Ricomise

Thank you very much for your response dk.

Now I can certainly agree with you that in our society big business does alot of marketing to youth. (I think for many reasons, including youth's generally more impulsive nature, and their fairly recent access to a good deal of disposable income.) I may even agree that this can, at times, have a negative impact on society. (Although I'm not sure what the solution to such a problem is, and whether that solution might not be worse than the problem, but that's for a different discussion.)

I believe where we may differ about this is that "gay culture" has a "product" that is "marketable." As I see it, "gay culture," as you have defined it, if it exists, exists because there are homosexuals in the population, not vice versa. Although this may seem to be a truism, I think it is a key point regarding this idea of "marketing to youth." It seems to me that many, if not most gay people are gay, (or at least "predisposed" to it; I don't particularly want to become involved in a "nature vs. nurture" argument.) before, or without any exposure to "gay culture." After all, there were homosexuals in society long before this culture you speak of rose to the level of prominance you believe it to have. This being the case, I don't see what "gay culture" is marketing, other than the idea of acceptance of homosexuals as equal members of society, as a group, with the rights and responsibilities that go with that acceptance. Of course if an individual acts irresponsibly, that individual must face the consequences. (Incidentally, many states have laws on the books that punish anyone with HIV that has sex without disclosing that status to his/her partner, regardless of sexual orientation.) If it is this acceptance that is being "marketed," then I must admit, I'm in favor of it.

Again, I agree about Hitler's rise to power being, at least partially, due to the rise of radio, but I'm unsure as to how that particular event relates to this discussion. This sentence, I find quite interesting, however,

What exactly about Clinton's impeachment hearings "scandalized" youth? (If any of them actually paid attention.)


I understand, to a certain extent, the idea behind this statement. Normally, social change is best acheived at a "grass roots" level. However, at times, social change must be acheived through the novel application of existing law to either new, or consistantly problematic situations. This is because social institutions sometimes stand in the way of social change. In fact, this is one of the reasons the Supreme Court has the power to declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional. Until Marbury v. Madison, this was an idea that was anathema to many, but it has become an underpinning of our governmental system.

I also must strongly disagree that social change that has been brought about by the judicial sytem increases lawlessness. What increases lawlessness, and causes constitutional crises, is the loss of respect for the power of one branch of the government vis-a-vis another. The decision in Brown v. Board of Education effected social change that could not, at the time be had any other way, and it did so by applying a new interpretation of the existing law. It did not "write new law" as many acuse it and cases such as Roe v. Wade to have done. It is the respect for the strength of Supreme Court precedent that allows our system of government to be flexible and survive other, more rigid systems. This being said, although I disliked the outcome of the Court's decision in the Bush/Gore case, I believe that it was the best way to resolve that crisis given the circumstances, and that respect for the decision is necessary to ensure that our system of government stays strong. Bush is not President for life. Such is the genius of our system.

Anyway, thanks alot for the discussion.

Dr Rick

Not exactly; besides, vaginal sex transmits diseases, too. So does kissing and shaking hands.

Treacle Worshipper

To dk:

Originally posted by dk
You need to get a job in the real world.

I am physically disabled.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dk: Correction: husbands and wives marry to order their lives for children.
tw: That broad and sweeping generalisation does not apply to my experience. I know several married couples who have no intention of procreating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope you realize the world is bigger than your myopic perspective.

Of course I do, why else would I frequent a discussion board? (I could have made a similar response to your original comment about the purpose of marriage.)

When you make insulting comments such as the above, you show yourself to be extremely uncivil.


To all the other posters:

Thank you

TW

Nowhere357

Every one of your arguments have been dismantled. Because you refuse to acknowledge this, instead just throwing personal attacks and assertions, it is clear that IN FACT your complaints are just rationalization for your bigotry.

This thread has served to reinforce the idea that gay "lifestyle" is of no threat to anyone. Except of course for the hateful intolerant self-righteous bigots of the world.

Your lack of thoughtful morals is disturbing. In the world, I confront bigots of any stripe at any time. When we meet, I will gladly give you a lesson in ... morality and justice.

dk

Rick my friend, you know full well the previous is a rationalization, and the latter a non sequitur.

For example....
SARs can be spread by casual contact, so thankfully it only kills about 10% of its victims whereas hiv/aids kills just about 100% of its victims. Still only a moral moron with SARs would shake hands or kiss someone they claimed to love

Dr Rick

How so? If part of your argument is that anal sex is wrong because it spreads diseases, then how is it irrelevant that far more illnesses (including AIDS) have been transmitted by vaginal sex?

Rick

pleasant_darktwist

Let me see if I have caught on to what is happening on this thread:

1) All the posters have read basic logic and biology texts, allowing them to use the pretty latin phrases for "bad argument."

2) The internet is full of links and statistics. NOTE: Just because it is on the internet doesn't make it so.

3) Somehow America's decline as the world's only superpower is related to where people stick certain parts of their anatomy, and into what part said parts are stuck.

4) Somehow pediphilia, homosexuality, sodomy, polygamy, and the end of the world is related.

And Finally:

5) When in doubt, use sarcastic (disguised as wit) comments to attempt to make light of the other person's arguments.

Sound Right?
I thought so.

Allow me to respond then.

The case before the supreme court is not about gay culture, in the sense that dk is thinking. The issue before the court is whether or not states can have sodomy laws that apply solely to one group.

Laws against sodomy are fine, as long as they are equally applied. Texas has a law that makes sodomy illegal, only when it takes place between two men. That's what's unconstitutional. It's ok to ban sodomy for everybody.

I am really upset by the comparison of homosexuality and other 'deviations.'

First of all, homosexuality is the attraction of one pubescent man to another.

Pedaphilia is attraction to a body that has not yet reached puberty. If the victims are male, it is not considered homosexuality, but child abuse.

RE: Gay Marriage in the US

I may be wrong here, but in Vermont and Hawaii, same sex marriages are legal.

Note to DK:
Homosexuals can't destroy the nuclear family. It died in the sixties and seventies with interracial marriage, single parenthood, etc, becoming ok. The only thing that died was a specific ideal of what a 'nuclear family' should be. America has yet to collapse.

On a more archaic note:
A response to the polygamy comparison. Polygamy has never been considered a disorder. However, until DSM 3, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, along with fetishism, and pedaphilia.

I hope I have brought the discussion back to the root. Now all I have to do is wait until someone responds by taking me out of context and make flip comments.

There are, in the world, three kinds of falsehood: "lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Peace

dk

Hi Ricomise,
Thank you for a thoughtful response. I agree gay culture presents many difficult problems at many levels that defy solutions like gay marriage.

Ricomise: I believe where we may differ about this is that "gay culture" has a "product" that is "marketable." As I see it, "gay culture," as you have defined it, if it exists, exists because there are homosexuals in the population, not vice versa. Although this may seem to be a truism, I think it is a key point regarding this idea of "marketing to youth." It seems to me that many, if not most gay people are gay, (or at least "predisposed" to it; I don't particularly want to become involved in a "nature vs. nurture" argument.) before, or without any exposure to "gay culture." After all, there were homosexuals in society long before this culture you speak of rose to the level of prominance you believe it to have. This being the case, I don't see what "gay culture" is marketing, other than the idea of acceptance of homosexuals as equal members of society, as a group, with the rights and responsibilities that go with that acceptance. Of course if an individual acts irresponsibly, that individual must face the consequences. (Incidentally, many states have laws on the books that punish anyone with HIV that has sex without disclosing that status to his/her partner, regardless of sexual orientation.) If it is this acceptance that is being "marketed," then I must admit, I'm in favor of it.
dk: I think “personal responsibility” is one of the great delusions post modern people inherited from modern culture. The idea of personal responsibility implies we control our destiny if we are sufficiently responsible. Personal responsibility presume some magical power consummate with the obligations, and no such power exists in the material world. No parent is responsible for a child, whether the child becomes a Noble Prize Winner or a serial murderer, parents simply don’t have the power. The best any of us can do is our best, and pray its good enough.
dk: The Clinton impeachment media show normalized lies, infidelity and sex with political intercourse. It was the undeniable gravitas of the proceedings magnified by the media day in and day out, month after month without apology that scandalized youth with an insanity that can only be described as destructive, senseless and irrational. I’m no fan of Clinton, but the sum of his character was grossly distorted by the ranting of Republican political opportunists for public consumption by a ratings starved media.
dk: All social institutions from time to time need to be reformed, reconstituted, rejuvenated, restored, or even abolished, but descriptors like novel, achieve and new fail to articulate a rational basis upon which to structure reform or aim strategic direction, much less justify it. Institutions are expected to personify and govern themselves upon the principles and values they project, preserve and promulgate. A charitable institution is expected to govern itself by the altruistic principles and values, and becomes corrupt when its board of directors pilfers contributions for millions to live a life of luxury. Now here's a jump.... Modern public schools systems are founded upon a corrupt concept. School campuses begin with an artificial environment engineered to project egalitarian principles and values, then govern themselves by a strict hierarchy second only to the military. The contradiction corrupts the institutional to imbue the whole society with a schizophrenic personality disorder. In my opinion the waters of equal justice run deeper with corruption than any of us likes to admit.
First Madison is widely regarded as the architect of the triad system of checks and balances that became the Federal Constitution, and protested vehemently against Chief Justice Marshal’s Marbury decision. It is a tribute to the art of sophistry that so many lawyers and historians present the power of judicial review as a constitutional guardian. Second the power of judicial review wasn’t evoked again until Dred Scott (in 1857) to strike down the Missouri Compromise (of 1820) and lead directly to the Civil War. Third it was Plessy v. Ferguson (1900) that institutionalized, rationalized, and normalized the very Jim Crows laws that Brown struck down. I’m not saying you can’t make a case for judicial review, I’m just saying you can’t make it on the basis of the constitution.

dk

Hi pleasant_darktwist,

pleasant_darktwist: (snip) Allow me to respond then.
The case before the supreme court is not about gay culture, in the sense that dk is thinking. The issue before the court is whether or not states can have sodomy laws that apply solely to one group.
Laws against sodomy are fine, as long as they are equally applied. Texas has a law that makes sodomy illegal, only when it takes place between two men. That's what's unconstitutional. It's ok to ban sodomy for everybody.
I am really upset by the comparison of homosexuality and other 'deviations.'
dk: Excellent job at summarizing the pro-homo position before the court. The opposing position tells the federal courts to stay out of state business because powers not granted the federal government are reserved for the states and the people, and the Supreme Court doesn’t represent either the states or the people. In 1960 all 50 states had sodomy laws on the books, and all but 13 have repealed them. This isn’t about sodomy or homosexuality but states rights and democracy.

pleasant_darktwist: First of all, homosexuality is the attraction of one pubescent man to another.
dk: Is that why the incidence of hiv/aids rate amongst gays age 13-24 have exploded since HAART treatments came online. What you meant to say was that gay culture publicly presents a “mano y mano” context, that in private expresses a man on boy (post pubescent) proclivity. In fact in an earlier post I detailed one gay teen community center that reported a 25% rate of prostitution, and 100% rate of sexual activity. Isn’t that nice.

pleasant_darktwist: Pedaphilia is attraction to a body that has not yet reached puberty. If the victims are male, it is not considered homosexuality, but child abuse.
dk: Good point, and I would add that the perpetrators of prepubescent sex crimes are almost always male contradicting mainstream “dial a sexual orientation” theory. Truth stranger than fiction laws against pedophilia are nonexistent, its a sexual disorder like impotence. In fact though women are rarely rapists, they get raped at rates few care to contemplate, much less explain, rape isn’t considered a sex crime. Another contradiction to the “dial a sexual orientation” theory. Judicial activists (socially active jurists) feel morality is unconstitutional, and relies upon the much maligned art of “folk psychology” to determine what crimes are permitted, promulgated and tolerated, and what crimes are deterred.

pleasant_darktwist: : RE: Gay Marriage in the US
I may be wrong here, but in Vermont and Hawaii, same sex marriages are legal.
dk: I believe the legal contract specifies a same sex union, and is not recognized by the other 48 states. A case of social legislation from the bench, an end-run through the courts.

pleasant_darktwist: Note to DK:
Homosexuals can't destroy the nuclear family. It died in the sixties and seventies with interracial marriage, single parenthood, etc, becoming ok. The only thing that died was a specific ideal of what a 'nuclear family' should be. America has yet to collapse.
On a more archaic note:
A response to the polygamy comparison. Polygamy has never been considered a disorder. However, until DSM 3, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, along with fetishism, and pedaphilia.
dk: Yah, and in the 1960s public education was widely proclaimed the crown jewel of the Great Society. 30+ years later public schools are widely regarded to be in crisis, a crisis that flows red from the blood of the wounded, broken and amputated nuclear family. It’s a little early to pronounce the patent dead, and the operation a success.

pleasant_darktwist: I hope I have brought the discussion back to the root. Now all I have to do is wait until someone responds by taking me out of context and make flip comments.
There are, in the world, three kinds of falsehood: "lies, damned lies, and statistics."
dk: I don’t know what to tell you, the nuclear family remains the basic building block of civilization.

Peace

Harumi

Well, I was going to reply to dk's false accusations, but Nowhere seems to have done a good job of it already. Thank you.

Now, as for dk's comments I will respond to this:

You have obviously not defined it ad nauseum. I am not the only one who has been demanding that you do define this nonexistent "gay culture". Perhaps, for the sake of our hearts, you might do us all a favor and define it for us clearly.

An example of how you may go about this is shown here:

Gay Culture: <insert definition>

Clear and neat for everyone to see. Now why don't you do that? It will save you from popping a vein, and it will save us from having heart attacks. Don't you want everybody to be happy?

Another thing:

My health teacher is NOT pro-gay. He is pro-understanding and pro-tolerance.

There is much you can do to learn from him, so back off.