Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Homosexual Urban Legends...the series.

Homosexual Urban Legends...the series. (Page 4)
Thread Tools
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 7, 2004, 11:50 PM
 
Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:


Umm, he IS being civil. So am I. And he is correct, in order to logically discuss an issue you need to have a reference point where both sides are in agreement. Since your fundamental beliefs about homosexuality are diamterically opposed to those of MacGorilla, there is no possible way the two of you can debate/discuss anything.
[/QUOTE]

Then what is the point of all of the other GAY IS GREAT threads? Is it okay to discuss as long as you can have an orgy of agreement while you stand in attention to perversion?
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 12:05 AM
 
All I am going to add (as it always seems everyone is open minded except for the other guy) the following:

I really don’t have any problem with gay people. Its okay. What you do in the privacy of your own home is cool. If you want to have sex with your cat or your brother (legal age of consent is still a requirement), hey, that’s cool too. Just accept it for what it is.

There is something called Gender Identity Disorder (GID), when men are more comfortable in the opposite sex’s positions (wearing clothing and such). This is a fully documented disorder.

There is also a well documented disorder in which people prefer masturbation to having actual sex. Masturbating while “wanting” to have sex with another person is not a disorder, it’s a fantasy. But, lets say, having sex and wishing instead that you were masturbating is a disorder. Again, nothing wrong with that. Actually, that’s a disorder I WISH I had, would save me A LOT of money.

So is being gay. There’s nothing wrong with being gay, as there is nothing wrong with having a disorder. But, changing the name to make yourself feel “normal” is ignorance. People should not try to feel “normal” they should try to be themselves. If anything, people should have more tolerance for others with mental and physical disorders. Just as someone may have turrets, or GID, these people still deserve respect. Disorders are part of our personality. Hell, most of America has some kind of disorder. If you have ADD, then you cannot be angry because another person is gay.

But, sadly the gays do not want to see it this way. The honest truth, many gay people are the ones who are closed minded, along with the people who dislike them.

I have friends who are gay, and its all good. But they do have disorders. A disorder is doing anything away from the natural norm. “Wanting” to drink milk though your nose is a disorder. As when you are thirsty, drinking with your mouth is the natural process. BUT, drinking milk though your nose for a bet is not a disorder, because you do “want” to do it, but you “choose” to do it. I hope this makes sense.

The purpose of sex is to make children. If for some reason you “want” (key word want) to have sex with the same sex, which in turn has no chance of creating children, that’s okay, but then you have a disorder.

So, if you get attracted to having sex with men, and you are yourself a man, then you are truly gay, and have said disorder. Also, if you only want to have anal sex with woman, and prefer it to vaginal sex to the point, that you truly dislike vaginal sex and only wish to participate in anal sex, then you also have a disorder. Although not as far steeped as homosexuality “right playing field, just wrong ball” it is still a disorder. Which again is okay by me.

Tolerance works both ways. America should be more tolerable with those with disorders, and then gay people should admit that they have one. Then instead of selectively choosing what “life styles” are acceptable, we can get over all of our intolerances in one fell swoop. When people get over disorders, (hell, with how complex the human body is, something has to go wrong somewhere, I know my body and brain is not perfect) then things will be good.

Also, note disorders differ from personality differences. Being gay is a disorder, wanting to wear a blue tie when everyone else is wearing a red tie is not a disorder, that’s normal, and is also fine by me.

I am all open to opinions to my argument, so please add.
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 12:18 AM
 
f you want to have sex with your cat or your brother (legal age of consent is still a requirement), hey, that’s cool too. Just accept it for what it is.
Nice post. TY. The only issue I have is with the above statement. Live and let live is an acceptable ideology, as long as the opposing lifestyle doesn't impose it;'s perversions on the general public and demand special rights. I don't believe having sex with a cat or your brother is healthy for the fornicators or society. It seems as if gays want an entropic world where doing what feels good is above and beyond any set of morals that is a catalyst for a productive and safe community.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 12:20 AM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Wasn't Mr. Garrison one of the dudes in that episode?
Yes, and he is gay.

But NAMBLA is a perverted organization.
Your point?
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 12:21 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:

Then what is the point of all of the other GAY IS GREAT threads? Is it okay to discuss as long as you can have an orgy of agreement while you stand in attention to perversion?
In this "New, Modern" world, Good is bad Bad is good.

Get used to it.
     
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 12:35 AM
 
without reading the whole thread, I just want to point that some people claiming to be straight seem unnaturally obsessed with homosexuality.
Perhaps if they were more secure about their own sexuality, they'd realize that homosexuals are no threat to them. They can stop running from homosexuals..turn around, they AREN"T chasing....

perhaps that's why these people are SO obsessed? because homosexuals AREN"T finding them attractive?

     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 12:48 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
without reading the whole thread, I just want to point that some people claiming to be straight seem unnaturally obsessed with homosexuality.
Perhaps if they were more secure about their own sexuality, they'd realize that homosexuals are no threat to them. They can stop running from homosexuals..turn around, they AREN"T chasing....

perhaps that's why these people are SO obsessed? because homosexuals AREN"T finding them attractive?

I would expect nothing more from you. lerkfish. Someone disagrees with you, therefore they have issue. How convienient! Maybe you could post one of your conspiracy theories next time. You are quite talented at taking an obvious event and turning it into some kind of pseudo-intellectual theory that Bush is evil. But I guess that would be appropriate for this thread (bush is evil).
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 12:56 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
without reading the whole thread, I just want to point that some people claiming to be straight seem unnaturally obsessed with homosexuality.
Perhaps if they were more secure about their own sexuality, they'd realize that homosexuals are no threat to them. They can stop running from homosexuals..turn around, they AREN"T chasing....

perhaps that's why these people are SO obsessed? because homosexuals AREN"T finding them attractive?

I think the idea is people naturally place a lot of thought on sex. It is either something that should be restrained, accepted, done in privet, shown on video, talked about in public, or only in closed doors, sung about in songs, or just avoided entirely.

Sex is what has made every man and woman in existence, so it is natural to be both fascinated and by and also, in a way, feared.

So, really, homosexuality hits home directly into the human psyche. Why? Why, would people behave in such a way? How they should act, and subsequently be treated is entirely dependent on how you choose to cope with sex.

If you were overly reticent about sex, you would hope others would be the same, and then may have anguish about those who are not just the opposite of you thinking, but also have another definition of sex then you.

Then again if you are all about getting your F-On, well it seems natural to you, and are probably also interested in what makes people like the same sex.

Hey, people are interested in sex, so it only seems natural that homosexuality be debatable.

As I said, I don’t mine gay people, although I do have my ideas on acceptable sexual behavior. If two dudes get into a relationship and stick with it, that’s fine by me, however I greatly dislike promiscuous living. I also believe that public displays of affection should be constrained to hand holding only. I would rather see two dudes holding hands then a dude and a chick kissing in public. There’s a place for everything.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:15 AM
 
Hi dcolton. Per your request, let's try to have a serious and civil discussion here.

It's hard for me to respond to what you've posted in full, because what you've presented are a massive number of truth claims. It's much easier to talk about the validity of an argument, with a specific conclusion supported by relevant and well-defined truth claims. In the interest of structuring our discussion, I'll make an argument and let's see where our disagreements take us.

First, I claim that the act of being gay does not damage our society or the individuals who are gay. So far, the only counterargument I have detected from you is that gays are more likely to be pedophiliacs. I dispute that, but for argument's sake let's assume that's true. What about the vast majority of gays who live out their lives without having any child molestation tendencies? If 99% of heterosexuals are not child molesters and 98% of homosexuals are not, it does not follow that being gay and being a pedophiliac are causally related. It could be a textbook example of "omitted variable bias," where some unobserved force causes certain people to have both homosexual and child molestation tendencies. That does not mean that all homosexuals are motivated by that force. Let's just prosecute pedophiles and leave everyone else be.

Second, insomuch that the first claim is true, I claim that it does not matter whether being gay is a "choice" or "natural" or "genetic" or whatever: gays should be free from harassment by the government, psychiatrists, or whoever else. They aren't hurting themselves and they aren't hurting others, and so they deserve no more trouble than a person who "chooses" or "is genetically programmed to be" a liberal, a conservative, or a pentecostal Christian (whichever of these you or I might dislike.)

Third, it would probably be in society's and the individuals' best interest for gays to be permitted to marry. The issues here are multifarious and complex, so let me summarize. (1) Gays should be encouraged to be in healthy, stable, and MONOGOMOUS, PAIRED, AND COMMITTED relationships, as I think we can agree that these are the best kind. The institution of marriage encourages that. (2) Maybe some people will come and ask for threesome marriages after gay marriage is allowed, but I have no trouble (and see no inconsistency) in saying "no" to that but "yes" to gay marraige. The key is monogomous pairing, to me -- that kind of relationship has special qualities, which we can show from a social scientific perspective. (3) Traditional man/woman marriage would not be devalued. Gays would have equal legal protection, but I fail to see how this breaks up existing marriages or makes marriage seem "cheaper" to the impressionable. The institution of monogomous paired commitment is there, and that's what I see as important -- not the sex behavior of those involved.

Well, there we are, a nice starting point. I hope that is the kind of response you were looking for. Let's see where this takes us... I look forward to an interesting discussion.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:20 AM
 
I disagree. Marriage is an old institution, which has already been defined. It is a man and woman. They can have the legal (seeing someone in hospital), but they can't have marriage. Call it whatever the hell you want, it is no marriage.

The thing that bother me is when I hear about massive sex parties where getting AIDS is like a battle-scar and even arousing. How can anyone do that?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:26 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
good point
Wow. Two words. Glad to see you could contribute something to the conversation.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:28 AM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
I disagree. Marriage is an old institution, which has already been defined. It is a man and woman. They can have the legal (seeing someone in hospital), but they can't have marriage. Call it whatever the hell you want, it is no marriage.
Well, we could go back and forth on that, but as long as they're legally equivalent I am willing to give on that one.

The thing that bother me is when I hear about massive sex parties where getting AIDS is like a battle-scar and even arousing. How can anyone do that?
Oh man, I have no idea. None of the gay people I know would use "AIDS" and "arousing" in the same sentence.

I hate massive sex parties with any gender mix. The biggest perpetrators around here are not the gays, but rather the darned fraternity boys. It is all guy-on-girl action at those things, and repugnant in my opinion. I agree with you: it should stop.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:32 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
In this "New, Modern" world, Good is bad Bad is good.

Get used to it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:33 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
without reading the whole thread, I just want to point that some people claiming to be straight seem unnaturally obsessed with homosexuality.
Perhaps if they were more secure about their own sexuality, they'd realize that homosexuals are no threat to them. They can stop running from homosexuals..turn around, they AREN"T chasing....

perhaps that's why these people are SO obsessed? because homosexuals AREN"T finding them attractive?

That's actually very close, Lerk. This has been pointed out to him in other threads about this issue, but he has an unusual, and abnormal, fascination with homosexuality, as he can't stop posting about it. That's because he has something to "prove," and I suspect it's mostly to himself. People who spend an inordinate amount of time and energy focused on an issue, do so because they have some deeply rooted need to prove something to themselves, and that is that they really aren't, in this case, gay.

It's also very illustrative that he brought up specific acts, by posting this; "I definately think that two guys licking each others balls and engaging in anal sex is quite perverted." No one else has mentioned specifics; it one again shows that he is very afraid of something.
( Last edited by OldManMac; Aug 8, 2004 at 01:46 AM. )
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:34 AM
 
Originally posted by MindFad:
That was about retarded. I wasn't speaking about gays in general.

BTW, when do you think you can stop copying off me fanboy?
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:36 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
without reading the whole thread, I just want to point that some people claiming to be straight seem unnaturally obsessed with homosexuality.
Perhaps if they were more secure about their own sexuality, they'd realize that homosexuals are no threat to them. They can stop running from homosexuals..turn around, they AREN"T chasing....

Ah, the typical "If you have morals that says having sex with a man when you are a man is wrong, or you generally just feel homosexual sex is wrong, you MUST be insecure with your sexuality!

Because as everyone knows, you MUST accept homosexual sex to be secure in your sexuality!

Lerk, you've tried to spin this silly web before. You've been made fun of plenty of times for it. You'd think you'd know better by now.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:39 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
That was about retarded. I wasn't speaking about gays in general.

BTW, when do you think you can stop copying off me fanboy?
Of course not. It just goads you to use your new favorite word, so why take that joy away? It's gotta bug you on some level if you keep talking about it. Of course, I also get a genuine laugh out of the whole thing. Gotta love the Internet.

     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:43 AM
 
Originally posted by strictlyplaid:
Hi dcolton. Per your request, let's try to have a serious and civil discussion here.

It's hard for me to respond to what you've posted in full, because what you've presented are a massive number of truth claims. It's much easier to talk about the validity of an argument, with a specific conclusion supported by relevant and well-defined truth claims. In the interest of structuring our discussion, I'll make an argument and let's see where our disagreements take us.

First, I claim that the act of being gay does not damage our society or the individuals who are gay. So far, the only counterargument I have detected from you is that gays are more likely to be pedophiliacs. I dispute that, but for argument's sake let's assume that's true. What about the vast majority of gays who live out their lives without having any child molestation tendencies? If 99% of heterosexuals are not child molesters and 98% of homosexuals are not, it does not follow that being gay and being a pedophiliac are causally related. It could be a textbook example of "omitted variable bias," where some unobserved force causes certain people to have both homosexual and child molestation tendencies. That does not mean that all homosexuals are motivated by that force. Let's just prosecute pedophiles and leave everyone else be.

Second, insomuch that the first claim is true, I claim that it does not matter whether being gay is a "choice" or "natural" or "genetic" or whatever: gays should be free from harassment by the government, psychiatrists, or whoever else. They aren't hurting themselves and they aren't hurting others, and so they deserve no more trouble than a person who "chooses" or "is genetically programmed to be" a liberal, a conservative, or a pentecostal Christian (whichever of these you or I might dislike.)

Third, it would probably be in society's and the individuals' best interest for gays to be permitted to marry. The issues here are multifarious and complex, so let me summarize. (1) Gays should be encouraged to be in healthy, stable, and MONOGOMOUS, PAIRED, AND COMMITTED relationships, as I think we can agree that these are the best kind. The institution of marriage encourages that. (2) Maybe some people will come and ask for threesome marriages after gay marriage is allowed, but I have no trouble (and see no inconsistency) in saying "no" to that but "yes" to gay marraige. The key is monogomous pairing, to me -- that kind of relationship has special qualities, which we can show from a social scientific perspective. (3) Traditional man/woman marriage would not be devalued. Gays would have equal legal protection, but I fail to see how this breaks up existing marriages or makes marriage seem "cheaper" to the impressionable. The institution of monogomous paired commitment is there, and that's what I see as important -- not the sex behavior of those involved.

Well, there we are, a nice starting point. I hope that is the kind of response you were looking for. Let's see where this takes us... I look forward to an interesting discussion.
I will reply. Regretfully I cannot tonight. Getting fairly late and it is about time for me to get some sleep.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:43 AM
 
Originally posted by MindFad:
Of course not. It just goads you to use your new favorite word, so why take that joy away? It's gotta bug you on some level if you keep talking about it. Of course, I also get a genuine laugh out of the whole thing. Gotta love the Internet.

No, you are just a fanboy.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:47 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
I will reply. Regretfully I cannot tonight. Getting fairly late and it is about time for me to get some sleep.
Quite all right.
     
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:48 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
I would expect nothing more from you. lerkfish. Someone disagrees with you, therefore they have issue. How convienient! Maybe you could post one of your conspiracy theories next time. You are quite talented at taking an obvious event and turning it into some kind of pseudo-intellectual theory that Bush is evil. But I guess that would be appropriate for this thread (bush is evil).
hmmm...I said "some people", not you...but if you want to say the shoe fits you, fine.

I didn't realize we were discussing bush in this thread...did I miss something? did I mention Bush?

BOT: no, my point is not someone disagreeing with me, my point is I don't see any reason to be SOOOOO obsessed with gays if you have no intention of dating one.

As an example of the point I'm trying to make, I don't intend to get a tattoo because I don't like the idea of tattoos on MY body. But I don't spend a great deal of time campaigning against tattoos, I don't have unnatural phobias or hatred towards people that sport tattoos, I just personally wouldn't get one. Now, for me, that where I leave it. But say hypothetically I started attending anti-tattoo rallys. I start arguing on street corners against tattooed people, I keep judging tattooed people as less moral than myself, or less human than myself. I continually bring up the subject of tattoos with anyone who will listen. I spend a great deal of time researching tattoos, I subscribe to all the latest scientific data on tattoos, I spend energy categorizing different levels of tattoos, I start justifying my hatred of tattoos because I feel that for other people to sport tattoos is a threat to my untattooed skin. Somehow, just KNOWING people have tattoos, even if I don't see those tattoos, is a threat to the sanctitiy of non-tattoo hoodedness.

now, at that point, wouldn't you view my obsession with tattoos, since I don't intend to get one, bizarre? That is how I view homophobes. I find it bizarre that they feel personally affronted that other people are making love to each other in a way that the homophobe doesn't sanction. What does it matter? Do homophobes detest heteros that cruise bars to get a one-night stand? Do homphobes complain about how heteros that have divorce rates are an insult to the sanctitiy of marriage? Do homophobes protest against Las Vegas quickie marriage chapels where you can tie the knot, presided over by an Elvis impersonator? Does THAT uphold the sanctity of marriage?

I'm very secure in my heterosexuality, and that is why I am not threatened by the many wonderful gay people I've met, many of whom are exponentially more moral than the homophobes who hate them.

Why are homophobes threatened? No, I mean really....what is the source of the fear?
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:50 AM
 
Originally posted by KarlG:
That's actually very close, Lerk. This has been pointed out to him in other threads about this issue, but he has an unusual, and abnormal, fascination with homosexuality, as he can't stop posting about it. That's because he has something to "prove," and I suspect it's mostly to himself. People who spend an inordinate amount of time and energy focused on an issue, do so because they have some deeply rooted need to prove something to themselves, and that is that they really aren't, in this case, gay.

It's also very illustrative that he brought up specific acts, by posting this; "I definately think that two guys licking each others balls and engaging in anal sex is quite perverted." No one else has mentioned specifics; it one again shows that he is very afraid of something.
Ah...the self hating overweight guy with a gay daughter calling me gay.

ATTENTION ALL MACNN'ERs DISAGREE WITH A FAT GUY WITH A GAY DAUGHTER AND RISK BEING CALLED GAY.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:52 AM
 
Lighten up dcolton. Looks like proof enough to get banned.

Hey, is there such thing as a heterophobe?
     
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:53 AM
 
Originally posted by KarlG:
That's actually very close, Lerk. This has been pointed out to him in other threads about this issue, but he has an unusual, and abnormal, fascination with homosexuality, as he can't stop posting about it. That's because he has something to "prove," and I suspect it's mostly to himself. People who spend an inordinate amount of time and energy focused on an issue, do so because they have some deeply rooted need to prove something to themselves, and that is that they really aren't, in this case, gay.

It's also very illustrative that he brought up specific acts, by posting this; "I definately think that two guys licking each others balls and engaging in anal sex is quite perverted." No one else has mentioned specifics; it one again shows that he is very afraid of something.
good point, that's the other bizarre thing: I am for gays having equal rights but I don't try to visualize their sex acts because it doesn't "do anything" for me. When homophobes keep trotting out the explicit details of the act, then I suspect they are in denial of their own homosexual tendencies.

but hey, that's just IMHO.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:53 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I don't see any reason to be SOOOOO obsessed with gays if you have no intention of dating one.

I don't either. He isn't obsessed with gays. He is concerned about the bad turn Society has taken.

I'm very secure in my heterosexuality, and that is why I am not threatened by the many wonderful gay people I've met, many of whom are exponentially more moral than the homophobes who hate them.

I'm very secure in my heterosexuality, and that is why I am not threatened by the many wonderful gay people that I've met. But I am not about to dumb myself down, or pullute my mind enough to say that homosexual sex is not immoral.

Why are homophobes threatened? No, I mean really....what is the source of the fear?
Ask them. I haven't seen one in this thread.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:54 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Ah...the self hating overweight guy with a gay daughter calling me gay.

ATTENTION ALL MACNN'ERs DISAGREE WITH A FAT GUY WITH A GAY DAUGHTER AND RISK BEING CALLED GAY.
Yeah.. which would also mean that Lerk is really a Republican that loves George Bush!

Under that kind of thinking.
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:56 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
hmmm...I said "some people", not you...but if you want to say the shoe fits you, fine.

I didn't realize we were discussing bush in this thread...did I miss something? did I mention Bush?

BOT: no, my point is not someone disagreeing with me, my point is I don't see any reason to be SOOOOO obsessed with gays if you have no intention of dating one.

As an example of the point I'm trying to make, I don't intend to get a tattoo because I don't like the idea of tattoos on MY body. But I don't spend a great deal of time campaigning against tattoos, I don't have unnatural phobias or hatred towards people that sport tattoos, I just personally wouldn't get one. Now, for me, that where I leave it. But say hypothetically I started attending anti-tattoo rallys. I start arguing on street corners against tattooed people, I keep judging tattooed people as less moral than myself, or less human than myself. I continually bring up the subject of tattoos with anyone who will listen. I spend a great deal of time researching tattoos, I subscribe to all the latest scientific data on tattoos, I spend energy categorizing different levels of tattoos, I start justifying my hatred of tattoos because I feel that for other people to sport tattoos is a threat to my untattooed skin. Somehow, just KNOWING people have tattoos, even if I don't see those tattoos, is a threat to the sanctitiy of non-tattoo hoodedness.

now, at that point, wouldn't you view my obsession with tattoos, since I don't intend to get one, bizarre? That is how I view homophobes. I find it bizarre that they feel personally affronted that other people are making love to each other in a way that the homophobe doesn't sanction. What does it matter? Do homophobes detest heteros that cruise bars to get a one-night stand? Do homphobes complain about how heteros that have divorce rates are an insult to the sanctitiy of marriage? Do homophobes protest against Las Vegas quickie marriage chapels where you can tie the knot, presided over by an Elvis impersonator? Does THAT uphold the sanctity of marriage?

I'm very secure in my heterosexuality, and that is why I am not threatened by the many wonderful gay people I've met, many of whom are exponentially more moral than the homophobes who hate them.

Why are homophobes threatened? No, I mean really....what is the source of the fear?
Whatever dude. Does that mean your obsession with President Bush mean that you want to **** him/
     
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 01:58 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:

Ah, the typical "If you have morals that says having sex with a man when you are a man is wrong, or you generally just feel homosexual sex is wrong, you MUST be insecure with your sexuality!

Because as everyone knows, you MUST accept homosexual sex to be secure in your sexuality!

Lerk, you've tried to spin this silly web before. You've been made fun of plenty of times for it. You'd think you'd know better by now. [/B]
oh, I know that YOU"LL make fun of me, that's a given.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:00 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Whatever dude. Does that mean your obsession with President Bush mean that you want to **** him/
Of course it does! He can't have it both ways.

Either you are in the closet homo, and he is a Bush loving Republican, or all what he said is a load of crap.

I am voting for the latter.
     
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:01 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah.. which would also mean that Lerk is really a Republican that loves George Bush!

Under that kind of thinking.

LOL! great non-sequitor.

I argue against Bush policies because they DO directly affect me as an american. Why do you guys keep bringing up Bush, though, when I am talking about homophobia?
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:01 AM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Lighten up dcolton. Looks like proof enough to get banned.

Hey, is there such thing as a heterophobe?
There is no doubt. Ironic though. Demonhood and his moderator cohorts will allow libs to break all of the rules, but when I fight back...I get banned. I know the game. I mean he called me gay. Thats not true...but he is fat by his own admission as seen in another thread (and has no qualms admitting it) and his daughter is a lesbian. So, my statements are true while his are not. We will see how fair and balanced MacNN really is. I have been called so many names and personally attacked so much, I lost count after the second page.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:03 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I argue against Bush policies because they DO directly affect me as an american.

Just like a group trying to get society to accept disgusting acts as the norm OR ELSE effects me as an American.

Why do you guys keep bringing up Bush, though, when I am talking about homophobia?
Because if we are really in the closet because we rant about homosexual acceptance being forced onto us, you are a closet republican.

You can't have it both ways. Sorry.

In other words, your theory is full of POO.
     
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:04 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Of course it does! He can't have it both ways.

Either you are in the closet homo, and he is a Bush loving Republican, or all what he said is a load of crap.

I am voting for the latter.
LOL! are those the only two choices? You're suggesting a false correlation. A homophobe can be in denial, AND I can argue against Bush policies with secretly approving Bush policies. Or vice versa, or vice/vice or versa/versa....the two are unrelated.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:04 AM
 
But is there such thing as a heterophobe? Not in the dictionary. I guess that means only Gay people can be hated. Women can rape men, right? So why can't gays hate heterosexuals?
     
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:07 AM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
But is there such thing as a heterophobe? Not in the dictionary. I guess that means only Gay people can be hated. Women can rape men, right? So why can't gays hate heterosexuals?
LOL! *shakes his heads sadly, takes off his sandals and beats the dust of the road off them*
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:08 AM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL! are those the only two choices? You're suggesting a false correlation. A homophobe can be in denial, AND I can argue against Bush policies with secretly approving Bush policies. Or vice versa, or vice/vice or versa/versa....the two are unrelated.
Right, just like someone can be against homosexuality and NOT be in the closet or be insecure about his sexuality.

Just like I have been saying.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:08 AM
 
We have folks that insist being gay is not a bad thing - it's pefectly natural. Then they go on to imply that it's a bad thing - an insult - when they suggest another person is a gay person in denial.

"Gays are great...hey, you rightwing idiot - you must be GAY!"

Hypocrites, the lot of you.

Go back to making fun of southerners, you leftwing morons - while you lecture me about my lack of sensitivity and closed-mindedness.


There's only one prong in my theory. Liberals are hypocrites.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:10 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We have folks that insist being gay is not a bad thing - it's pefectly natural. Then they go on to imply that it's a bad thing - an insult - when they suggest another person is a gay person in denial.

"Gays are great...hey, you rightwing idiot - you must be GAY!"
Yeah , I know, comedy Gold. I am waiting for Lerk to reply trying to deny it all.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:12 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We have folks that insist being gay is not a bad thing - it's pefectly natural. Then they go on to imply that it's a bad thing - an insult - when they suggest another person is a gay person in denial.
What would you say to someone who argued that it didn't matter whether being gay was natural or not?

I hope that doesn't come off as snarky -- it's a genuine question. There are always flamethrower-types who are willing to say the kind of things you're peeved at, but I'm always eager to have a more meaningful discussion.
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:15 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We have folks that insist being gay is not a bad thing - it's pefectly natural. Then they go on to imply that it's a bad thing - an insult - when they suggest another person is a gay person in denial.

"Gays are great...hey, you rightwing idiot - you must be GAY!"

Hypocrites, the lot of you.

Go back to making fun of southerners, you leftwing morons - while you lecture me about my lack of sensitivity and closed-mindedness.


There's only one prong in my theory. Liberals are hypocrites.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:26 AM
 
[in general]I'm just here to make everyone happy.

Let me know when I'm not trying hard enough to understand your point of view. Sometimes, to be honest, there are folks who haven't got a view. and haven't got a point, either.

There's a reason my beliefs and opinions seem to be set in stone. It's because your arguments are lame and/or you exhibit a lack character and integrity.[/in general]
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:26 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We have folks that insist being gay is not a bad thing - it's pefectly natural. Then they go on to imply that it's a bad thing - an insult - when they suggest another person is a gay person in denial.

"Gays are great...hey, you rightwing idiot - you must be GAY!"

Hypocrites, the lot of you.

Go back to making fun of southerners, you leftwing morons - while you lecture me about my lack of sensitivity and closed-mindedness.


There's only one prong in my theory. Liberals are hypocrites.
Well said. But you should change it to "Amish Technology" in your sig. We have alot of Amish around here in central PA, especially in Lancaster. Seems to make alot more sense.
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:30 AM
 
Originally posted by strictlyplaid:
Hi dcolton. Per your request, let's try to have a serious and civil discussion here.
Lets try!

It's hard for me to respond to what you've posted in full, because what you've presented are a massive number of truth claims. It's much easier to talk about the validity of an argument, with a specific conclusion supported by relevant and well-defined truth claims. In the interest of structuring our discussion, I'll make an argument and let's see where our disagreements take us.

First, I claim that the act of being gay does not damage our society or the individuals who are gay. So far, the only counterargument I have detected from you is that gays are more likely to be pedophiliacs. I dispute that, but for argument's sake let's assume that's true. What about the vast majority of gays who live out their lives without having any child molestation tendencies? If 99% of heterosexuals are not child molesters and 98% of homosexuals are not, it does not follow that being gay and being a pedophiliac are causally related. It could be a textbook example of "omitted variable bias," where some unobserved force causes certain people to have both homosexual and child molestation tendencies. That does not mean that all homosexuals are motivated by that force. Let's just prosecute pedophiles and leave everyone else be.
Agreed. But my argument is more of the fact that gays will dismiss a man who molestes a boy as an abuser...but deny the fact that the person is gay because it has a negative connotation. Gay is gay.

Second, insomuch that the first claim is true, I claim that it does not matter whether being gay is a "choice" or "natural" or "genetic" or whatever: gays should be free from harassment by the government, psychiatrists, or whoever else. They aren't hurting themselves and they aren't hurting others, and so they deserve no more trouble than a person who "chooses" or "is genetically programmed to be" a liberal, a conservative, or a pentecostal Christian (whichever of these you or I might dislike.)
So do you believe that everyone should do what 'feels good'? Are you an advocate of legalizing drugs. Is it okay to break the law if you don't get caught? You suggest anarchy where people do what they want. Shouldn't there be a code of morals? Shouldn't we draw the line somewhere? Can one destructive behaviour lead to another?

Third, it would probably be in society's and the individuals' best interest for gays to be permitted to marry. The issues here are multifarious and complex, so let me summarize. (1) Gays should be encouraged to be in healthy, stable, and MONOGOMOUS, PAIRED, AND COMMITTED relationships, as I think we can agree that these are the best kind. The institution of marriage encourages that. (2) Maybe some people will come and ask for threesome marriages after gay marriage is allowed, but I have no trouble (and see no inconsistency) in saying "no" to that but "yes" to gay marraige. The key is monogomous pairing, to me -- that kind of relationship has special qualities, which we can show from a social scientific perspective. (3) Traditional man/woman marriage would not be devalued. Gays would have equal legal protection, but I fail to see how this breaks up existing marriages or makes marriage seem "cheaper" to the impressionable. The institution of monogomous paired commitment is there, and that's what I see as important -- not the sex behavior of those involved.
1. Monogomaus relationships are good. Forcing your monogamous relationship on societry and molesting the sanctity of marriahe is not good.

2. What is the point if you can't reproduce? Why should special rights be afforded to someone who chooses a lifestyle? I am single, why can't I gain special rights for choosing to be single?

3. Gays want benefits. There attempt to defile marriage has nothing to do with love. It has to do with benefits and tac breaks. Shameful for them to rape America with their greed.

Well, there we are, a nice starting point. I hope that is the kind of response you were looking for. Let's see where this takes us... I look forward to an interesting discussion. [/B]
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:45 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Your kidding right?

Ahhaa
Nope, deadly serious. I don't have standing to bring legal action, and I doubt that the authors would do so (free publicity and all), but I'm certain that flagrantly violating copyright law like that should violate some terms of use, posting guidelines, or some other policy we agree to when we use these forums. I would be quite surprised if it didn't.

Sad thing for him is that even if he gets the authors permission, his behavior of posting all of these long segments on MacNN is very much akin to spamming. In other words, given his current behavior, he can't win.

Repeat after me: excerpts and a link. It's legal, compact, and polite.

BlackGriffen
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:48 AM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Nope, deadly serious. I don't have standing to bring legal action, and I doubt that the authors would do so (free publicity and all), but I'm certain that flagrantly violating copyright law like that should violate some terms of use, posting guidelines, or some other policy we agree to when we use these forums. I would be quite surprised if it didn't.

Sad thing for him is that even if he gets the authors permission, his behavior of posting all of these long segments on MacNN is very much akin to spamming. In other words, given his current behavior, he can't win.

Repeat after me: excerpts and a link. It's legal, compact, and polite.

BlackGriffen
Fine. I'll keep that in mind next time I see a liberal do this to get their point across. Mark my words, I am bookmarking this thread, along with your comments, for further use. Just to make sure we're all on the same page, so to speak.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:52 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Agreed. But my argument is more of the fact that gays will dismiss a man who molestes a boy as an abuser...but deny the fact that the person is gay because it has a negative connotation. Gay is gay.
As long as we're clear that men who abuse girls/women who abuse boys are pedophiles AND heterosexual, and we agree that sexual orientation is not causally linked with pedophelia, I'm fine with that.

So do you believe that everyone should do what 'feels good'?
No, not if it harms self or others. If it doesn't... then yes, I suppose I am.

Are you an advocate of legalizing drugs.
One topic at a time.

Is it okay to break the law if you don't get caught?
If the law is just, certainly not. If the law is unjust... still, probably not.

You suggest anarchy where people do what they want. Shouldn't there be a code of morals? Shouldn't we draw the line somewhere? Can one destructive behaviour lead to another?
I'm not a proponent of anarchy. I'm a proponent of "everything else stays as it is, except gays can marry." We should draw the line somewhere, right past gay marriage. And yes, one destructive behavior can lead to another, but I don't think being gay is destructive. To be convinced of this point, I'm going to need to know how and why being gay is destructive.

1. Monogomaus relationships are good. Forcing your monogamous relationship on societry and molesting the sanctity of marriahe is not good.
Well see, a lot of people who are opposed to gay marriage make this claim: gay marriage "defiles" or "molests" the "sanctity" of marriage. It's always hard for me to know what exactly is being argued, though. How exactly is marriage defiled -- do heterosexual marriages become less stable? That, I disagree with -- they are unstable, but that is the cost of a culture that emphasizes personal freedom and a consumerist attitude toward relationships, in my judgment. We need more committed relationships, gay or straight.

2. What is the point if you can't reproduce?
I'm married, and we're not planning to have kids. I am still committed to my wife. I am still a more responsible citizen for it: we are more disposed to think of others (each other, for starters) and to participate in civic events that I shunned when single. And, we still get the tax breaks. The point is that we, my wife and I, are better citizens because we are married -- regardless of whether we procreate.

Why should special rights be afforded to someone who chooses a lifestyle? I am single, why can't I gain special rights for choosing to be single?
Well, heterosexual married people are afforded special rights for their lifestyle. They are because monogomous, committed relationships are good for all of us. The same goes for gays, IMHO.

3. Gays want benefits. There attempt to defile marriage has nothing to do with love. It has to do with benefits and tax breaks. Shameful for them to rape America with their greed.
I speak for myself: I married my wife for love, not because of the tax breaks. It was a way of publicly and ceremoniously committing to her. It also makes things legally much easier in many ways (power of attorney, hospital visits, inheritance -- the whole nine yards.) The gay people I know want the same things. I suppose they wouldn't mind the tax breaks, but they're not in it for the money. Perhaps other gay couples are, but I'd want to see some evidence of that before I committed to believing it.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:56 AM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Fine. I'll keep that in mind next time I see a liberal do this to get their point across. Mark my words, I am bookmarking this thread, along with your comments, for further use. Just to make sure we're all on the same page, so to speak.
Fair enough. Don't be surprised if moki never posts again if this sort of stuff is ever actually enforced.

BG
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:59 AM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Nope, deadly serious. I don't have standing to bring legal action, and I doubt that the authors would do so (free publicity and all), but I'm certain that flagrantly violating copyright law like that should violate some terms of use, posting guidelines, or some other policy we agree to when we use these forums. I would be quite surprised if it didn't.

Sad thing for him is that even if he gets the authors permission, his behavior of posting all of these long segments on MacNN is very much akin to spamming. In other words, given his current behavior, he can't win.

Repeat after me: excerpts and a link. It's legal, compact, and polite.

BlackGriffen
I somehow bet the people in charge of said article wouldn't mind the truth being spread. In any way possible.
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 03:00 AM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Nope, deadly serious. I don't have standing to bring legal action, and I doubt that the authors would do so (free publicity and all), but I'm certain that flagrantly violating copyright law like that should violate some terms of use, posting guidelines, or some other policy we agree to when we use these forums. I would be quite surprised if it didn't.

Sad thing for him is that even if he gets the authors permission, his behavior of posting all of these long segments on MacNN is very much akin to spamming. In other words, given his current behavior, he can't win.

Repeat after me: excerpts and a link. It's legal, compact, and polite.

BlackGriffen
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You can't think of anything better. How old are you...12? Are you gay and offended by the truth? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Spamming? hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Take your drivel somewhere else little boy. Many, many times I have seen people quote here without a source. I didn't pretend that I wrote the articles and made it obvious that I planned to credit the authors when I finished posting the series. Either way...thank you for the laugh.

But the next time someone posts more than one article thatI don't agree with...I will accuse them of spamming.

BTW Part 11: Hermaphrodites

I don't necesarily agree with this whole article, but I find it interesting.
major push by a media giant.

On March 1, 2004, Time magazine ran an article entitled, "Between The Sexes: More babies than you might think are born neither boys nor girls. Sorting it out is a lifelong struggle."

The Time article promotes the idea that children who are born with serious birth defects (ambiguous sex organs) are actually being medically abused by physicians who force them to become either male or female.

The article quotes Intersex Society of North America (ISNA) board member Thea Hillman who makes the claim that, "Doctors have found a medical solution to what is essentially a social problem. The problem has to do with differences and people's fear of differences."

The Intersex Society of North America is one of the leading political activist organizations lobbying for an end to sexual reassignment surgery on infants who are diagnosed as true hermaphrodites (an infant with both with male and female genitalia).

According to the ISNA in its online Q&A: "We won't know the child's gender until she or he is old enough to communicate to us. It is recommended that the child be assigned a gender based on our best prediction, and allow her or him to determine for herself or himself once she or he is old enough to do so. Irreversible surgeries on infants should be avoided in order to give them the widest range of choices when they are older. This principle should apply not only to a child with an intersex condition, but to all children."

In fact, the ISNA is preparing the foundation for eventual lawsuits against physicians who use surgery on infants who are hermaphrodites. According to ISNA leader Cheryl Chase, "I think a context will open up for surgeons who keep doing this to be vulnerable to lawsuits. But it's going to take a while to create that context. Right now we can't sue because it's standard practice, and parents give permission." (quoted in As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised As A Girl," by John Colapinto, p. 231.)

The Time article quotes Dr. Bruce Wilson, a pediatric endocrinologist at DeVos children's Hospital in Grand Rapids, Michigan, as saying that surgeons dealing with infant hermaphrodites should possibly wait until the child is close to puberty before operating on the child-so the child can make his or her own decision as to what "sex" he/she would become. Unmentioned in this article is the fact that Wilson is a medical advisor to the ISNA.

The authors of this Time article quote an unnamed "science review" article published in 2000 as claiming that between 0.2% and 2% of all live births are intersexed.

Although the Time writers fail to provide a specific source for this estimate, it is likely that this figure came from a summary of an article published on the ISNA web site. The citation is from an American Journal of Human Biology article written, in part, by Brown University Professor Anne Fausto-Sterling, an activist for redefining what it means to be male and female.

According to Fausto-Sterling, she estimates that intersexed infants may be as high as 2% of the population and that between 0.1-0.2% of infants actually have surgery to correct genital abnormalities. She settled on the estimate of 1.7%, which was widely quoted in newspaper and magazine articles during the early 1990s. Her estimates are, in fact, urban legends-and part of elaborate mythologies being perpetuated by transgender and intersexual political activists.

Fausto-Sterling's estimates were debunked by Leonard Sax, with The Montgomery Center for Research in Child and Adolescent Development, in "How Common Is Intersex? A Response to Anne Fausto-Sterling," in The Journal of Sex Research (Vol. 39, No. 3, 2002).

According to Sax, Fausto-Sterling arrived at her 1.7% estimate of alleged intersexual infant births by inaccurately defining an intersexual child as an "individual who deviates from the Platonic ideal of physical dimorphism at the chromosomal, genital, gonadal, or hormonal levels." She also included individuals who are "undiagnosed because they present no symptoms."

Sax says that Fausto-Sterling's inflated statistic of 1.7% was done by including five medical conditions that are not intersex conditions at all. By subtracting the numbers of individuals who have these conditions from Fausto-Sterling's estimates, Sax arrives at an estimate of 0.018% of infants who are actually hermaphrodites in need of surgery. He notes: "This figure of 0.018% suggests that there are currently about 50,000 true intersexuals living in the United States. These individuals are, of course, entitled to the same expert care and consideration that all patients deserve. Nothing is gained, however, by pretending that there are 5,000,000 such individuals."

Fausto-Sterling's bogus estimates, however, are being used by Time magazine and other secular publishers to promote the idea that maleness and femaleness are cultural inventions-not biological realities.

In fact, Fausto-Sterling claims that maleness and femaleness are "extremes" on a sexual continuum. In her book, Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality (2000), she writes:


Complete maleness and complete femaleness represent the extreme ends of a spectrum of possible body types. That these extreme ends are the most frequent has lent credence to the idea that they are not only natural (that is, produced by nature) but normal (that is, they represent both a statistical and social ideal). Knowledge of biological variation, however, allows us to conceptualize the less frequent middle spaces as natural, although statistically unusual." (p. 76)


Sax observes that Fausto-Sterling is pushing a belief that "classifications of normal and abnormal sexual anatomy are mere social conventions, prejudices which can and should be set aside by an enlightened intelligentsia."

He says that Fausto-Sterling is promoting the idea that there is no such thing as abnormal sexual anatomy and that every genetic defect must be treated as normal and natural.

Birth Defects Now Viewed As Separate Sexes

In her essay "The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough," (The Sciences, March/April 1993), Fausto-Sterling claims that our culture is wrong to put people into categories as either male or female.

Fausto-Sterling claimed that there are actually five sexes-and perhaps even more. She defines the sexes as male, female, hermaphrodites (herms), male pseudo-hermaphrodites (merms) and female pseudo-hermaphrodites (ferms).

She notes: "…on the basis of what is known about them [these categories], I suggest that the three intersexes, herm, merm and ferm, deserve to be considered additional sexes each in its own right. Indeed, I would argue further that sex is a vast, infinitely malleable continuum that defies the constraints of even five categories."

Fausto-Sterling asks the question, "Why should we care if there are people whose biological equipment enables them to have sex 'naturally' with both men and women? The answers seem to lie in a cultural need to maintain clear distinctions between the sexes. Society mandates the control of intersexual bodies because they blur and bridge the great divide. Inasmuch as hermaphrodites literally embody both sexes, they challenge traditional beliefs about sexual difference: they possess the irritating ability to live sometimes as one sex and sometimes as the other, and they raise the specter of homosexuality."

In an article published by the New York Academy of Sciences in July/August, 2000, Fausto-Sterling claims that her "five sexes" article was designed to be provocative and that she had written it "with tongue firmly in cheek." She indicated surprise that her 1993 essay was taken seriously by "right-wing Christians" who used her essay to fight against the normalization of transgenderism at the United Nations-sponsored Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995.

Fausto-Sterling, however, continues to support the idea that individuals can become whatever gender they wish to be along a sexual continuum she claims exists. She indicated agreement with the International Bill of Gender Rights, which states that a person has the right to choose and define his own gender, has the right change his gender and to marry whomever he wishes.

Leonard Sax has stated the obvious about Fausto-Sterling's views. They are bogus and based upon flawed research, bad definitions, and inflated statistics. Yet, these are the statistics quoted by Time magazine and promoted by the Intersex Society of North America in its campaign to normalize what are, in fact, birth defects.

Sax states it well: "The available data support the conclusion that human sexuality is a dichotomy, not a continuum. More than 99.98% of humans are either male or female. … The birth of an intersex child, far from being 'a fairly common phenomenon,' is actually a rare event, occurring in fewer than 2 out of every 10,000 births."

Time magazine has done a grave disservice to its readers by uncritically quoting from the Intersex Society of North America and bogus statistics that are based upon political advocacy instead of hard scientific facts.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 03:04 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You can't think of anything better. How old are you...12? Are you gay and offended by the truth? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Spamming? hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Take your drivel somewhere else little boy. Many, many times I have seen people quote here without a source. I didn't pretend that I wrote the articles and made it obvious that I planned to credit the authors when I finished posting the series. Either way...thank you for the laugh.

But the next time someone posts more than one article thatI don't agree with...I will accuse them of spamming.

BTW Part 11: Hermaphrodites

I don't necesarily agree with this whole article, but I find it interesting.
Quoted for posterity.

Have a nice day. :evil:

BlackGriffen

edit: damnit, when are we going to get an evil grin emoticon?

Edit2: Two things to note: first, abuse reported (just so you know it was me); second, welcome back to my ignore list, you have proven unable to maintain decorum.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:45 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2