Found this article, what do you think?

[LightHorseman]

This all may be true, but humans do a lot of irrational things that are protected. I can go to McDonald's every day, for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. HIGHLY irrational, since my body is not going to function very well for very long on this diet, but nobody would try to prevent me from doing so legally.

That we deem an action irrational should not be the baseline for determining what people should have the right to do in a free society.

Indeed, good point. Many many irrational things protected by law and society. The Macca's example was a good one. I'd cite professional sport as another.

 

[Inviolable]

How do you think they should go about seeking equality then?

By finding out what it is people have against them or maybe consider other options. Something other then prejudice, which is all I ever see them use.
Ever.

To you, quite possibly. But do not make the mistake of projecting your subjective opinion onto the population in general.Slippery slope? Really? *sigh* OK, as I'm sure I've told you before, and if not me, many others have... the difference with homosexuality, yes, it is a minority behaviour, but unlike beastiality, incest, paedophilia, and the usual charges thrown out at this point of the conversation, homosexuality occurs with the adult consent of all involved, whereas the other examples do not. So you can slippery slope all you like, but I will go out and say that NO activity, minority or not, "odd" or not, that goes on with the consent of all major parties and doesn't harm anyone else, should be permitted. I defy you to find one that should not be.

Sorry about the incest thing, wasn't meant to go in here yet.
I've been reposting things I've made in other post. It's kind of cool to see how long the conversation will stay exactly as predicted.
That and I'm lazy.
Oh wait. I didn't use incest did I?
No, that's an assumption you made, I knew incest would come up though.
Good thing I have it saved for later.

I have an indecent where odd behavior doesn't hurt anyone else or the parties involved and is not permitted. By law.
I know a guy who has conversations with President Nixon. He also pays his bills on time, keeps his house and yard clean and is forced by a judge to take medication. All the meds do is stop his conversations.

Um, no... that way you get a completely subjective view of "normal". Normality is determined purely by prevalence and patternation.

Cool,
I'll use that as well next time some pro gay person ask me what normal is.

Then please, explain your "rational" view that clearly shows homosexuals as wanting to change or convert otherwise heterosexual people into homosexuals?

I'm not actually saying, they want to change people into homosexuals.
You made that assumption.
I'm saying, they're going about getting their rights in a peculiar way.
Which may or may not make it look that way because the actions taken thus far to gain their rights look suspicious.

 

[Inviolable]

This all may be true, but humans do a lot of irrational things that are protected. I can go to McDonald's every day, for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. HIGHLY irrational, since my body is not going to function very well for very long on this diet, but nobody would try to prevent me from doing so legally.

That we deem an action irrational should not be the baseline for determining what people should have the right to do in a free society.

Second response.


First off, no one ever intentionally drives off a cliff unless they're homicidal. So if it's done intentionally, it is an irrational act.
If you're saying homosexuals go about being homosexual and it's unintentional, then I can agree with that.
But again, just about every single person who is abnormal is so not by choice.

 

[b&wpac4]

Second response.


First off, no one ever intentionally drives off a cliff unless they're homicidal. So if it's done intentionally, it is an irrational act.
If you're saying homosexuals go about being homosexual and it's unintentional, then I can agree with that.
But again, just about every single person who is abnormal is so not by choice.

I fail to see what connects my post to this. I also don't understand what "second response" means in this post.

 

[LightHorseman]

By finding out what it is people have against them or maybe consider other options. Something other then prejudice, which is all I ever see them use.
Ever.

a. I don't think it really matters what your justification for inequality is... inequality is still inequality.

But shoot, other than prejudice, what do people have against homosexuals?

Sorry about the incest thing, wasn't meant to go in here yet.
I've been reposting things I've made in other post. It's kind of cool to see how long the conversation will stay exactly as predicted.
That and I'm lazy.
Oh wait. I didn't use incest did I?
No, that's an assumption you made, I knew incest would come up though.
Good thing I have it saved for later.

Nice tapdancing. Now address the point that homosexuality is a consentual activity between two adults, whereas the other examples are not. THATS the difference.

I have an indecent where odd behavior doesn't hurt anyone else or the parties involved and is not permitted. By law.
I know a guy who has conversations with President Nixon. He also pays his bills on time, keeps his house and yard clean and is forced by a judge to take medication. All the meds do is stop his conversations.

You have either been misinformed, or are doing the missinforming. Judges are not able to compel people to take medication without extremely good reason, usually on the order of the person being a danger to others. If your friend is harmless in his delusion, no judge anywhere can force him to take his medication, nor should he be able to.

Cool,
I'll use that as well next time some pro gay person ask me what normal is.

Please do. Because it makes homosexuality "normal", since it exists in a predictable percentage of the population at all times.

I'm not actually saying, they want to change people into homosexuals.
You made that assumption.

Don't play "imply then deny" with me! You have made lots of statements that strongly suggest that this is EXACTLY what you think, that homosexuals want to change people.

I'm saying, they're going about getting their rights in a peculiar way.

How do you think they should try top get their rights? Sit quietly and wait for the majority to take notice?

Which may or may not make it look that way because the actions taken thus far to gain their rights look suspicious.

Please cite, specifically, what you think looks "suspicious"?

 

[Inviolable]

I'm getting bad reception, so this might be my last post tonight.

a. I don't think it really matters what your justification for inequality is... inequality is still inequality.

My point isn't to keep them unequal. If that's the way you want to see it, then that's how you're going to see it.
My point is to point out that the tactic of using prejudice to build an argument for rights isn't working for homosexuals. "At least in the U.S."
So maybe they should examine the reasons people are using against them for rights a little further.
It seems as if they're simply happy blaming it on prejudice and moving along.
That's the reason in and of itself.

But shoot, other than prejudice, what do people have against homosexuals?

I think the biggest problem people in the US are having is the fact that homosexuals want to be seen just like everyone else.
And they should, for someone to say, they're not sounds completely prejudice.
But at the same time what makes this country so great is that we're made up of so many different kinds of people.
I truly believe America prides itself on showing the world that no matter who or what you are you have a place with us.

That's why the homosexual problem is the way it is. They can have gay pride parades and let everyone know they're people too.
However, you never see them admit that they're different because they're gay. I know that sounds contradictory. As if the gay pride parades wouldn't be admitting who they are.

It's not as if they're fighting to be accepted as homosexuals. They're fighting to be seen like everyone else.
Well, this is the US and everyone else isn't in the same category.
Everyone else fought to be seen for what they were.
If the country was built on the need to be who you are. People get a sneaky suspicion when someone says, Look at me! I'm exactly like you! Give us our rights now.

Are you going to ask a African American to act like a white guy because it'll help with equality?
No?
Then why base your entire argument on how much like heterosexuals homosexuals are?

Nice tapdancing. Now address the point that homosexuality is a consentual activity between two adults, whereas the other examples are not. THATS the difference.You have either been misinformed, or are doing the missinforming. Judges are not able to compel people to take medication without extremely good reason, usually on the order of the person being a danger to others. If your friend is harmless in his delusion, no judge anywhere can force him to take his medication, nor should he be able to.

Even if a persons actions have not harmed anyone else or themselves their state of mind can be brought into question and they can be forced by law to loose some of their rights.

Please do. Because it makes homosexuality "normal", since it exists in a predictable percentage of the population at all times.

Well, now I know why you insist on using it.

Don't play "imply then deny" with me! You have made lots of statements that strongly suggest that this is EXACTLY what you think, that homosexuals want to change people.How do you think they should try top get their rights? Sit quietly and wait for the majority to take notice?Please cite, specifically, what you think looks "suspicious"?

No tap dancing, I'll link you the site I'm bringing old responses from later and I'm pretty sure in every response I've given, "or almost every" there were words to follow such as. "I've made it a point to show where homosexuals are going about getting their equality in an odd way"

Again, you've seen what you wanted to see.

 

[Inviolable]

I fail to see what connects my post to this. I also don't understand what "second response" means in this post.

I apologize,

You had a good post and I didn't want to seem like I was ignoring it. Just having a connection problem with the wireless.

I'll respond properly at a later date when I have a better connection.

 

[Andreusz]

I'm saying, they're going about getting their rights in a peculiar way.
Which may or may not make it look that way because the actions taken thus far to gain their rights look suspicious.

What do you find peculiar about the way that gays in the US are going about getting their rights?

 

[Inviolable]

What do you find peculiar about the way that gays in the US are going about getting their rights?

#126

 

[Psudopod]

a. I don't think it really matters what your justification for inequality is... inequality is still inequality.

My point isn't to keep them unequal. If that's the way you want to see it, then that's how you're going to see it.
My point is to point out that the tactic of using prejudice to build an argument for rights isn't working for homosexuals. "At least in the U.S."

Can you expand on this a bit? I’m not sure what you mean.

But shoot, other than prejudice, what do people have against homosexuals?
I think the biggest problem people in the US are having is the fact that homosexuals want to be seen just like everyone else.
And they should, for someone to say, they're not sounds completely prejudice.
But at the same time what makes this country so great is that we're made up of so many different kinds of people.
I truly believe America prides itself on showing the world that no matter who or what you are you have a place with us.

That's why the homosexual problem is the way it is. They can have gay pride parades and let everyone know they're people too.
However, you never see them admit that they're different because they're gay. I know that sounds contradictory. As if the gay pride parades wouldn't be admitting who they are.

It's not as if they're fighting to be accepted as homosexuals. They're fighting to be seen like everyone else.
Well, this is the US and everyone else isn't in the same category.
Everyone else fought to be seen for what they were.
If the country was built on the need to be who you are. People get a sneaky suspicion when someone says, Look at me! I'm exactly like you! Give us our rights now.

Are you going to ask a African American to act like a white guy because it'll help with equality?
No?

But for the main part they are just like everyone else. There’s no cultural difference because homosexuality is not culturally dictated, nor is there any obvious physiological difference. You put a black man and a white man together, you can spot which is which. You put a man and a woman together, again, you can see which is which. But stand a straight man next to a gay one and there is nothing to say which way round they are.

Even if they were, it doesn’t change the fact that it is rights that is being fought for. A black man can stand up and say “I’m black, I’, different and I’m proud” and he can go off and marry who he wants, as long as it’s a woman. A woman can say she is proud to be female and different, and she can go and marry who she chooses, as long as it’s a man.

Please do. Because it makes homosexuality "normal", since it exists in a predictable percentage of the population at all times.

Well, now I know why you insist on using it.

Because abnormal has the connotation of being wrong. There are plenty of uncommon traits in humans, such as blue eyes, red hair, lefthandedness, but we don’t consider these abnormal, do we?

 

[LightHorseman]

#126

Actually, in 126 you just made the assertion that the way gays are going about getting equal rights is unusual or suspect. You didn't actually explain what is unusual or suspect about them.

 

[Inviolable]

Can you expand on this a bit? I’m not sure what you mean.

It was highlighted in the paragraph below this one.

But for the main part they are just like everyone else. There’s no cultural difference because homosexuality is not culturally dictated, nor is there any obvious physiological difference. You put a black man and a white man together, you can spot which is which. You put a man and a woman together, again, you can see which is which. But stand a straight man next to a gay one and there is nothing to say which way round they are.

Even if they were, it doesn’t change the fact that it is rights that is being fought for. A black man can stand up and say “I’m black, I’, different and I’m proud” and he can go off and marry who he wants, as long as it’s a woman. A woman can say she is proud to be female and different, and she can go and marry who she chooses, as long as it’s a man.

I've already made a post covering this, a few times, in this thread.
Could you make a point so clear as the one I've made in the post you quoted?
If you can you might be able to see my frustration in these back handed attempts.

Because abnormal has the connotation of being wrong. There are plenty of uncommon traits in humans, such as blue eyes, red hair, lefthandedness, but we don’t consider these abnormal, do we?

I see what you're saying, I even pointed it out. I even demonstrated how a persons personal bias can effect their actions.
Are you saying homosexuals are limited to being left handed and having blue eyes and red hair?

 

[LightHorseman]

So, are you going to explain what you find suspect about the way homosexuals are seeking equal rights, or are you just going to point to posts where you claim to have already explained it?

 

[AdamClarke]

Wow this has really gotten off topic.

 

[Inviolable]

So, are you going to explain what you find suspect about the way homosexuals are seeking equal rights, or are you just going to point to posts where you claim to have already explained it?

Chill dude,
I told you my wireless is acting up.

In actuality, that's the question I've been asking you all along and what you pointed out as a homophobia. You're assumption was that I was actually denying homosexuals their rights because I thought their behavior was odd.
In fact, I was asking you why they were going about getting their rights in such an odd way.

So, now that I think the matter has been cleared up.
Why is it so odd in how homosexuals go after their rights?

 

[LightHorseman]

Chill dude,
I told you my wireless is acting up.

In actuality, that's the question I've been asking you all along and what you pointed out as a homophobia. You're assumption was that I was actually denying homosexuals their rights because I thought their behavior was odd.
In fact, I was asking you why they were going about getting their rights in such an odd way.

So, now that I think the matter has been cleared up.
Why is it so odd in how homosexuals go after their rights?

*blink* Seriously... what?

Lets try to make this simple...

Yes or no, do you think there is something odd about the way homosexuals are trying to get equal rights?

If your answer was yes, please explain what you find "odd".

For the record, I don't see anything particularly odd about the way the gay rights movement is seeking equality.

 

[Inviolable]

*blink* Seriously... what?

Lets try to make this simple...

Yes or no, do you think there is something odd about the way homosexuals are trying to get equal rights?

If your answer was yes, please explain what you find "odd".

For the record, I don't see anything particularly odd about the way the gay rights movement is seeking equality.

HAHA!
Wait...
You're saying you didn't understand this?

I think the biggest problem people in the US are having is the fact that homosexuals want to be seen just like everyone else.
And they should, for someone to say, they're not sounds completely prejudice.
But at the same time what makes this country so great is that we're made up of so many different kinds of people.
I truly believe America prides itself on showing the world that no matter who or what you are you have a place with us.

That's why the homosexual problem is the way it is. They can have gay pride parades and let everyone know they're people too.
However, you never see them admit that they're different because they're gay. I know that sounds contradictory. As if the gay pride parades wouldn't be admitting who they are.

It's not as if they're fighting to be accepted as homosexuals. They're fighting to be seen like everyone else.
Well, this is the US and everyone else isn't in the same category.
Everyone else fought to be seen for what they were.
If the country was built on the need to be who you are. People get a sneaky suspicion when someone says, Look at me! I'm exactly like you! Give us our rights now.

Are you going to ask a African American to act like a white guy because it'll help with equality?
No?
Then why base your entire argument on how much like heterosexuals homosexuals are?

 

[Inviolable]

Wow this has really gotten off topic.

It seems to be going along with the article.

I apologize if I've derailed your OP.

 

[LightHorseman]

HAHA!
Wait...
You're saying you didn't understand this?

Um, apparently not.

You think its odd that they want to be seen like everyone else, is that right?

 

[Inviolable]

Um, apparently not.

You think its odd that they want to be seen like everyone else, is that right?

I think it's odd that they want to be seen "exactly" like everyone else.

Hence the reference.
"Are you going to ask a African American to act like a white guy because it'll help with equality?
No?
Then why base your entire argument on how much like heterosexuals homosexuals are?"

You know so,
Why base your entire argument on how much like heterosexuals homosexuals are?