Notice

I am working on the template of this blog today in order to chase down some problems that have developed with my template and widgets.

nullspace for future use

nullspace for future use

About

Friday, November 16, 2007

Civil Rights and Choices

11/16/2007 07:56:00 AM , , 24 comments

The Carolina Stompers have some cogent thoughts on the matter.

24 comments :

Is Chad, aside from still being in need of an editor, asserting that heterosexuality is behavioral? Is he saying that heterosexuality isn't fixed at birth?

Is he suggesting that heterosexuality is a choice like rape?

This is a simple question that undergirds his entire argument. He feels that homosexuals shouldn't have civil rights because sexuality is defined by behavior. Is heterosexuality defined by behavior? If not, then his argument is moot.

If, on the flip side, we agree that sexual orientation is an intrinsic part of being human, then heterosexuals and homosexuals are who they are, not how they act.

There are plenty of folks who'd love to have sex but haven't been able to work that out for a while. Their lack of sexual activity does not change their sexual orientation.

ENDA protects people based on sexual orientation.

This is not complicated. Chad Nesbitt is advocating discrimination against millions of Americans. It's not o.k.

So far, I haven't found any cogent thoughts in what Mr. Nesbitt wrote. All I've seen is a repetition of misinformation consistant with someone who's completely bought into Paul Cameron's fraudulent "research".

Better be careful TP. It looks like Gordon couldn't handle the argument and brought in the big guns. The ones with letters behind the name. Like Joe Kort MA, MSW, LMSW. Wow! How impressive! And then we have Jessica B. that runs a LGBT (whatever!) support group in Asheville.

You must have gotten under their skin.

So using Gordon's argument, pedophilia must be "fixed" at birth. From what I've heard, most head doctors think pedophiles are disturbed. But then homosexuality is not considered the same. Hummm! Seems very contradictory to me.

Also Kathy,

It took me a while to figure out what your paranoid ravings regarding my bringing "the big guns" meant. I now see that on an older comment thread, a guy left a link to his article.

You think I made that happen?

Don't think for a minute that you're in anything but a small, bigoted minority. The vestiges of discrimination will one day be written out of our social contract, but until then don't be surprised when folks oppose bigotry and discrimination when they see it.

Hmmm...I've been called many things, but "big gun" is a first. Let me clear some things up for you Kathy without even an initial to follow her name: I don't know Gordon Smith, so far as I know, I've never met him. Yeah, I posted a couple of comments on Scrutiny Hooligans concerning ENDA, and I think I've made a couple of other comments there. I've also made comments on other sites as well, and I'm fairly active on the C/T forums. For your information, I've been reading this site far longer than Scrutiny Hooligans, because ThunderPig gave me the link himself after a conversation we had on Matt Mittan's old yahoo chatroom.

As for "running an LGBT group", you've got that wrong as well. I'm cofounder and codirector of the local transgender support group, which has been active in Asheville since 1986. Yes, I'm transgendered, and certainly not ashamed of it, as you apparantly would wish me to be. I stand by what I posted here concerning "cogent thoughts" on the Stomper's site concerning the LGBT community. Didn't see any, just more of the same old tired anti-gay lies that the extreme right has been spewing for years.

Have a nice day, Kathy without a last name or even initial.

Gordon

Oh what insight! All I have to do is just meet a few people that are homosexual and I'll be blown away by how normal and ordinary they are. How condescending!

People involved in any other aberrant sexual appetite are also usually normal and ordinary, when met in everyday walks of life.
That proves nothing. But then unfettered sexual license is okay, just as long as we worship at the feet of the god of extreme tolerance.

And as I've always said, if anyone wishes to engage in aberrant sexual behaviors, knock yourself out, whether straight "or" gay. But brother! Don't be trying to indoctrinate kids into acceptance of radical sexual appetites in the name of unrestrained, extreme tolerance and divisive diversity in the government schools.

I hate to burst your bubble but, I have members of my extended family, both male and female that have fallen into the confusion of homosexuality. And surprise! I still love them. But I would no more give acceptance to that behavior than I would a loved one engaging in adulterous affairs.

There's a difference between love and tolerance. If you really love someone, you'll love them enough to tell them the truth. True compassionate love that seeks to provide for and protect another person's health, happiness, and spiritual growth could not comply with the cultural call of: "If you love me, you'll endorse my behavior. So my family members and I have a great relationship, because any discussions are done in a respectful loving manner.

One of my favorite quotes...
Tolerance seeks to be inoffensive; love takes risks. Tolerance is indifferent; love is active. Tolerance costs nothing; love costs everything.

And I've also been good friends with homosexuals that I've worked with. Never had any problems because they kept their private life, "private," and did not try to force acceptance by being militantly aggressive in their demeanor about it. I find it sad that homosexuals predominately define themselves by their sexuality. Straight or gay, people need to keep their sex lives to themselves.

TP is absolutely right about one thing concerning ENDA "What this type of legislation is seeking is something that cannot be forced...approval."

So, you're "good friends" with those homosexuals you worked with. If they lost their job for no other reason than being gay or lesbian, would you come to their defense? Or just tell them "too bad, you shouldn't have chosen to be gay"?

And what is sad is that people like yourself are the ones who define others by their sexuslity.

Well, well JB is back!

I never brought up the subject about needing to meet homosexuals. Your good buddy screwy hoolie did. Working hard to justify an aberrant sexual behavior by calling them "rights." You go girl!

Grdon, Oh my! I'm wounded to the core. Bigot, intolerant? Please! My I have another? Or does your "so called" tolerance only go to those you approve of. You hypocrite!

Folks I got news for you. If your looking for a bigot, and intolerance look no further than your mirror. As I said before, the left is not more tolerant, they just have different targets of intolerance.

And JB, your air of "manufactured," outrage, and moral superiority in the framing of the job question is, as usual making sure you, and yours are portrayed as victims. Predictable.

You and I both know the ACLU would be all over an employer, if it was even hinted that someone was fired because they were homosexual. Especially when there were no stipulations about appropriateness, and requirments of the employee for the job.

Example: Someone could be employed to instruct fitness classes at a health and fitness business. They knew when they were hired that fitness and normal weight were a requirement for the job. (That's a job appropriate employee.) But then their weight balloons to 350lbs and they are eventually fired. So by your logic they would then take on the role of victim, and would subsequently sue for that blatant, and egregious job discrimination against fat people. Give me a break! Same scenario could go for many other jobs out there.

And in most cases, can it really be proven why anyone is fired? Sometimes yes, but most of the time no. That's the point. I've seen people fired for all kinds of reasons. Whether I spoke up or not, would not have made any difference, if a suspicion could not be proven. No matter the reason for the firing. Justified or not. And before I loose my job for speaking up, the suspicion of an unjustified firing had bloody well be provable.

The folks I worked with minded their own business, did their job, and kept their private life, private. They didn't portray themselves as victims and put their sexual proclivities on display, or militantly demand approval of how, and with who they had sex with.

Oh and by the way, the ones always bringing up their sex life are homosexuals. They militantly "demand" approval and acceptance by forcing society to affirm their behavior, regardless of other people's moral beliefs about it. No one would know who or what they are sleeping with if they didn't tell everyone. It's none of any bodies business.

And we now have a prime example of the gay agenda in the removing of traditional family terms like Mother, Father, Husband and Wife from Calf. textbooks. The militant homosexual lobby and their supporters have demanded that gender neutral terms now be used in all California textbooks.

What price is the historical traditional family structure going to pay for the validation of someones radical sexual appetite?

And the question is always ask, how can homosexual marriage, and the gay agenda effect anyone else's family, marriage or life. And now we have evidence of how it most certainly can. Insanity!! Pure insanity!! But not without a fight!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130

"aberrant sexual behavior"

Huh.

What would you define as "non-aberrant"?

If heterosexuals have oral sex, is that aberrant? What about anal? What about dirty talk? What about role playing? What about lingerie?

When you create the manual for what's aberrant and what's not, then maybe we can have this conversation, but until then it looks like this is your definition:

"If I do it, it's not aberrant".

So do you wish to "promote" any and every "aberrant" sexual practice to school kids? Are you so lacking in discernment that for the sake of unbridled and unrestrained sexual freedom you will warp the minds of the young to all manner of perversions? Or do you even acknowledge that sexual perversion exists?

Will you be happy when the militant homosexual lobby and supporters like yourself have school classes instructing kids how to go about the practice of "fisting"? Would that make everyone equal, and insure nondiscrimination? If that is what your advocating for then heaven help the poor families and kids that come to you for guidance.

The “gay rights” movement sees the application of any standards as wrong.

"Aberrant" Heterosexual sex is not advisable to be encouraged to our kids ether. That is my main concern. The indoctrination of American kids by the unrestrained, no boundaries, morally challenged Socialist libertines of Marxism.
Gradual normalization of perversion -- "defining decency down" -- is a Gramscian tool used to considerable effect by the homosexual movement and their supporters.

Tammy Bruce in her book "The
Death of Right and Wrong." (A self avowed homosexual that I have great respect for,) said "The goal of the “Left Elite,” is to create a world where there is: “No judgment, no conclusions, no reality, no rules, no personal responsibility, and No guilt or innocence.”

I have no concern whats-so-ever with whatever perverse sexual appetites anyone wishes to engage in the privacy of their bedroom, (and within the confines of the law.) Though some practices have decidedly unhealthy and unhygienic consequences for the individual and society at large. My only concern is the indoctrination of kids in the government schools to every manner of perversion

Quoting Tammy Bruce:
The “Left Elite” also sees “all behaviors as morally relative and beyond judgment.” To push that agenda on a society with a rich Judeo-Christian heritage is a big job. There has to be an all out effort to “LITERALLY CHANGE WHAT THINGS MEAN.”

Defining terms and making judgments about "what is" is a critical aspect of the discussion over “sexual orientation.” When you control the language, you control the debate. And the militant homosexuals and their supporters have definitely hijacked the language.

Part of the challenge we face as humans in seeking the structure of society that works best (the ancient Greeks called this "the good") – is facing up to the fact that at times, judgments have to be made about what’s healthy and what’s not – what’s normal and what’s not.

Those whose feelings are hurt by such judgments should seek counseling rather than trying to impose ridiculous views – such as the idea that gender confusion is not a mental illness – on the rest of society.

So what's aberrant and what's not? I missed that part in your diatribe.

Who decides? Me? You? The government? The Church? It's a tough question, don't you think?

ENDA simply provides for non-discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation. If you believe that people ought to be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation, then you'll oppose ENDA. If you think people shouldn't be discriminated against, you'll support it.

It's really that simple, and it's really clear where you come in on this.

You choose to discriminate because you think it's right to discriminate. So be it.

And, for the record, I don't think I ought to promote any sexual behavior to anyone (except maybe my wife ;) )

Well said TP! Here's a very insightful read from a life long homosexual man. It's a little long, but worth the time to see what he eventually realized about the gay rights movement.

THE BOOKS WERE A FRONT FOR THE PORN
The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement

February 2006
By Ronald G. Lee
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/BksFrntPorn.htm

What were headed for is Pan-Sexuality.

Pan-sexuality ('pan' means 'all') is the notion that all forms of sexual expression are morally equal, that the only question is whether it makes you feel "good" or "fulfilled". Most adherents of this view say that forced participation (rape) is not allowed. But that is just good PR. When morality goes "relative", it goes relative all the way. And then there is no moral principle left to say "no" to sexual abuse and rape by force or manipulation or deceit.

And your so right about the events leading to the American Psychiatric Association's removal of homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

One important task of the militant homosexual lobby and their supporters within the APA was to stop the American Psychiatric Association from defining homosexuality as a mental illness. In his book “Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis,” Dr. Ronald Bayer chronicled how aggressive homosexual activists successfully pressured the APA in the early 1970s to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. The APA claims it did so because of science.

In reaching their decision, the APA chose to ignore the important characteristics of homosexual behavior and instead made a political decision based on the personal values of certain APA members.

Earlier generations didn’t waste time debating whether it was normal or abnormal when a man thought he was a woman (or visa versa). Their basic assumption was that a screw was loose.

But don't get me wrong. I have great sympathy for those seeking help and understanding for their perceived sexual confusion. They need support in their struggle. But I have very little when "militant" homosexuals, and the alphabet lists of the sexual confused indoctrinate our young, redefine marriage, destroy any kind of sexual boundaries, which in turn damages the cornerstone of any society the family. And through force of government demand "special" rights.

Sorry Kathy. I asked you a question, you didn't answer it, but went off on an anti-gay rant once again. Obviously, you wouldn't support your "friends". Why am I not surprised...

If there is a hypocrite here, it's you.

ThunderPig, you surprise me. When we spoke, you seemed like a reasonable, rational, thinking person. With this, you've shown that you've completely bought into the Paul Cameron crowd and their lies, and frankly that isn't reasonable or rational.

Sorry, I've been busy, and am late to the party...

Jessica B:

I believe consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want behind closed doors.

That they should receive government sanction I am against.

We may have a mutual friend in Asheville. His real name is David, and his stage name is Victoria (not sure on the spelling). As far as I know, he is homeless, and spends part of the year in Asheville.
He will know me by the name Unabomber circa 2003/2004 in Asheville. That was the last time I saw him/her.

Gordon:
Cat got yer tongue? or can I mark that up as a victory for me?

Cat got my tongue about what, TP?

And, no, there's no victory for you in espousing discrimination.

And, Kathy, you're from a different planet than most, a planet where imaginary worst case scenarios outweigh present-day realities.

Gordon; Do those "closed doors" extend to prohibiting a gay or lesbian person from having a photo of their long-term, monogamous partner on their desk, or is that too "in your face"? I personally know people who were fired from their jobs for no other reason than what they do "behind closed doors", whether it involves a partner or just the clothes they have in their closet. Is requiring that they be judged not on this, but on their actual job qualifications "government sanction" in your opinion?

David/Victoria doesn't ring a bell, but then I'm terrible with names. I can't help but wonder if this person lost their home due to discrimination. It happens.

Today, November 20th, is the National Transgendered Day of Remembrance. For more info, go to www.rememberingourdead.com.

Sorry JB but your mistaken. I clearly answered the questions. I do not have blind locality to anyone, even my own family members concerning every situation. As I said before, your so good at playing the "poor me", victim card that you "refuse" to acknowledge not every situation is cut and dried concerning allegations of discrimination.

Clear enough for you?

(Quote)
<>And, Kathy, you're from a different planet than most, a planet where imaginary worst case scenarios outweigh present-day realities.<>

Imaginary?? The militant homosexual lobby is already teaching and indoctrinating school kids in Massachusetts by instructing them in the practice of fisting.
http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/glsen_043005/black_book/black_book_inside.htm

I would call this practice aberrant, wouldn't you? And if you do not, you truly are lacking moral clarity. An individuals private life is one thing, but teaching and advocating for "aberrant" and base sexual appetites to our kids is another. The only sex ed (if at all) that should be taught in schools is the historical, traditional concepts of sexuality. The indoctrination of our children with these base and perverse sexual practices should be stopped.

Then we have the Calf. Textbooks where traditional family gender terms are being removed. Is that okay with you to? As I said, it's about what kind of society we wish to raise our kids in.

Your the one that lives in bizarro world, by totally ignoring and "refusing" to acknowledge the incremental creep of the perverse.

Quoting Tammy Bruce, a self-professed pro-choicer, feminist, and lesbian.
“I believe this grab for children by sexually confused adults represents the most serious problem facing our culture today.”

“For people whose entire identity and reason to live is based in their sexuality, what do they need to do in order to fit comfortably into our society? They must work to sexualize every part of society—and, as every good marketer knows, that effort must begin with children.

Quoting Tammy Bruce again...
The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) describes itself as ‘the leading national organization fighting to end anti-gay bias in K-12 schools.’ This organization, which cloaks itself in a mantra about ‘tolerance’ and ‘understanding,’ is implementing programs in public schools that are aimed at nothing less than sexualizing your children.”

Hey Jessica,

I think you got my name mixed up with one of kathy's comments 8-).

She thinks you're an aberrant perv. I think you're a human being with rights just like me and Kathy.

Kathy thinks you're going to fist her children. I think you're going to empower a lot of people to pursue their dreams of harmony and wholeness.

Sorry about that Mr. Smith! When it comes right down to it, I really don't care what Kathy thinks about me. She's entitled to her opinions, misinformed and smallminded as they may be.

Yes Kathy, I realize many discrimination cases are far from "cut and dried". And when you actually get the facts about LGBT people, maybe you'll realize that they are rarely "cut and dried" either, unlike the myths and lies you believe about them.

Gordon

I gave you examples of the steady progression of perversion being taught to America's kids, as well as the beginning dismantlement of traditional gender terms for families in public school textbooks. But you conveniently choose to ignore where this unfettered, extreme and radical agenda is taking us. Because you worship at the foot of exaggerated, extreme tolerance.

I see you've lost the argument. Misdirection is then used to change the subject. That's the reason you've not answered any of my questions.

You just can't bring yourself to say you have "any" standards of sexual behavior that should be taught to our kids in public school.

The ones who are going to encourage and demand these prevented sexual practices being taught to our kids are you, along with the rest of the radical left. Fortunately there are still "some" traditional Democrat conservatives that will stand up and fight against this insidious indoctrination of our children. Because none of the radical left have enough moral clarity to even come out against pedophilia. Some people are truly useful idiots.

Don't give me that standard boilerplate, conservative nonsense about how I didn't answer your patently absurd questions. Your framing is terrible, and I can't squeeze myself into your narrow thinking long enough to even understand how you can dismiss so many people based on the actions of a very few. Not to mention the fact that you think homosexuals are sinners bound for the lake of fire.

You're immovable, so I've stopped trying. Next time you get your taxes done, your car repaired, your child operated on, your food served, know that there's a good chance the work is being done by an "aberrant" American who you would deny basic civl rights.

The end.

Huh? Looks like were a little testy. LOL

Guess losing an argument will make some people that way. Sorry Gordon, you can talk in circles about not answering my questions. The point being, YOU HAVEN'T!

The questions I ask were to the point and relative to the evidence I provided you, concerning what is now being encouraged and taught in schools. And to the realities of present situations.

Have I brought the topics of "hell fire" into this conversation at any point? No! You did! Your hatred of people of faith, and of Christianity is palpable. And you call yourself, oh so tolerant!

Do I care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms? NO! My concern is for the indoctrination of our children in the government schools.

But you "still" ignore the questions about gender terms in school text books, and what kind of sexual behaviors should be taught in our public schools. You just can't answer those questions, because then you would have to commit to the idea that "there is" some sort of standards concerning what is taught in our public schools.

This is a cultural and societal issue concerning the "healthy" instruction of our kids in public schools.

(Quote)
<>Next time you get your taxes done, your car repaired, your child operated on, your food served, know that there's a good chance the work is being done by an "aberrant" American who you would deny basic civil rights.<>

So Gordon, which of the below "ABERRANT" sexual practices do you think "should" be taught to our kids in public schools, and which should not? Or do you have any discerning preference concerning any of them? Should there be any sexual practices we "should" discriminate against, pertaining to the teaching, encouraging and condoning of the sexual practice to our kids?

And your manufactured moral outrage, could also pertain to "all" of the orientations below. I'm sure people that practice any one, or more of the orientations listed below also do service work. So it looks like what your saying is "none" of the orientations listed below should be discriminated against when it comes to teaching it to our children. Right? You are a sad case of moral relativism, and have blind hatred of traditional, historical values.

The American Psychiatric Association recognizes at least 23 “sexual orientations.

Person who are “oriented” bisexual, exhibitionist, sexual sadist, necrophilia, autogynephilia, voyeurism, exhibitionism, zoophilia, necrophilia, klismaphilia, urophilia, or coprophilia. By the way, that such an individual claims to have been “born that way” is immaterial.

The above list is only a few of the “orientations.” Another one is that of “Gender Identity Disorder” – which despite efforts of social extremists is still considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association. It’s important to note that “Gays” and “Lesbians” lock arms with those sad mentally ill individuals – that’s what the “T” is (“transgendered”) in LGBT.

Post a Comment