: Yeah, I know. I got dragged well past my point on that one. I still suggest that homosexuality is nowhere near as normal as the popular elite would have us believe. I also assert that educational and psychologocal acadamia has ventured well past credibility in their support of the Alfred Kinsey studies which still exist as the major influence on modern sex education. Lastly, I suggest that blatant acts of hetrosexual behavior, while demonstrating an additional undermining of traditional values, don't have the same negative impact socially as blatant homosexual behavior. What are "traditional values", anyway? And how does homosexuality have a negative impact on society- even thouygh it may contravene certain Biblical values, what about all the non-Christians among us?
:Far more sensibilities are scrambled by seeing two men holding hands than by a a man and woman kissing passionately - even in most cultures.
VERY poor example. This is only a tangential point, but in fact, in Asian societies such as Thailand, men holding ahnds is taken as a sign of comradeship and is totally non-sexual, while any physical affection bewteen men and women in public is frowned on. Since most people today live in Asian societies, I would suggets tha this tolerance of men holding hands is the rule, and your statement is tehrefore utterly baseless.
: :: I would think the point here is to acknowledge a political shift. When homosexual behavior was conducted solely by poor, marginal individuals outside of mainstream culture, the act was vilified. Now, with 'queers' in possession of substantial wealth and improved organized political behavior, they are able to change public perceptions to their advantage. In the same way that Ronald McDonald can become the friend of children, so also homosexuality becomes merely a new consumer choice. Meanwhile, the wealth and prestige of the Christian church is in a noticable decline; thus, their opinion on matters secular is increasingly attacked. Wicca, the 'Pepsi' to Christianity's 'Coke', is newer and more aggressive, and is increasing their market share of the religion business (incidentally, the same could be said for Islam - appealing to a more conservative and traditional element, of course).
: But let the truth be told DC. Let everyone know how the gay agenda is being administered and how that political shift has been effected. When the smoke clears after the culture war let the people know what they have fought for. I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but if it discovered that the name Kinsey appears more times than the names Freud and Skinner combined in today's psychological journals, is not the claim of massive scientific fraud against Kinsey a grave issue to be fully investigated? U.S. culture has been deeply influenced by this man. Legislation, school curriculum, social science, and medicine continue to feel the impact of this man whose fame of ten years wreaked havoc on our culture and whose notes are still held in secret by the Indiana Universiy. Check it out DC, it may be difficult to find a better example of depravity gone unchecked.
: :: Is it objectively offensive? Are those that find such behavior repellant 'ill'? My opinion is that the question itself is a tactic. Much as declaring the Muslim prohibition against nudity and alcohol an 'illness', it is more meant as an attack on the groups connected with the attitude than as an honest quandry. A weakness is perceived, the counter-groups possess strength; thus, the weakness is acted upon. The reason that the same issues are not brought up in the Islamic world is that they are liable to cost the petitioner a limb or a life. The questions are themselves patently absurd - it is true that Klansmen are frequently people of low self-esteem, but it is hardly related to their stance on homosexuality, and rather more related to the low status that the Klan holds in society. Those who willingly join weak groups frequently feel they have a low status in society, precisely because they do. During the early portion of this century, this was hardly the case with the KKK, and the esteem of members was much higher (a fact, incidentally, which I find of trivial relevance).
: :: If one wishes to argue the merits of a more tolerant attitude toward sexual preferences and practices, I could see the sense in it. These juvenile attempts to make fagdom 'cool' and Bible-thumping 'uncool', however, insult my intelligence and my sensibilities (much more, I might add, than over-eager male bonding or Jimmy Swaggert ever have). If I thought that this debate had any relevance to what the average person felt, I would be positively appalled. Luckily, the common man is far more rational, and can be depended on to moderate these excesses of the academians.
: I hope you're right. I just watched a program on PBS that documented a number classroom lessons in support of homosexuals. Watching the young, seven year old faces as they absorbed the lessons of tolerance for gays and disdain for any attitude that might judge the practice as wrong was a surreal experience for me. I wonder what the common man feels when he sees this.
Don't speak for "the common man". "traditional values" in Amneriac were imposed on the common man by the bourgeoisie. What would you prefer? that seven year olds learn that homoseuxuality is evil, and that homosexuals should be persecuted? I would be EXTREMELY offended if my child were taught that. Teach your child differently if you wish, but as you said somewhere else, I "will not abide" my child being taught anything but tolerance for other people. I won't abide fundamentalists imposing their values on my child.
: :: As for homosexuals, worry not. Capitalism has a way of taking care of the successful and the productive, and they are no exception.
: You hear a lot these days about the chidren. The left rings that bell at every vitual and figurative donation box. But when it really comes down to it, they are the first to sully them, deflower them, and steal their innocence in the furtherance of their agenda.
No, the conservatives are the ones who would liek to steal our children for their agenda. They would liek to raise a generation of loyal robots who will bow dowm=n to teh American flag, worship every murderous action of US foreign policy, and become raised never to question whether communsim might in fact be fairer, mroe humane, and more democratic than capitalism. If you will aclknowledge that indoctrinating kids with anticommunism is evil, then I may agree that forcing sexual attitudes on them is wrong.
