fag

Its A Matter Of Opinion В» Blog Archive » Tinky Winky is a fag!/* To fix kubrick: */#commentform #ed_toolbar input.ed_button {width:auto;}#wp_grins img { cursor: pointer; } #wp_grins img { cursor: hand; } HomeIts A Matter Of OpinionFind Entries1JunTinky Winky is a fag! Posted by: rachy in General, Idiots, In The news, Law and Order, Moonbats, Politics, Rachy, RadicalismI can't believe I just referenced the Teletubbies in a 5,000 word Honours level Political Science paper. Poland has been singled out by the European Parliament for condemnation due to a notable increase in homophobia within government ranks, including significant figures such as President Lech KaczyЕ„ski, staunch supporter of a bill proposed in March to outlaw "the promotion of homosexuality in schools", who also banned Gay pride marches in Warsaw two years running during his tenure as Mayor of the city. More recently, the Ombudsman for Children's Rights, Ms Ewa Sowinska, commissioned a group of sexologists and psychiatrists to investigate whether Tinky Winky, a fluffy purple character of indeterminate sex from children's television show 'The Teletubbies', who carries a pink handbag, threatens the nation's children by promoting a homosexual lifestyle. Critics allege Tinky Winky's larger stature betrays his masculine sex and that his purple coat, a symbol of post-Stonewall pride, his pink handbag, a deliberately effeminate accessory, and the ostensibly innocuous triangle atop his head, representing the so-called Gaydar, a purported nonvocal ability of the LGBT community to detect each other, all point to a subliminal attempt to normalise "abnormal and perverted" homosexual behavioral patterns. I could barely get the last two paragraphs out. It would be quite funny if it were not so tragic. I'm thinking of elaborating on it and trying to get it published somewhere, so watch this space. But it's not Tinky Winky who is the problem anyway, don't forget that Winnie the Pooh only had male friends. Like, eh-oh. * UPDATE * Dear concerned citizens, I am pleased to inform you there is no need for concern. Let me repeat, NO NEED for concern. All your invective and baseball bats can go back in the closet. Any further probing of Tinky Winky has been called off due to the report of a leading sexologist indicating that the purple Teletubby is not, in fact, a pillow muncher. Yours truly, Ministry of Antisexualism Cross-posted at: Legless in Perpetuum This entry was postedon Friday, June 1st, 2007 at 7:31 am and is filed under General, Idiots, In The news, Law and Order, Moonbats, Politics, Rachy, Radicalism.You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.43 comments so farPatrick 1 Friggen pansy purple things running around trying to bring society to it's knees. They're aliens I tell ya, all of the poofo lezzo handbag carryin pansy colored teddy things. June 1st, 2007 at 10:55 amrachy 2 I know Patrick, I know. The devastating sound of little baby Jesus crying just won't leave me. June 1st, 2007 at 11:28 amBozwell 3 No wonder Tinky Winky looks so happy... He/She/It will now be able to gain entry to The Peel Hotel! June 1st, 2007 at 7:28 pmJoe 4 Are you denying that there is a militant agenda/movement to try to normalize gay behavior? Personally, I could give a shit. I do have a problem with people who define themselves by their sexuality/race/religion/etc., however. If you put it out there, don't be surprised if some people don't like it, and this idea of "homophobia" is just bullshit. I've been shot at, mugged, and I have kicked the shit out of people who were much bigger and stronger than me - I ain't scared of anything. It is way too self-gratifying to claim that people are "scared." Many are, but many aren't also; they simply don't like it and, guess what: They don't have to. As long as people don't use physical violence (gay bashing) they have every right to object to behavior they don't approve of and special "rights" bestowed on any special interest group. One of the few things Bill Clinton had right was his policy regarding gays in the military: "Don't ask; don't tell; don't pursue." What consenting adults do in private is their business. I think that's fair, and I know quite a few gay folks who resent the militant (as one of our gay friends put it) "gay mafia." June 2nd, 2007 at 5:29 amrachy 5 Ahhhhh Joe, so tough with what you've faced in life, you big man you, those shootings and muggings and big bad meanies you've kicked the shit out of. Now if only any of that were actually relevant to what I posted. *Le sigh* Oh, and a few things. Are you denying that there is a militant agenda/movement to try to normalize gay behavior? Um, I didn't actually state it explicitly, but yes, that's exactly what I believe. Your powers of deduction are extraordinary, you must really have been the top of your class. Oh, and I'm not going to take your bait and argue about the normality or abnormality of gay behaviour with anyone who thinks that homophobia is bullshit. I do have a problem with people who define themselves by their sexuality/race/religion/etc., Why? It's a Democracy isn't it? Democracy means variety and a right to freedom of expression and assembly. And a right not to be discriminated against because of such expression or assembly. Instead of debating the nature of democracy, however, could you please tell me how the way people choose to define themselves has anything to do with the Polish government's investigation into Tinky Winky? I know quite a few gay folks who resent the militant (as one of our gay friends put it) "gay mafia." Hahahahahahahaha. Joe, stop it, you're killing me. I saw this one coming from a mile away. It's terrible, just terrible, how your gay "friends" feel about the militant side of the gay movement. I commend you, I truly do, for I had been so rude to assume that someone with your attitudes wouldn't know "quite a few gay folk". Hell, I even went so far as to assume that you wouldn't even have a single gay friend at all. You will have to forgive me for being so presumptuous. Nevertheless, you seem to be having a few issues with relevance here my friend. How does the fact that you claim to know quite a few gay folk who resent the militant so-called gay mafia have any bearing on the fact that the Polish government was so hysterical in its fear of homosexuals as to commission an official investigation into The Teletubbies? The fuck... ing... Tel...e...tubb...ies. A children's show. The sheer and utter absurdity of officially investigating the Teletubbies has absolutely nothing to do with the militant wing of the gay movement. Gays in the military? WTF? Please, once again, what the hell does this have to do with Tinky Winky? You are talking about a totally different issue. and this idea of "homophobia" is just bullshit. Huh? Whatchoo talkin' about Willis? All your reactions to my post exhibit a very flimsy to nonexistent relationship to relevance and your explicit over reaction belies a greater ignorance of the subject matter and an inherent bigotry first displayed by you admitting you had a problem "with people who define themselves by their sexuality/race/religion/etc". I'm going to come straight out and say that if you think the idea of homophobia is bullshit and that it somehow doesn't exist you are utterly delusional, because there is no doubt in my mind that I know hella more about homophobia than you, and I'm not going to bother debating the matter with someone whose mind is so obviously closed to any sort of alien viewpoint. June 2nd, 2007 at 11:51 amJoe 6 First of all, it is unclear if what is in blockquotes in your original post is part of your Poli-Sci essay or from an article published by somebody else. If it is part of your essay, your thesis isn't very clear. Perhaps posting the entire essay would have been helpful. I can only assume that you think it is absurd that the Polish government is initiating an inquiry into whether or not there is some type of subliminal, underlying motive that promotes a "a homosexual lifestyle." If that is the case why do you object to an inquiry? Or do you see it as some type of "witch hunt?" Democracy means variety and a right to freedom of expression and assembly. And a right not to be discriminated against because of such expression or assembly. Really? Better check your dictionary, sweetheart. Democracy is rule by the will of the majority. What is so undemocratic about a government inquiry? These government officials are part of a duly elected government chosen by the majority of the citizens of Poland. And spare me the mantra of "tyranny of the majority," another modern invention of leftist, civil libertarian asshats. Regardless of how you feel about the inquiry, it is a hell of a lot better than how the children's character, "Noddy," was banned at the whim of customs officials in Australia or how the movie, "The Last Wave," directed by Peter Weir, was also banned in Australia because of the sensitive nature of Abbo relations in the late 1970's. Furthermore, what does my objection to how people define themselves relate to democracy? I don't believe I implied that any government policy should be enacted based on what I think. It is my personal opinion - nothing more, nothing less. Talk about relevance issues... As for anything else I wrote, I thought I was quite clear that anything short of using physical violence against those with whom one may disagree is part of public discourse. Check John Milton's "Areopagitica" and the concept of "The Marketplace of Ideas." Finally, I found this quite interesting. You wrote: It would be quite funny if it were not so tragic. Contrasted with: It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/05/polish_psychologists.html I wonder how many of your other original thoughts are plagiarized as well. Feel free to respond (as I'm sure you will, given you over-inflated sense of self-importance), but I'm outta here. I sincerely wish you good health and happiness. PS - In response to your snarky comment about me being "at the top of my class," I was in the upper 90th percentile of every school I attended, from high school to sniper school to my Bachelor's degree in geotechnical engineering with a double minor in English and music theory. June 3rd, 2007 at 10:10 amrachy 7 It took all of that to get the simple response that you thought investigating the Teletubbies was a legitimate thing to do? No wonder you excelled in your English minor. Nothing I say will change your bigotry, so I'm off now to go do something important like staring at my own reflection and revelling in just how important I am. June 3rd, 2007 at 11:25 amNehring 8 Rachy, (Joe) Are you denying that there is a militant agenda/movement to try to normalize gay behavior? (Rachy) Um, I didn't actually state it explicitly, but yes, that's exactly what I believe. Locate and read After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's. It is the manifesto by which the pro-homosexual movement was coordinated in the U.S. and beyond. There has been an organized movement to normalize homosexual behavior. It is you who is ignorant on the subject, not Joe. June 5th, 2007 at 3:29 amrachy 9 Ahh Nehring, still on the attack with me, eh?! Um, how exactly does the fact that I actually agreed with Joe on one point make me ignorant? I never denied such a thing as a pro homosexual movement attempting to normalise/destigmatise gay behaviour, you might want to read again what you quoted and note that I said yes, that's exactly what I believe. Every movement has a militant wing and that should not detract from the bigger picture. I do not hate every Muslim because of suicide bombers, I do not despise every Christian because of paedophiles in the church, I do not hate every German because of the Holocaust, nor will I collectively judge the gay movement by the actions of a militant minority. So, you've read and made your conclusions from one book but you're calling me ignorant? I would be interested in any alternative literature that you have read to back up your point, as I would have thought that someone with your convictions would have done more research. If you are somehow trying to say that some sort of gay conspiracy has infiltrated the Teletubbies I don't really know how to respond. The gay community has called for a public campaign to educate people, in some parts extreme, but are you trying to tell me that they collectively work towards the subliminal infiltration of children's television? The gay community have experienced discrimination of all kinds and I don't see anything wrong with a public education campaign to break down stereotypes, but to accuse the movement of infiltrating The Teletubbies is patently absurd. (I've heard they use the blood of Christian babies to make matzoh as well, but shhh, that's a secret). I think the core issue here is that I don't regard being homosexual as abnormal, but it would appear that both you and Joe do. If this is the problem I very much doubt that we are going to reach any sort of consensus. Anyway, I'm not exactly sure why I am supposed to be ignorant so if you could please clarify your allegation it would make it much easier for me to respond in kind. June 5th, 2007 at 12:06 pmMark 10 Thanks a lot, sweetie, now I'm just pissed off again... June 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pmNehring 11 Calmly point out that you're not aware of a number of the core facts is not an attack. It is the expanse of your whole piece that exposes your ignorance on the subject of the use of broadcasting, cinema and marketing for social engineering purposes. Again, review After the Ball. Geez, at least do me the favor of looking it up. A great article on the subject was written by Paul Rondeau called “Selling Homosexuality to America”. There are many other articles and books if you need them, but a brief cursory investigation into the subject on your part would have already shown you this. After the Ball is the root of most of these works. It is the core of the movement and any reference to the expanding homosexual agenda in regards to culture has to begin there. Again, read the thing. "Infiltration" (your word not mine) of children's programming is certainly on the bill. Those pushing the homosexual agenda would be stupid not to go down this road. Didn't you ever wonder why homosexuality is being taught to pre-pubescents? You change the culture through the views of the children not their parents. They're easy prey since they aren't done developing and are more likely to be lulled into poor thinking. This is why the Nazis/Islamo-facists and others continue to promote towards kids. The concept that Tinky Winky is gay isn't new and the original acknowledgement of this comes from the homosexual world not the fevered bigoted strawmen you're bashing. Again, look into it. You will find plenty of references dating back almost ten years by major and minor publications. Tinky Winky has been a camp icon for nearly a decade. If Poland wishes to spend resources investigating this, then fine. They're not hurting anyone and it is their right. Its a waste of their time and money but I'm not telling them what to do. If they believe there is a subliminal use of the the airwaves it would be terrible if they didn't look into it. The protection of the public is one of their charges. Looking to other things you've said... I do not despise every Christian because of paedophiles in the church, I do not hate every German because of the Holocaust, Strange you mention these to buttress your thinking. I assume you're speaking about the Catholic Church's problems. The pederasts you mention were largely preist on boy - homosexual child rape. This stems from the ranks of the Catholic Church being populated with homosexuals. The gay priest has been a known figure for a long time. The other reference about the Holocaust - if you read the definitive work about the Nazis, The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich by Shirer you'll find that a bulk of the early Nazis were indeed homosexual. At least you're consistent. I'll need to throw in the usual disclaimers here to hopefully throw you off your usual sniping when you're confronted. 1. No, I don't hate homosexuals. Although, I believe homosexuality is deeply wrong, should be discouraged and certainly not embraced by government or the public at large. 2. Tolerance is fine, acceptable is not. Tolerance = not denying most employment to homosexuals, not turning a blind eye to crimes against homosexuals just like anyone else, providing them with the same rights as everyone else. Acceptance = providing homosexuals with special rights. Making it illegal to hold a contrary opinion to accepting homosexuality. Forcing people to pretend to accept homosexuality in all circumstances regardless of risk. It is not bigotry to see abnormal behavior and define it as such. It is also not bigotry to look at the results of that behavior (shorter life expectancy as one example) and show it to be wrong. I'll close with another one of your statements... I don't regard being homosexual as abnormal, but it would appear that both you and Joe do. Of course we do (if I can speak for Joe,) we understand the definitions of words. Abnormal is something that deviates from the norm. If homosexuality, something that only 1% of the male population subscribes to, isn't deviating from the norm, then what is in your eyes? June 5th, 2007 at 9:55 pmrachy 12 I'm not entering into a debate with someone who sets the immediate tone of a debate by going into attack mode and jumping to label me as ignorant without giving details and amongst a barrage feels the need to accuse me being typically sniping (If you accuse me of responding sarcastically to what I believe is combative and irrelevant debate I would have to agree with you). I would still like to mention a couple of things. But I'm not going to respond to what I think were outrageous statements designed to get a strong reaction out of me. * As for that book I'm sorry if I did not refer to it explicitly, but yes I have heard of it and have read some passages from it. I thought the nature of my response would have indicated as such, I will try to make myself more clear in the future. * I'm sure there is a militant arm of the gay rights movement (generally happens to oppressed minorities), but once again I will point out there is a militant arm to every movement. The gay rights movement is not one great big monolithic group, and I should know. I'm sorry, but you will have to forgive me for assuming that I'm more aware of the inner workings of the gay rights movement than yourself considering I have been a part of it to some degree for quite some time. * Tinky Winky became a tongue in cheek camp icon to a small number of the gay community only in response to Jerry Falwell raising "concerns" about Tinky Winky towards the end of the last decade. Tinky Winky was not in anyway singled out by the gay community prior to Falwell's accusations. Once more, the gay community is not a united, monolithic beast hellbent on infiltration and sublimination. I do not believe in imposing any sort of view upon someone, but I do believe in educating people so that they can make decisions based upon fact. Also, I never called you a bigot, I called Joe a bigot. Try reading his blog. Please don't put words in my mouth. Lastly, you think homosexuality is wrong, I don't. You appear to believe that there are no moderates in the gay rights movement, I disagree. I therefore can't see us reaching consensus and I'm not going to waste my time getting into a convoluted debate when my original point was merely that investigating The Teletubbies was silly, something that you professed to actually agree with yourself. June 5th, 2007 at 11:02 pmchrisinHK 13 I believe homosexuality is deeply wrong if you're interested to say, i am very interested to hear, on what grounds you think homosexuality is deeply wrong. June 6th, 2007 at 3:47 amApathy or freedom 14 Rachy consider this. You posted your article referencing it to be part of your political science essay. As such, many have responded to all that has been posted, not just the adsurdity of the Tinky Winky issue. ie.. Poland has been singled out by the European Parliament for condemnation due to a notable increase in homophobia....... Beginning with this paragraph you brought about a response to the bigger issue, not just the Tinky Winky investigation. It seems I gave your essay more credence than it actually deserves. As a mother of three, homosexual "education" to pre-pubsecent children is unacceptable. I call it indoctrination. Remember that kiddies' shows are written by adults, so any investigation is aimed at adults. Tinky Winky is not alone. There is Piglet; Winnie for being called Pooh; Sponge Bob, Noddy, Big Ears - the list goes on. As for Joe being a bigot, you can call him anything you want. Just don't call him late for dinner. By the way, my oldest daughter, 21, is a lesbian and guess what ? There is no shame in our family. Joe's only advice is to make sure the carpet is clean before she munches. See what assuming does Rachy makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me". June 6th, 2007 at 6:32 amApathy or freedom 15 hmm one thing more it is not Joe's blog it is ours. June 6th, 2007 at 7:00 amNehring 16 Rachy, I used the word "ignorant" in response to the tone of your whole piece. Again, you are not aware of the culture being used for the purposes of social engineering - in this case to promote and normalize homosexual behavior. You're also ignortant of the Falwell issue. Tinky Winky was already an icon prior to Falwell publishing his Feb, 1999 "Parents Alert" which included (along with other items) the warning that the character was becoming an icon in the homosexual ranks. His remarks were in response to a number of previously published reports including one from The Washington Blade (a gay publication) and The Village Voice, both "outing" Tinky Winky well before Falwell opened his mouth on the subject. In fact, the first public discussion on this goes as far back as possibly July, 1997. Falwell took heat over his warning (he never called for a boycott) because he was Falwell (meaning he was a Chrisitan) This turning of tables and using the media to destroy alternative voices is something you can find laid out in AFTER THE BALL - if you would read the darn thing. Pheww. I believe the Polish government's attention on this was a waste of their time and money because there are far more serious acts of usurping society by the homosexual rights movement. Not because the issue is inheriently absurd. BTW, I don't see homosexuals as being a monolithic group. Never said it, never implied it. Nor do I think all homosexuals are militant. Never said it, never implied it. You tossed those out as strawmen. and now on to chrisinHK... Its simple, I view homosexuality in the same way I view adultery. In the same way a homosexual has compulsion to lay with another of their gender, a married person can have compulsions to lay with someone who isn't their spouse. Acting on either of these compulsions is wrong. Neither are good for society nor the individuals regardless of the individuals feelings. Both acts are not about "love" but are about sexual behavior. This said, both homosexuality and adultery are part of the human condition and will happen. I'm not a child and I don't have some stupid notion people are going to stop acting like people anytime soon. In some ways the adulterer is worse since they are liars and cheats...unless the adulterer goes gay then we hit a whole new level. I believe homosexuality to be wrong. I also know it is not my place to tell others what to do (when it concerns adults). That said, I am firmly against government forcing acceptance of it and warn against homosexuality being normalized in the media. Did that answer you? June 6th, 2007 at 10:00 amrachy 17 AoF, I'm sure it would be lovely for your daughter to know that Joe thinks her behaviour belongs in the group of what "once was (and should remain) in the realm of the circus freak show." His words, not mine. And I still say that I know hella more about homophobia than him if he thinks that, and I quote, homophobia is bullshit. Nevertheless, I am well aware that the blog belongs to both of you, but I was referring to Joe's commentary, not yours. I didn't think it would be fair to judge you by association, so to speak. That's not actually my style. Nehring, I already told you I have read passages from that book, but I have also read myriad passages from other books, read whole books and journal articles on the topic, attended lectures and seminars, been on various committees as well as been privy to sensitive government information on the matter so with regards to the book you mentioned I have indeed read from it and choose to not believe everything I read when putting it in context of other information (Same goes for my work at the Holocaust Centre, I have read the likes of Stewart Chamberlain, Marr, Faurisson, Irving, ZГјndel, TГ¶ben et al but choose not to believe what they write either). However, considering how you responded immediately with an aggressive tone (I'm guessing an extension of our last heated argument on abortion), considering that I do not believe the gay rights movement is a monolith hellbent on infiltration, considering that I believe homosexuality is more than just a sexual compulsion, and especially considering that I do not believe homosexuality is wrong I cannot see you and I ever reaching consensus and I don't want to waste my time debating the topic on the Internet. I would prefer to save my energy for arguing with "real-life" people. I don't mind debating things on the Internet, but aggressively arguing against points designed to provoke a strong reaction out of me is something that I believe is pointless and achieves absolutely nothing. Anyway, I'm not the one who set the aggressive tone to this debate, that honour belongs to Joe and you jumped in by labelling me ignorant rather than trying to discuss your point of view in a levelled manner. If Joe did not start so aggressively I might not have responded so sarcastically, and if you had started with "hey there, I would recommend thinking about things from this perspective and reading this book" I would have bothered discussing the matter with you. June 6th, 2007 at 12:26 pmchrisinHK 18 Its simple, I view homosexuality in the same way I view adultery do you view either behaviour as genetically predetermined? June 6th, 2007 at 1:13 pmNehring 19 Wha? You haven't read the book. The book was written by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen following their attending a gay conference in Warrenton, VI in 1988. The conference prompted the men, both homosexual, to put together a comprehensive plan to re-educate the public through coordinated social marketing and media attacks. They created the foundation of the modern homosexual rights movement you claim to know so well. You connecting this book and its authors back to dispicable Holocaust deniers shows that indeed you are clueless in regards to the social engineering I've been yapping about. What is worse is that you're so bitter you won't even bother to educate yourself. These men ARE ON YOUR SIDE, you goofball. Geez, you're writing a thesis? BTW, those "points designed to get a strong reaction out of me" are also known as "facts" - something I've been littering this comment string with, as opposed to you and your feelings. It was the snotty tone of your post that set me off along with your reaction to Joe who I thought wasn't aggresive at all - he was merely disagreeing with you. Calling you ignorant on my part was an appropriate use of the word. I do not believe you know what you're talking about. Ignorant is the best word I have to describe someone in that state. Calling someone ignorant isn't agressive, its an opinion on your ability to stake your argument. This comment string isn't related to our previous discussion about abortion. If I were so petty as to hold a grudge over that you and I would have locked horns long before this. I usually only jump in when I am prompted to. That said, if you want to stop whacking each other in the shins for now, I'm game. Or if you want, throw up a post about euthanasia and let's kick up some new dust. June 6th, 2007 at 1:36 pmNehring 20 Nope. Then again I'm not a geneticist. To my knowledge there's never been definitive proof. The genetic argument, unless proven definitively, seems to me to be a blocking maneuver by those wanting to have wider acceptable of homosexual behavior in the public square. What better way to cease an arguement than to claim its no different than ones eye color? Both homosexuality, adultery and other acting out sexually seem to me to be more of a result of conditioning more than anything else. and why do you ask? June 6th, 2007 at 1:55 pmchrisinHK 21 and why do you ask? i ask because i have never heard an argument against homosexuality other than on religious grounds. i am interested to hear how such an argument is constructed. To my knowledge there's never been definitive proof agreed. so would you say there is definitive proof that homosexuality is caused by conditioning? June 6th, 2007 at 8:03 pmNehring 22 It certainly appears that way but there isn't definitive proof much in the same way there isn't with other aberrant behaviors. Like I've touched upon before, in regards to sexual behavior it would seem to me that homosexuality would logically fall in like with other acts of sexually acting out. It is the displacement of affection. Adults sexualize childhood trama and many sexual behaviors are brought about by childhood experiences. Early childhood development is a slippery field. With the developing minds, emotional attachments, and gender identifications being formed at the same time body chemistry and physicality is being aligned there is plenty of room for things to get altered. The act of homosexuality is still an act no different than my acting on my sexual impulses toward women. Regardless of my past, brain chemistry or even if I were somehow otherwise disposed to a certain field of sexual activity, I still choose to do it since I always still have the choice not to do it. This is where the moral tags of right and wrong can begin to be placed on the activity. I hope that made sense. Okay, correct my thinking - have at me June 6th, 2007 at 10:13 pmchrisinHK 23 It certainly appears that way but there isn't definitive proof Ok, so in the absence of definitive proof, i presume you are happy to agree there is some unspecified degree of possibility that genetics may determine sexual orientation? June 7th, 2007 at 2:02 amApathy or freedom 24 Rachy, our daughter knows how both Joe and I feel. It is you that misunderstands Joe when he states homophobia is bullshit. He was merely stating the fact that he has no fear of homosexuality, and in his opinion most don't. The homohpobic label is too easily used by "gays" in an attempt to marginalize and invalidate an opinion they do not agree with. I know how difficult it is for you to distinguish between disapproval and fear... You don't have the depth of age or experience. The majority don't care what you do in your bedrooms, however, when you put it out there for all to see, the majority will still judge you on your actions... ie.. the need by gays to be embraced and validated, which goes far beyond tolerance. Look at it this way Rachy, people don't have to agree with lifestyle choices. Its called diversity. As for you picking a little piece out of an entire post that Joe wrote: "once was (and should remain) in the realm of the circus freak show." I agree with him that a girl who thinks she is a guy, wishing to run as a prom king, is a freak. She was welcome to run as a prom queen, or even as a "gay" prom queen. But, no, she wanted to blur the lines with further gender bending bs. Normalisation of this type of behaviour to the degree where it is acceptable is totally unacceptable. June 7th, 2007 at 6:58 amchrisinHK 25 is our discussion over, Nehring? June 8th, 2007 at 2:40 pmNehring 26 Still on. Been busy. there is some unspecified degree of possibility that genetics may determine sexual orientation? You can say that about anything. There's an unspecified degree of possibility that I'm going to poop gold nuggets today. It doesn't follow that its going to happen. Like I said earlier, the concept is usualy applied as a "cure all" debate tactic to close down the other side, remove responsibility and more importantly moral distinctions from the debate. If its genetic then how can someone possibly be against it? The genetic argument is a double edged sword for a couple of reasons for those who wish to apply it. If homosexuality should be excused on genetic grounds then what about other sexual behaviors? It is an old saw but it is relevant - pederasts can and will make the same arguement. In addition, those who think homosexuality is disguesting and/or evil will look to remove homosexualty from our collective genetic pool. Given our casual attitudes toward in utero murder, in the future wouldn't fetuses with this genetic code be more likely to be aborted? Regardless, while a genetic explaination may or may not come. It would seem to me to be logical that sexual decisions (and regardless of all of the feelings and impules) are always a matter of choice. There is a positive choice and a negative one. As I have stated before, homoseuxal behavior is the wrong choice. June 8th, 2007 at 10:26 pmchrisinHK 27 You can say that about anything. There's an unspecified degree of possibility that I'm going to poop gold nuggets today. It doesn't follow that its going to happen. i worry about your analogy. i can see that you recognise the problem here. any significant evidence to the effect that homosexuality is genetic is devastating to the argument that it is immoral. therefore you need to make the proposition seem preposterously unlikely in order to appear reasonable in holding that position. but that's not the case, the proposition the there is a genetic basis for homosexuality is not preposterously unlikely. on the available evidence, it is very distinctly possible. the evidence for nature is far from definitive, as we well agree, but on the other hand it is very very far from definitive in favour of nurture. don't liken the chances of showing gayness to be inherited to shitting gold, that's a very skewed analogy. Like I said earlier, the concept is usualy applied as a "cure all" debate tactic to close down the other side, remove responsibility and more importantly moral distinctions from the debate. If its genetic then how can someone possibly be against it? well, I agree with all that. if gayness were inherited, then all of the above would be true. we rightly cannot judge someone morally on their genome The genetic argument is a double edged sword for a couple of reasons for those who wish to apply it not really - it's sharp on your side and blunt on mine. proof of the genetic basis, if found, would destroy your position at a stroke. the absence of such proof is of absolute indifference to me. I'm saying gayness is morally neutral. it's morally neutral if it's inherited, it's morally neutral if it's acquired. makes no difference to me! If homosexuality should be excused on genetic grounds then what about other sexual behaviors? It is an old saw but it is relevant - pederasts can and will make the same arguement. (ughh! even seeing the word "excused" in this context makes me shiver). just as old as that argument is the obvious refutation that pederasts HAVE NONCONSENSUAL SEX WITH MINORS. being gay is not morally equivalent to child abuse. that's a really stupid analogy. In addition, those who think homosexuality is disguesting and/or evil will look to remove homosexualty from our collective genetic pool. well, that would be a moral offense on their part. so homophobes will go from bashing gays to aborting them. whatever. It would seem to me to be logical that sexual decisions (and regardless of all of the feelings and impules) are always a matter of choice. sorry. it's the feelings and impulses that i am talking about. that's the definition of homosexuality i was using - being attracted to members of the same sex. what definition were you using? are you actually saying that its not morally wrong to be attracted to the same sex, just wrong to do anything about it? June 9th, 2007 at 2:01 amNehring 28 Don't worry about the analogy. The pooping gold reference was mocking the wispy language we're using, not the concept of a genetic basis for specific sexual impules. are you actually saying that its not morally wrong to be attracted to the same sex, just wrong to do anything about it? Yep. Which is consistent with everything Ive been saying thusfar. I look upon homosexuality as I do sexual promiscuity between hetrosexuals. Impulses are not the basis of moral behavior - behavior is. well, I agree with all that. if gayness were inherited, then all of the above would be true. we rightly cannot judge someone morally on their genome No, but you can judge behavior. We are not slaves to our impulses. We all have the urge for feeding ourselves when hungry but how we go about sating that hunger is open to judgement. The pederist arguement does stand since they will utilize the same arguments homsexuals use. This was my intent on brining up this point. I'm not equating the two behaviors (although gay culture tends to be soft on boy love). If one makes the blanket statement that genetics will excuse one set of sexual behaviors then all others are excused as well. With your neutral stance how can you say one behavior is good and the other bad? What if the child claims to be consenting? Many teens feel they are capable of making this decision. Again, I'm not equating the two behaviors but if you follow the logic of the genetic argument, you're going to run into this. dismissing it doesn't mean its not still out there. Finally, well, that would be a moral offense on their part. so homophobes will go from bashing gays to aborting them. whatever. If you're neutral on the moral ity of homosexuality then the aborting of "gay babies" would have no moral difference than aborting any other kind for any other reason. June 9th, 2007 at 2:30 amchrisinHK 29 No, but you can judge behavior. We are not slaves to our impulses. We all have the urge for feeding ourselves when hungry but how we go about sating that hunger is open to judgement. so shall we be clear, then? the state of being attracted to the same sex is morally neutral? June 9th, 2007 at 11:30 amNehring 30 Physical attraction? Neutral. It is how one acts upon attraction, either physically or otherwise (obessing over an attraction for example) is where, I believe, morality comes to bear. June 9th, 2007 at 11:35 amchrisinHK 31 cool. I'm with you so far. so if I am attracted to Brad or Chad or whatever, and I want to move in with him, and shag him senseless, and live with him monogamously for the rest of both our lives, paying our taxes and helping little old ladies cross the road, what aspect of my behaviour makes me morally culpable? June 10th, 2007 at 1:29 amchrisfromHK 32 now is our discussion over? June 13th, 2007 at 1:58 amNehring 33 No, again I'm a busy guy. Continuing comments chains isn't a high priority. I get to them when I get to them. I've already answered your question. Read my previous comments and piece the answer together. so if I am attracted to Brad or Chad or whatever, and I want to move in with him, and shag him senseless, and live with him monogamously for the rest of both our lives, paying our taxes and helping little old ladies cross the road, what aspect of my behaviour makes me morally culpable? It my stance that homosexual lust and behavior is what is morally wrong. Again, just like I hold the stance that hetro lust and nonmarital sexual behavior is wrong. I believe I've been clear oon the definitions of my beliefs. I just don't buy the party line that homosexuality is a sainted behavior. I'd pose the question to you, what makes it moral? Where is the morality in your line of thinking? What moral good are you proposing? June 15th, 2007 at 9:52 pmchrisinHK 34 just like I hold the stance that hetro lust and nonmarital sexual behavior is wrong yes, but why? you have, I agree, made it clear that there is a group of sexual behviours you disapprove of. what intrinsic aspects of those behaviours make them immoral to you? what is it about hetero lust which makes it morally wrong? if two people love each other, or even for that matter, if they don't, why is it wrong for them to have sex if they are not married? what are your moral criteria? I'd pose the question to you, what makes it moral? Where is the morality in your line of thinking? What moral good are you proposing? for my part I am classifying homosexuality as morally neutral. I think the behaviour lacks the intrinsic attributes which would cause me to attach any moral judgement to it at all. whether I turn left or right at the lights, whether I tattoo the union jack on my arse, whether I choose to eat only bananas every tuesday, they are matters to me we have no adverse effects on any other individuals, and therefore they are morally neutral. I think my imaginary love affair with Chad has as little adverse effect on others as the other acts described, therefore I am unable to detect any cause for moral censure in that either. June 16th, 2007 at 4:13 amNehring 35 If you think homosexuality is "morally neutral" then WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT I THINK ON THE SUBJECT? Am I understand that, given your investigation here, that you feel homosexuality is neutral but holding the idea that homosexuality wrong is somehow immoral? If you think homosexuality is morally neutral it shouldn't matter what I think of it - its a non issue. June 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 pmchrisinHK 36 WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT I THINK ON THE SUBJECT? because i'm open-minded, and i'm interested in knowing why you hold your opinion. June 24th, 2007 at 1:05 amchrisinHK 37 actually to enlarge on that latter point, at work this week i have been meeting a client who has very strong right to life views. we have been having an excellent discussion based on the difference between deontologic and consequentialist ethical theories with respect to treatment of critically ill humans and animals. he's a right-winger, and i'm interested to hear his views. he's also a barrister, and a formidable logician and philosopher. i think that hearing a case expressed in its strongest possible terms is a fascinating experience. i have been inviting you to express the case against homosexuality in what you consider the strongest possible terms. to my mind i have never heard what i consider a decent ethical argument against homosexuality, so such a beast would be very interesting to me. i hope you are convinced of my good faith in the matter. if you are interested, then reply at your leisure. June 24th, 2007 at 1:53 amApathy or freedom 38 chrisinHK look at homosexuality honestly. Sexual gratification. Homosexuals are not about procreation. Nehring has stated on numerous posts that he feels that any selfish urge, desire is not moral, whether hetro or homo. You feel a moral neutrality toward the preference and expect that expression to be held in esteem. Do us all a favour and accept the fact that many do not share your opinion. Stop trying to get justification, reasonings, validation from people that have actually given society another generation, ensuring the continuation of the human race. A question for you. If your stance on homosexuality is neutral. Can you offer a females who is into receiving animal love the same neutrality. By your own reasoning, the person could pay taxes, live quietly, help little old ladies across the street. I mean they wouldn't be hurting another individual, now would they? June 24th, 2007 at 2:33 amApathy or freedom 39 oops errors, but what the hell, it is after 4am here. *..... offer a females who is* should be ........ offer a female/s who is/are....... June 24th, 2007 at 2:37 amchrisinHK 40 Do us all a favour and accept the fact that many do not share your opinion wait up! did you actually read post 37 above? it's precisely because i DO accept that other people have different opinions that i am having this discussion. other peoples opinions interest me. why do you tell me to stop asking for their reasoning? if someone doesn't want to give me their reasoning that's their prerogative. there's nothing wrong with me asking for it though Nehring has stated on numerous posts that he feels that any selfish urge, desire is not moral, whether hetro or homo. i don't dispute that it is a desire, so is hunger, but we don't classify that as selfish. why is it selfish to prefer anal sex? Can you offer a females who is into receiving animal love the same neutrality well it's difficult to establish whether the animals can consent. i would be violently opposed to coercing an animal to have sex. if the woman sat there passively while a dog shagged her, then i would think she had some strange preferences, but i wouldn't think it was a moral wrong. i suspect you will find that view repellent, but it would be interesting if you could avoid regarding that position as too ridiculous to challenge, and in fact challenge it, by explaining the exact principles which make it immoral. i would regret it if the very lurid discussion of bestiality got us right off the track of homosexuality. i'm certainly happy to run both discussions simultaneously, but let's not completely mix the two. June 24th, 2007 at 3:41 amNehring 41 We've entered some strange ground here but your last comment demands a retort. Okay, a woman pleasuring herself by allowing a dog to do its business on her is clearly morally wrong. It is a debasement of both the woman and the dog. The difference here is that the woman - the one in this coupling who retains a frontal lobe is using the dog. Your logic here easily leads to a cornucopia of sexual deviancy. If this is a moral neutral for the woman to do this then what about her molesting the genitals of an infant. The infant is still in a pain/pleasure mode of thinking given its state of development. Who's harmed? What if the child is a consenting partner? Again, with the rule of "no one gets hurt" this should be permitted with your line of thinking. i don't dispute that it is a desire, so is hunger, but we don't classify that as selfish. why is it selfish to prefer anal sex? Okay, hunger and desire are different. Hunger for food is response for the body's need for sustenance. Desire, while also being a biological function, serves cursory and non-critical matters of the body as a whole. How these are the same is how reacts to each impulse. Simply feeding one's hunger, as one's desire, is not the issue. It is how one goes about doing it. I'm hungry so I'm going to cannibalize you is a moral wrong, as an extreme example. There is a difference between drinking a liter of water and a liter of scotch. Gluttony is also a moral wrong. With desire there are also moral correct and incorrect ways to sate one's urges. Again, sexual desire, unlike hunger or thirst is not a compelling force for one to stay alive. It does however lead to the production of the next generation. Anal sex isn't the issue here. It is the acceptance that heterosexual behavior is the moral correct choice. Homosexuality does not produce offspring. It leads its participants to shorter life spans. It also breeds (unintended pun) sexual deviancy and gender confusion. There are the piggybacking (again, no pun) psycholoical issues - the social issues - the increase in sexual disease - the increase of sexual abusive behaviors. Your imaginary love affair with Chad mentioned above would likely lead to these issues and more. As I have stated before, I understand homosexuality is a part of the human condition and I don't expect it to stop - just like adultery or other sexual negative behaviors. Given the negative consequences (all things being equal) of certain sexual behaviors one has to acknowledge they are incorrect acts as opposed to the ones which (again, all things being equal) lead to positive results. Monogamous heterosexual behavior is the standard for the species. For millennia it has proven to be the best structure to develop and sustain civilization. The combination between a man and a woman brings together the best parts of our collective experience. The joining of opposites is not only beautiful but it is also a biological imperative. Now before I begin sounding so Pollyannish, I acknowledge that people are human and humans are full of problems. Just because a guy and a chick marry and have at it doesn't mean a variety of issues can arise. I am looking at all of this - say it with me - all things being equal. June 24th, 2007 at 4:23 amApathy or freedom 42 ChrisinHK you responded as predicted which proves to be me that you are indeed one sick puppy. A typical twisted lib. Moral relativism indeed. Nehring he will never get it. June 24th, 2007 at 10:51 amchrisinHK 43 bразделы озеленение фризер дешевый холодильник корвет-телеком холодильник уценка узи пежо 407 центр проктология sony ericsson k790i купить толщиномер доставка окон ваза 21102 выписка егрп нард скачать рассылка корреспонденция кострома коммерческий задний зеркало флагшток банерного флаг отчетность пбоюл гидрант решетка окон телематические служба цвет город longines стоматологический услуга конкурентный стратегия кулер 478 купить яйцеварку зеркало багуа ipsec вызов врач лад fag