SW:TOR - No Homosexuality

Kinda like jokes about stupid Americans, eh?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,668
Location
Illinois, USA
@JDR: not really, I was curious to see if Rith's list would match mine. I suspect he was thinking of groups like pedophiles or what not.

That doesn't really invalidate the "substitution test" though -- all it does is reveal bias against a group.

You can always ask followup questions, such as "is there an objective reason for this bias?" If you follow this reasoning, it'll be very easy to demonstrate that indeed there is, for pedophiles, whereas you'll be running in circles if you try to demonstrate it for blacks, Jews, or gays.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
@dte: quite, except for bit about power relations -- the very significant distinction that bias against a dominant, hegemonic group by a weaker group is far less harmful than bias against a weaker group by a dominant, hegemonic group.

IOW, a joke about stupid Americans is less nasty than a joke about stupid Negroes.

It's also interesting that members of a hegemonic group very often become completely blind to this distinction. I've seen this in Russians about Estonians and Turks about Kurds, as well as Americans about, say, Arabs (and what not). You're not, ahem, entirely immune yourself.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
Alright, so you think the local governments should have control, I'm assuming that means if you live in an area where they don't want gay marriage it should be banned (since it is the logical extension of your statement). Additionally, family values has nothing to do with this argument, so okay.

Yes that is correct. However, that being said I could care less if gays married or had the same rights as married couples. My problem is that the definition of marriage being changed carries a whole pandora's box of pollitical fallout for the freedom of many other groups, especially religious. And in this case the government ends up dictating religion which is a very very VERY dangerous thing.

As far as the family values thing, I'm only using that as a commonly identifiable label to indicate an alignment and not implying that gays do not have values within their family. Its only an indentifier in this case, nothing more.

So you don't dislike gay people but you have a problem with there being more of them? Doesn't add up. Also, "more susceptible to alternate lifestyles"? Why would this matter if you supposedly have no negative feelings towards homosexuality?

More the merrier implies that there could never be enough. For many reasons, a majority of homosexuals as a base of human interraction is a dangerous thing, especially the viability of the human race and its ability to propegate itself under normal circumstances. It also carries other social aspects that I believe would have a negative impact upon our society as a whole with a majority population of homosexuals. Call me a bigot all you want, but I honestly think that would be the truth of the reality.

So if you aren't "saying this in regards to homosexuality" why are you mentioning it? Do you think it is okay for local areas to ban same-sex marriage? Same-sex adoption? Outlaw homosexual sodomy (mind you, heterosexual sodomy was completely fine under the old Texas law)? Would you vote for these ordinances?

Because he was talking about collectivism and how it is the right way to run a government. If your not going to follow the original conversation, then don't bring up a reply I made from earlier.

As far as your questions:

Local governments ban same sex marriage? Yes, if that is their will. See my above statements regarding the political fallout for changing the definition of marriage. It has nothing to do with discriminating againt homos, but with the implication it would have on the freedom of other groups and religious organizations. If it could be done without those implications, I'd vote for the homos to be allowed to marry.

Same sex adoption? I'd vote to not allow this. My personal belief about the development of a child and identity issues are my own reasons. And if this does not jive with yours, then tough. One more reason for a federalist system, then we can both be happy.

Outlaw sodomy? No, I'd wouldn't try to outlaw it in any mutualy consenting situation of legal age.

If you don't dislike homosexuals then why do you care if there are more or less of them? Why would it even matter to you? You want to raise your daughter without her "being able to understand it"? No one's asking you to describe what happens in their bedroom, and running around saying "I don't want gays to flaunt it" is a lame-ass canned argument wannabe conservatives use along with "Federalism" to justify this sort of bullshit.

My home, my daughter, my life. If I don't want you there for any reason, you need to GTFO. Its called personal freedom and liberty. When I feel she is at an appropriate age to have exposure to such things, I will allow it. But I am the parent, and its my job to let influences into her life at appropriate ages so that she is not confused are distraught. Some parents get pissed if their kid is told their is no santa clause too early. Some parents don't want any type of sexual conotations introduced into their lives until a certain age. Kids favorite word in the world is 'Why?'. And even seemingly inocuous circumstances can cascade into inappropriate subject matter because of this word, subject matter that is beyond thier understanding.

We're not talking about guys walking around in thongs dancing with each other in some sort of stereotypical San Francisco bacchanal (and I'd be pissed about the heterosexual or lesbian equivalents of such, by the way), but would seeing two relatively normal guys hold hands on the park really send you into a state of apoplexy or shatter your daughter's fragile brain?

Yet it happens alot and is on TV alot. Lets not forget to mention the gay militants who go out of their way to wage a war on religious organizations by raiding their services in gay mockery of their religion. Or how they incite and promote violence towards those who vote against their cause, like providing map quest maps to their homes on the internet!!! Lets be real, two guys holding hands on a park bench is not what most people are refering to when they talk about being 'in your face'.

You keep saying you don't want there to be more homosexuals, and you don't want your lifestyle "attacked" (and unless gay marriage means you're going to be kidnapped out of your home and turned gay, it won't). So, alright, lay out your perfect world in terms of this. What rights would gays have? Not have? Could they get married? Adopt? Serve in the military? Show the same level of PDA a hetrosexual could?

I said that 'more the merrier' is not my desire. Stop with the homophobe crap you and all your other sock puppets espouse to denegrate those who have an opposing viewpoint. /sarcasm on : Oh Yes, I'm so scared I'm going to be kidnapped and turned gay, gee I hope I don't accidently forget to lock the door tonight. /sarcasm off.

In my perfect world, gays have all the same consitutional rights that any other law abiding citizen has. Would I allow gays to serve in the military? Depends on if it would affect the morale of the general populace of the other soldiers. If it did affect them, then I'd weigh that the defense of our nation is more important than someone serving in the military. But there are other ways you could allow them to serve in the military and still contribute if thats what they want. As far as your other questions, I've already answered them.

And if you don't like what I have to say, then tough shit. Your only option at this point is acceptance of the reality that I am an individual who is entitled to my view and there is nothing you can do about it. So you can try and be peaceable and find middle ground, or you feel its my way or nothing, then you can go screw yourself. Up to you.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
163
@dte: quite, except for bit about power relations -- the very significant distinction that bias against a dominant, hegemonic group by a weaker group is far less harmful than bias against a weaker group by a dominant, hegemonic group.

IOW, a joke about stupid Americans is less nasty than a joke about stupid Negroes.

It's also interesting that members of a hegemonic group very often become completely blind to this distinction. I've seen this in Russians about Estonians and Turks about Kurds, as well as Americans about, say, Arabs (and what not). You're not, ahem, entirely immune yourself.


I'm just astounded that you can't see the hipocrisy. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and you will scream this at the top of your lungs, but only when your 'group' is being wronged. Your inablility to use the same brush for different groups nullifies any such arguments you make. "Thats wrong!!!! Unless of course we are talking about <insert other group> , then its ok". You simply lose all credibility when you make the argument for one group and then take the opposite stance for another group. Your stance of such arguments is a logical fallicy.

Live by the PC sword, Die by the PC sword.

At least I'm honest with myself and choose not to live by the PC sword.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
163
For many reasons, a majority of homosexuals as a base of human interraction is a dangerous thing, especially the viability of the human race and its ability to propegate itself under normal circumstances.

Which is biologically impossible. It seems you are suggesting (falsely), that homosexuality is socialized, not a birthtrait, and is contagieous. That's both false, and incitement.

Local governments ban same sex marriage? Yes, if that is their will. See my above statements regarding the political fallout for changing the definition of marriage. It has nothing to do with discriminating againt homos, but with the implication it would have on the freedom of other groups and religious organizations. If it could be done without those implications, I'd vote for the homos to be allowed to marry.

I would suggest you are blocking religious freedom, by not allowing religious groups to decide for themselves who could be married in their community or not.

Same sex adoption? I'd vote to not allow this.

If you do not, you are inconsistent with family values, as you are suggesting that some people really shouldn't have families.

My personal belief about the development of a child and identity issues are my own reasons.

Yet again you indirectly suggesting that sexuality can change based on your social situation. Yet again this is both false and inciting.

My home, my daughter, my life. If I don't want you there for any reason, you need to GTFO. Its called personal freedom and liberty. When I feel she is at an appropriate age to have exposure to such things, I will allow it. But I am the parent, and its my job to let influences into her life at appropriate ages so that she is not confused are distraught. Some parents get pissed if their kid is told their is no santa clause too early. Some parents don't want any type of sexual conotations introduced into their lives until a certain age. Kids favorite word in the world is 'Why?'. And even seemingly inocuous circumstances can cascade into inappropriate subject matter because of this word, subject matter that is beyond thier understanding.

You aren't supporting personal freedom and liberty here at all, you are just supporting yourself. If you had any concern about freedom and liberty, you would be eager to really teach that to your daughter, but you aren't. All you teach is authority, and the values you defend is tyranny.

1:Yet it happens alot and is on TV alot. Lets not forget to mention the gay militants who go out of their way to wage a war on religious organizations by raiding their services in gay mockery of their religion. Or how they incite and promote violence towards those who vote against their cause, like providing map quest maps to their homes on the internet!!! Lets be real, two guys holding hands on a park bench is not what most people are refering to when they talk about being 'in your face'.

2:I said that 'more the merrier' is not my desire. Stop with the homophobe crap you and all your other sock puppets espouse to denegrate those who have an opposing viewpoint. /sarcasm on : Oh Yes, I'm so scared I'm going to be kidnapped and turned gay, gee I hope I don't accidently forget to lock the door tonight. /sarcasm off.

This sound very paranoid, almost like you wasn't sarcastic about the second part at all.

And if you don't like what I have to say, then tough shit. Your only option at this point is acceptance of the reality that I am an individual who is entitled to my view and there is nothing you can do about it. So you can try and be peaceable and find middle ground, or you feel its my way or nothing, then you can go screw yourself. Up to you.

If you understood freedom and liberty, you would understand what he can do. He can disrespect your views, and he can be very vocal against them, and you cannot do anything about him tearing down your status and reputation more than trying to convince other's that he's wrong.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
I'm just astounded that you can't see the hipocrisy. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and you will scream this at the top of your lungs, but only when your 'group' is being wronged. Your inablility to use the same brush for different groups nullifies any such arguments you make. "Thats wrong!!!! Unless of course we are talking about <insert other group> , then its ok". You simply lose all credibility when you make the argument for one group and then take the opposite stance for another group. Your stance of such arguments is a logical fallicy. Live by the PC sword, Die by the PC sword. At least I'm honest with myself and choose not to live by the PC sword.

PJ is perfectly right above, and consistent with the moral zeitgeist. It have for a very long time been ok for the little guy to poke fun of the big guy but not the big guy poking fun of the little guy. The former suggest courage and is in many countries encouraged and is a natural part of the culture (satire of politicians etc to keep them in place), while the later is simply bullying, a sign of nastiness, a symbol of evil.

Also there's a difference between humor and simply dehumanizing people. It's also widely seen as distasteful to make fun of minorities who are currently facing oppression, unless you belong to the group yourself.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
I'm just astounded that you can't see the hipocrisy. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and you will scream this at the top of your lungs, but only when your 'group' is being wronged. Your inablility to use the same brush for different groups nullifies any such arguments you make. "Thats wrong!!!! Unless of course we are talking about <insert other group> , then its ok". You simply lose all credibility when you make the argument for one group and then take the opposite stance for another group. Your stance of such arguments is a logical fallicy.

If you'll go back over what I said, you'll find that I've been entirely consistent. Bigotry is about power relations -- a dominant group marginalizing a dominated one. Prejudice against the dominant group is inherently less harmful than prejudice against a dominated group, because the dominant group is far more capable of dealing with such prejudice.

Both are bad, of course, but one is clearly worse than the other -- which is why "bigotry" is not generally used when speaking of prejudice against a dominant group.

Live by the PC sword, Die by the PC sword.

At least I'm honest with myself and choose not to live by the PC sword.

Just for your information: I absolutely loathe PC, and the wreckage it has made of language. I stuck with the use of the word "Negro," for example, on the grounds that if it's good enough for Martin Luther King it's good enough for me, until it became clear that it was simply not possible, because I had to add a two-paragraph/two-minute preamble whenever I was about to use it.

I also loathe bigotry and discrimination, but that has nothing to do with PC.

By the way, how do you reconcile your stated position of being for maximal individual freedom with your stated position of being against the right of homosexuals to adopt? After all, a homosexual couple adopting children in no way infringes upon your freedoms; instead, you want to limit their freedom. Hypocrisy much?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
You'd be a bit more convincing if you got a spell-checker, by the way.

I think that's a pretty unfortunate statement in a thread about bigotry and discrimination - given your position. So, people have to spell correctly to convince you?

Beyond that, it's a low blow even for a rhetorical obsessive like yourself - who'd rather appear articulated than truly believe in what you say.
 
I think that's a pretty unfortunate statement in a thread about bigotry and discrimination - given your position. So, people have to spell correctly to convince you?

Yeah, it was a low blow. Deleted.

Beyond that, it's a low blow even for a rhetorical obsessive like yourself - who'd rather appear articulated than truly believe in what you say.

DArtagnan, this may come as a shock, but I genuinely, truly, really believe what I say here. I do not recall when I've argued a position merely for rhetorics.

By the way, I recall someone here commenting on the difficulty someone else had in taking someone's statements at face value. Remember anything about that?
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
Bigotry is about power relations -- a dominant group marginalizing a dominated one.

No it isn't.

I defined bigotry for you earlier. It's about treating those who are different with intolerance or worse, and you may or may not be fanatical about it. It's also about simply having a closed mind in general.

It has absolutely nothing to do with dominating groups marginalizing a dominated one. That's all in your head - and though bigots have been known to behave like that, it's nothing to do with bigotry itself.

At least try to comprehend the words you're using when you're so quick to apply them to others.

Accusing people of something that's arguably quite serious, without even understanding what you're accusing them of, is pretty pathetic. You seem to go out of your way to behave like that these days.
 
By the way, I recall someone here commenting on the difficulty someone else had in taking someone's statements at face value. Remember anything about that?

Yes, and I admit I can't take everything you say at face value - because it contradicts too many things. You, however, were unable to take ANYTHING I said at face value. At least, that's how it seemed to me.

Are you really saying you don't care about rhetoric - and maybe even so much that it might appear obsessive to others? In fact, I think it gets in the way of truth all too often for you.

I guess that's not even close to being true? Be honest now.
 
Yes that is correct. However, that being said I could care less if gays married or had the same rights as married couples. My problem is that the definition of marriage being changed carries a whole pandora's box of pollitical fallout for the freedom of many other groups, especially religious. And in this case the government ends up dictating religion which is a very very VERY dangerous thing.

Not a fan of that last one either. But IIRC that's merely propaganda used by the conservative christians. It certanly was that way when it came to prop 8 in California.

More the merrier implies that there could never be enough. For many reasons, a majority of homosexuals as a base of human interraction is a dangerous thing, especially the viability of the human race and its ability to propegate itself under normal circumstances. It also carries other social aspects that I believe would have a negative impact upon our society as a whole with a majority population of homosexuals. Call me a bigot all you want, but I honestly think that would be the truth of the reality.

Like JemY said, this is nothing you will ever have to worry about. The percentages are 94 % heterosexuals, 2 % bisexuals and 4 % homosexuals. That's not changing.

Same sex adoption? I'd vote to not allow this. My personal belief about the development of a child and identity issues are my own reasons. And if this does not jive with yours, then tough. One more reason for a federalist system, then we can both be happy.

Your personal belief has no support in reality.[/quote] "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" - Daniel P. Moynihan

My home, my daughter, my life. If I don't want you there for any reason, you need to GTFO. Its called personal freedom and liberty.

I still think the right of your daughter trumphs your rights as a parent. And saying that we have no right to question how you raise your daughter is dangerous. That can be used to justify poisoning her or setting her out in the woods to live on her own for a week.

Which doesn't necesarily mean your way of raising her is harmful. However, I feel you severely underestimate children. They understand far more than you seem to think.


Apart from that I feel that even if I feel you're wrong in some areas (and I'm sure that's mutual) at least you're not a bigot. Congrats, I'm sure you can finally sleep again. :p But anyway, this is the kind of answers we were looking for earlier, not "I have the right to think what I want". Because if that's your only answer then it looks an awful lot like you acually are a bigot. Even if you're not.

Übereil
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
1,263
Location
Sweden
No it isn't.

I defined bigotry for you earlier. It's about treating those who are different with intolerance or worse, and you may or may not be fanatical about it. It's also about simply having a closed mind in general.

You did, and I did not accept your definition. I prefer to go with one that matches usage.

It has absolutely nothing to do with dominating groups marginalizing a dominated one. That's all in your head - and though bigots have been known to behave like that, it's nothing to do with bigotry itself.

At least try to comprehend the words you're using when you're so quick to apply them to others.

I do comprehend the words I'm using. It's of course inevitable that sometimes my usage won't match some other person's usage; that's just the nature of language. Don't think that your definition is the sole, universal, and "correct" one either.

Accusing people of something that's arguably quite serious, without even understanding what you're accusing them of, is pretty pathetic. You seem to go out of your way to behave like that these days.

I'm perfectly willing to use some other word than "bigotry," if you can suggest an alternative. However, I think it's pretty plumb obvious that being prejudiced towards a dominant group is not the same thing as being prejudiced towards an oppressed group.

Consider Germany, ca. 1938. Do you believe these two kinds of prejudice are equally harmful?

(a) Prejudice by ethnic/religious Germans against Jews
(b) Prejudice by Jews against ethnic/religious Germans

If not, please explain your reasoning.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
Consider Germany, ca. 1938. Do you believe these two kinds of prejudice are equally harmful?
(a) Prejudice by ethnic/religious Germans against Jews
(b) Prejudice by Jews against ethnic/religious Germans

If I am not mistaken, "the minority is oppressing us" rhetoric was used there as well. It's a rather common rhetoric in these scenarios. A similar rhetoric was used against everyone with a position in Mao's Communist China, including public school teachers and shop owners who could be beaten up by a mob due to "being oppressors". A similar rhetoric is used by Swedish nationalists who are suggesting immigrants are leading crime statistics so Swedes are oppressed because of it.

It's more of a fear tactic really.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
Yes, and I admit I can't take everything you say at face value - because it contradicts too many things. You, however, were unable to take ANYTHING I said at face value. At least, that's how it seemed to me.

I tried, but clearly I failed. The reason is that your language usage patterns match the language usage patterns of people who *do* apply values to the terms they're using. For example, "natural" -- you're saying you attach no value judgment to it, that it's simply a value-neutral property. Most people who use the word "natural" in the structures that you used them, for example "homosexuality is not natural," use them in a context where they're arguing in favor of discriminating against homosexuals.

Put another way, the word "natural" has acquired a strong positive connotation in most people's minds, just like its antonym "unnatural" carries strong negative connotations. If you intend to use it as a value-neutral descriptor, you should expect to have to work to make your intent clear -- or, alternatively, try to find some other word without the baggage it carries.

Are you really saying you don't care about rhetoric - and maybe even so much that it might appear obsessive to others? In fact, I think it gets in the way of truth all too often for you.

I care about rhetoric as a tool to get my point across, but I don't care for it as an end in itself, no.

I guess that's not even close to being true? Be honest now.

Cross my heart and hope to die.

I can't speak for my unconscious, but consciously, I strive for absolute honesty in any debate I participate in. I don't see any point in defending a position that I don't genuinely hold, which is why I quit my high-school debating team after the first session.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
If I am not mistaken, "the minority is oppressing us" rhetoric was used there as well.

Absolutely -- "the Jews stabbed us in the back in the Great War, which is why we lost," "the Jews control banking and commerce and that's why our economy is going to hell," "the Jews control culture and poison our children's minds with their corrupting influence," what have you.

(BTW, it's fun to be on the same side of a debate with you for a change.)
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
Let me attempt to bring some clarity on why you two might disagree whether the word "bigot" is rightly used or not. It might be rooted in a culturally different association to the word.

"Bigot"
Collins English Dictionary; a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, especially on religion, politics or race.
Prisma English to Swedish; "Intolerant person", "Narrowminded person", "bigott".
Norstedts Swedish Dictionary; "Intolerant due to exaggerated or hypocritical piety"
Prismas Swedish Dictionary; "Exaggerated piety", "Affected piety", "Hypocritical"

Note the two different meanings of the word; a false and hypocritical piety, or simply being intolerant.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
Back
Top Bottom