals, instead of homosexuals.
We can't tell him what to say - he has the same freedom of speech as everyone else. All we can do is respond to his comments, and point out when we think they're offensive, if we think so.
We can't tell him what to say - he has the same freedom of speech as everyone else. All we can do is respond to his comments, and point out when we think they're offensive, if we think so.
He has the right to spew his hatred ..don't agree with it..but its america he has the right...he shouldn't be allowed to keep using the F word when refering to gay people..its not nice..speak your mind..fine...
He "shouldn't be allowed"? Be careful what you ask for: he could very easily come up with half a dozen even more offensive labels, lol.
Really: his right to free speech is the same as yours. There may be words you use that particularly get on his nerves [or anyone's], but that's not your problem, unless you tell them, and they giveadam.
He should be allowed to use whatever words pass the censor [not that F word, though!], same as you and I.
And personally, I like that about America.
Really: his right to free speech is the same as yours. There may be words you use that particularly get on his nerves [or anyone's], but that's not your problem, unless you tell them, and they giveadam.
He should be allowed to use whatever words pass the censor [not that F word, though!], same as you and I.
And personally, I like that about America.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Here's why... The N-word and similar are matters of what one is.
is about an action. If you indulge in homosexual perversion, it's because you chose to do so. The AP has just banned the term "illegal alien." Is that the same? If you object to "
," a variation of gotry--what one does--then surely you object to "illegal alien"--also earned by one's acts.Not at all the same as a racial or ethnic slur.
Same with queer--it's descriptive.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Nice try. 910
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Funny.78910
Oh, they've been saying that, too, and for almost as long.
The sky isn't falling and The Rapture isn't upon us. Besides, you won't know about it before it happens, anyway.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Because the "N" word and the "C" word are very different from the "F" word. The words "
" and "goty", and their various and creative variations such as "gotry" are a uniquely American Americanisms (though that has spilled over into Canada for the most part), and are of relatively recent origin. But to the rest of the world the term describes a bundle of sticks, or one who gathers such bundles. The 'condition' that is now called gay used to be called queer. The operative word was got and, later, ***** (euphemism for kitty cat), but those epithets really had nothing to do with the question of sexual preference: You were being told simply that you had no balls. It was in the 1960s that homosexuals, largely due to them not coming up with the usage themselves, decided that and got were words which were to be received as disparaging and offensive. And people then started using them as such. It's not a universal pejorative, it's a purely subjective term. So, what it really comes down to as whether the term is good or bad, or not, depends on if you like the term and identify with it or not. If you do, it's good. If not, it's bad.
This is a case where people made a concerted, conscious effort to be offended over something that was never offensive and was never intended or designed to be offensive. I have no sympathy for someone who does that. They're actively looking to victimize themselves and seek pity.
If, on the other hand, Amonger or anyone else calls an individual EO member the name, it becomes a problem, as Cheri noted.
You're too easily offended. Are you gay? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
No, you were banned for not taking your argument to a PM, after being asked three times to do so, IIRC.
Perhaps you should read the EO rules. Then you'll know.
I'll grant you that Amonger's fast and loose usage of the word
gets old, almost as old as those who use the tired argument that those who oppose abortion should be forced to adopt every living unwanted child on the planet, because it's an emotional argument, not an intelligent one. Yawn.
See? Right there you crossed the line with "he is a very gay person." Do you know, to an absolute moral certainty, that he is a "very gay person"? If not, then you're violating the Code of Conduct in fine fashion.
Now, because you have a rather colorful and documented history of posting foolishly, stupidly and emotionally (not saying that you are necessarily any of those things, but your posts nevertheless have been), I doubt that anything will come of your post above, but it's something you might want to brace yourself for, and consider when it comes to future posts.
People can disagree without being disagreeable. I pray you learn how to do that.
Actually, no, that's not why you (and others) are permitted to use the term here on EO.Here's why... The N-word and similar are matters of what one is.
Whether someone must engage in a homosexual act to be a homosexual, or a
(which is not even a universally accepted opinion), is wholly irrelevant as to "why." I don't know about the other moderators, because we haven't discussed it, but the reason I generally don't have a problem with your use of the word is because I'm a free speech kinda guy, because I think it's important to be able to freely express your thoughts. Also, by doing so, it allows people to see one's true colors.
The point of an insulting pejorative is to push someone from the ingroup to the outgroup. Pejoratives are quick and easy ways of saying, "You are not one of us. You don't matter as much as I do." There's no better way to establish that dynamic than by exploiting prejudice. And the strongest prejudices are about race, gender, sexuality and religion.
To many people, "
" is a potent insult, the bona fides of the insult notwithstanding. Why do you suppose that is? Because it's connected to the word "gay". Conservatives at best frown upon gays and at worst hate them outright. Many moderates and liberals also harbor prejudices they don't like to think about. By calling someone a you are exploiting these prejudices (perhaps subconsciously, often not) to give your insult more of a punch, and to make yourself somehow feel superior. In that light, I think it's best to tone down the use of the term, in all of its flavors, so that intelligent, less emotional discussions can take place here on EO. How say you?
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
If your evaluation were right, perhaps I'd agree. But you're a little off.Actually, no, that's not why you (and others) are permitted to use the term here on EO.
Whether someone must engage in a homosexual act to be a homosexual, or a
I don't know about the other moderators, because we haven't discussed it, but the reason I generally don't have a problem with your use of the word is because I'm a free speech kinda guy, because I think it's important to be able to freely express your thoughts. Also, by doing so, it allows people to see one's true colors.
The point of an insulting pejorative is to push someone from the ingroup to the outgroup. Pejoratives are quick and easy ways of saying, "You are not one of us. You don't matter as much as I do." There's no better way to establish that dynamic than by exploiting prejudice. And the strongest prejudices are about race, gender, sexuality and religion.
To many people, "
In that light, I think it's best to tone down the use of the term, in all of its flavors, so that intelligent, less emotional discussions can take place here on EO. How say you?
I think "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is an emotional over-simplification. Yet, still, when I say
or queer, or gotry, I am, indeed, referring specifically to the commission of the perverse sex acts. You'll recall from various threads that I make a distinction, as does the Bible, between the temptation, which is not a sin, and the act, which is. I've said repeatedly that I can respect a guy who, though he has temptations, stands strong in the face of them and refuses to sin. He's fighting a great battle and will be rewarded in heaven.I knew such a guy in the Air Force. He was effeminate. Very effeminate. Nobody knew how he got through basic training, because homosexuals were unceremoniously tossed and given the proverbial Bad Chicken Dinner. But I guess it was a matter of what you know vs. what you can prove because there he was.
He also hung around the same church groups that I did. He was Assembly of God, iirc, while I was a baptist, but the groups I was in were a bit eclectic.
One day, due to some shortcomings unrelated to his peculiarities, he was discharged, a general, I think. He found himself on the street, no money to speak of, nowhere to go. An officer who taught Bible study at my church took him in to help him get back on his feet. Had the Air Force found out about that, there would have been trouble.
It was only after he moved I'm there that some trouble came to light. He had a pair of high heeled shoes that he kept very prominently among his things. When asked, he said they were props in a play he had been in. Nobody believed out, and he would occasionally wear them. Then there was the gay porn found among his belongings.
Anyway, I'm sorry about the temptations he faced. I don't know if his effeminacy was due to a birth defect, or the domineering mother-absent or weak father theory, or what, but he wasn't normal. His predilection was obvious to everybody. Everybody. But having a birth defect isn't a sin. Homosexual sex is, and whether or not one engages in homosexual acts certainly is a choice.
So my use of words like
or gotry isn't to denigrate somebody with the temptations this guy faced, which were apparently horrible. I didn't hate the poor kid. The sexual urge is strong and he had a horrible temptation. But the act is even more horrible, but we've got a huge segment of the population closing their eyes to it. s became "gay," and now even fairly conservative people are thinking they're just like us and should marry. So "" and "queer" is a bit of pushback, and that's why I post about such things a lot, and why I use terms like "committing homosexual perversion" -- emphasizing the act. I see our country in deep trouble, and I'm trying to paddle the other way as fast as I can.I'm not optimistic, though. Did you see the recent premiere of the reality show called Forever Young? They take 5 young people and put them in a house with 5 seniors over 70 and watch the culture clash. One of the youngsters, a cute little thing, actually, revealed that she's a lesbian and is having trouble telling her mother. Now you wouldn't think the oldsters would be very sympathetic, and there could be some creative editing going on, but it appeared that none of the oldsters, all over 70, had any sort of objection to her lifestyle. If that group was all ok with it, we're in deep trouble.
Last edited:
" Conservatives at best frown upon gays and at worst hate them outright. Many moderates and liberals also harbor prejudices they don't like to think about."
I doubt that one can correctly make the statement that "conservatives" frown upon or hate homosexuals. Each person is an individual and harbors his, her or it's own brand of prejudice. The particular brand may or may not include homosexuals. One could even consider the blanket idea that "conservatives" frown upon or "hate" homosexuals a form of prejudice in itself.
Most people have some form of prejudice. The prejudice can be based on gender, race, religion, politics, professions , the form of entertainment a person may or may not like or even the food they eat.
Some prejudices are based on a "bad experience" with someone from the "hated group." Some are taught in schools, in religious training and even in homes. All can be, and are often, overcome, or at least understood and controlled.
I doubt that one can correctly make the statement that "conservatives" frown upon or hate homosexuals. Each person is an individual and harbors his, her or it's own brand of prejudice. The particular brand may or may not include homosexuals. One could even consider the blanket idea that "conservatives" frown upon or "hate" homosexuals a form of prejudice in itself.
Most people have some form of prejudice. The prejudice can be based on gender, race, religion, politics, professions , the form of entertainment a person may or may not like or even the food they eat.
Some prejudices are based on a "bad experience" with someone from the "hated group." Some are taught in schools, in religious training and even in homes. All can be, and are often, overcome, or at least understood and controlled.
here's why... The n-word and similar are matters of what one is.
The ap has just banned the term "illegal alien." is that the same? If you object to "
Not at all the same as a racial or ethnic slur.
Same with queer--it's descriptive.
you are born gay!!! Its not a choice!!!!
- Status