To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 26029
26028  |  26030
Subject: 
Re: Why these news groups were created
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 24 Sep 2004 03:40:20 GMT
Viewed: 
1999 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:

   First off, if you uniformly hate a group because of an inherent characteristic of that group, then it is reasonable for an observer to conclude that you also hate the members of that group who also have that characteristic. To say that you don’t hate the members of a group that you do hate, when “membership” in that group is determined solely by having the hated-by-you characteristic of that group, then you are not simply bigoted--you’re nonsensical.

Sir,

I see from your post that you have a child. Consider this:

According to your reasoning, parents (you) must hate their (your) children because they are disobedient, poop in their diapers, write on the walls, and get the flu at the most inconvenient times.

This is a perfect example of hating what someone does, but not hating the person themselves. (Most) Parents love their children because they are valuable human beings, and this guy’s point is exactly the same: children may do bad things at times, but the parent loves the child anyway. Now, don’t go assume that I’m equating homosexuals with children, because that’s just an illustration of my point.
  
   what bothers me is that not only are homosexuals trying to get the world to accept them, they are practically shoving their lifestyle down our throats.

Again with the mixed metaphors? What is it with homophobes and the need to use “down my throat” and “thrusting in my face” as such common images when discussing homosexuality? Your hot, steamy invective really gets my rhetorical pulse throbbing!

Hmmm... I think the so-called “homophobes” are simply frustrated with having a decision made for them and then forced upon them. It is their right as a human being to decide what they want to believe and what they don’t want to believe. Homosexuality advocates need to learn that they can’t force people to think as they do, and if they truly practice this “tolerance” they speak of, they will graciously allow other people to have their say. I can say right now that other people in this thread prominently display that they believe they are the source of infallible truth.

  
   i go back to my original point of this whole thing: WHAT DOES LEGO HAVE TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUALITY? why must they (you--or whatever) bring homosexuality into every part of our lives? i see it in magazines, t.v., movies, books, newspapers. IT DOESN”T BELONG IN A LEGO NEWSGROUP! i don’t talk about heterosexual things here, so why do you have to talk about homosexual things?

No one is preventing you from discussing heterosexual things, whatever those may be. When I announced the birth of my son, no militant homosexuals denounced me for proclaiming my heterosexuality. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to prevent people from discussing homosexual things, whatever those may be.

I believe his point can best be articulated like this: It’s a matter of manners; I don’t blatantly proclaim my sexuality, and I would appreciate it if you would act in a similar manner. Many people feel that the request for a LGBT newsgroup is a request for special attention/blatant proclomation of sexuality. This is what upsets them, not the fact that people are gay (1).

   What if one of your children turns out to be gay? Will you condemn that child to spend his or her life thinking that he or she is not okay, simply because of your value system? What kind of parent would inflict this cruelty on a child?

This returns to your fallacy in thinking that hating an action (or lifestyle) precludes loving a person. Some people find it a hard concept to understand, but it’s really quite simple.

   I understand it, and I’d wager that Chris understands it. But you’ve made a serious logical mistake to compare homosexuality with smoking, and you seem not to understand it. Smoking is a voluntary action undertaken by a person who has made the effort to acquire, light, and inhale the smoke of cigarettes (or pipe, or whatever). Homosexuality is part of a person’s identity, just as heterosexuality is part of your identity.

This may not be entirely true; many, many people believe that homosexuality is a choice. One of the major arguments for homosexuality is that it’s simply a lifestyle choice. Who says it’s natural in the first place? Doesn’t the theory of evolution make homosexuality impractical? Supposing evolution is fact, all homosexual creatures would have died off millions of years ago because they could never produce offspring.

Sir, I hope you can learn to abandon your fallacies of thinking and approach this subject in the future with more objective thinking.

Andrew

(1) Granted, there are people who get upset about people being gay. I simply state that a large number, if not a majority, of the protesters are upset as I describe them in this point.



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Why these news groups were created
 
(...) I beg your pardon? Do you actually hate these actions when performed by a child? That strikes me as a dangerous lack of self-control on the part of a parent. Wall-writing, diaper-pooping, and flu-getting are parts of being a child; a person (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
  Re: Why these news groups were created
 
(...) Yes, until they try to dictate the behavior of others based on their own sense of morality. You can be a homophobe all you want, but the line is crossed when you try to restrict them from having the same freedom to participate that heteros (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Why these news groups were created
 
(...) Then you've been lucky not to have been exposed to reality, since you have been given such an inadequate set of tools for dealing with it. If you are in a position to save either one innocent person or a pair of innocent people from certain (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR