Kahunaburger said:
Therumancer said:
Okay, well for starters "homophobia" sexism is simply a political rallying tool to try and dismiss the other side, and has never really existed. It's a way of trying to avoid serious discussion on the subject, and things like that are why society remains so divided on the issue as the render any kind of serious dialogue or resolution impossible.
What's more you need to understand your own stance is not inherantly correct, nor has it really "won" anything and is trying to deal with a few hold outs, no matter what the media tells you. Roughly 50% of the population in the US alone disagrees with you on this, and it being a "proper" path or some kind of "growing up" for humanity. That's simply your own rhetoric and what you WANT to happen, not what actually happens to be true.
See the problem with your argument?
Therumancer said:
It comes down to entitlement and gay men and their political supporters saying that if your going to have sexual/romantic content you HAVE to have it for all sexual deviations... or at least just theirs, because they are special and deserve special treatment. If you don't create special content for them, whether it fits with your plans or not, then you are a bigot.
Actually, I was under the impression it came down to Bioware putting whatever they feel like putting in their games. I honestly see much more emotional and shrill outcries against gay dudes in Mass Effect than I ever saw in favor of it.
Therumancer said:
Now, since you apparently weren't paying attention, you entirely misunderstand the point I made about curing homosexuality. There would be no need to specifically target it, in making people healthy... as the body is intended to function, the reproductive systems would respond chemically to the other gender to propagate the species. There would be no homosexuality as that is by definition a malfunction of the system causing people to react to the wrong signals and become attracted/aroused. It's not really a debatable point, we understand how that works. Basically homosexuality would be elimited as a byproduct of perfect physical health without there having to be any direct effort made to elimitate gays. It's not a point you might like but it happens to be true, and is a case that applies to any future society with extreme levels of medical technology, especially that which can be instantly applied to any person and rebuilds them to norm (ie healing lots of damage, illness, etc.. all at once like Medgel, Bacta, or similar things).
[citation needed]
Therumancer said:
Really, deciding to be putzes about things like this, and demanding inclusion in everything as an entitlement, probably does more to make me anti-gay racist than anything else going on right now. Insisting on entitlements is not the same as equal oppertunities,[sic]
See the problem with this argument?
For starters citations are not needed for common knowlege. All you have to do is look up say castration, and why it works, and your set... and I have referanced how I know such things. I understand it's liberal chic to try and sound cool that way when lacking anything else to say, but really you'd do better to just not respond.
But then again I imagine your not interested in a serious conversation, crossing a few things out and making accusations about racism or sexism as if they are the same thing for lack of a better counterpoint, kind of makes that clear. Gay rights, sexism, and racism are all their own issues with their own points of debate.
However to be brutally honest I'm not really on the left side of the political spectrum. To be brutally honest with you I think one of the big reasons for problems within our country is in trying to apply the same set of rules and standards to everyone, and follow a 200 year old set of guidelines about rights, totally out of context to both changes in society, AND how the people wrote them intended them to be applied given the examples they have left behind of how they practiced such things in the streets.
I do not advocat resetting the country 200 years, removing women's sufferage, re-instituting slavery as it used to be practiced, or anything of the sort. I do however think we definatly need to update a lot of the laws in light of recent issues. Things like "freedom of religion" for example were intended to apply to Christianity and arguably Freemasonry, the idea of that being extended to religions in direct opposition to our society or contemporary standards was not part of it. Things like Islam were not widespread enough or known enough in this part of the world to be a factor, and the US being at war with a theocratic culture was a laughable thought. Likewise people considering witchcraft and satanism (which can be considered seperatly things) a protected religion would have been a bad joke, understand that for a decent amount of time our own leadership persecuted witches and similar thoughts. Which puts it into context that they did not intend that protection to actually extent to any spiritual or religious belief being tolerated, it was simply written broadly, with the expectation that exceptions would be written in as needed... again going back to the idea that the whole thing owuld need major revision every 19 years or so.
The point here being that I do not nessicarly agree with the principles that define what you would consider racist, sexist, or bigoted behavior. As I've said before I think men and women are differant and you can't fairly apply the same standards and expectations to both. Situations where you say have physical job requirements, and the issue as to whether they should be lowered so women can more easily meet the requirements (as opposed to simply allowing a rare woman who can meet pre-existing requirements), and various biological needs (periods, childbirth) show that there ARE key differances and trying to pretend they don't exist or say "equal except for these exceptions which give women special treatment due to their inherant condition" is pure folly and causes more problems than it solves.
I also feel that profiling, which can include race, is a perfectly legitimate tool, after long experience working as casino security.
So understand, all of your jibes aside, I am probably a racist, sexist, and bigot by liberal standards. In an absolute sense I'm not, or not to the point of saying we should resort to total barbarism, but I do believe that the current standards need to change.
It's sort of like a case mentioned in an Escapist article with someone using the 5th Amendment (protection against self incrimination) to avoid prosecution for seized files on their computer because the police can't decrypt them even if it was an approved seizure. Sorry, but stuff like that was never intended when that law was written, and if you pay attention to how brutal our founding fathers were with Whigs and spies, that should be
pretty obvious. I believe that laws involving civil liberties are in a similar case, allowing too many technicalities which causes our way of doing things to oftentimes lack the most basic common sense.
So needless to say, while I'm not going to go into it, I don't agree with you on gay rights, and doubtlessly not about most of the facts involving them. But then again I'd also imagine you've never actually dealt with child predators after kids in a video arcade, received any kind of Code Adam (or equivilent) training, or researched organizations like NAMBLA other than to accept reassurances that "oh they are no big deal" if that.
Too serious a response given what you posted, but I figured I might as well throw it out there.
But yeah, I'm one of those guys who think we're way overdo for a new constitutional convention... go figure.
