Homosexuality, does it really bother you?

[barman]

Thanks for the response.

I understand your perception a bit better now, per your 'rankings' of preferred partnerships with regard to how these relationships affect kids.

I think using such a ranking system limits possibilities.

Values are a byproduct of individuals and these values can be demonstrated and taught by male/female, male/male, or female/female.

If you are persuaded that the former pairing is most always going to have more value than the later groupings, I can see why you would be troubled at describing each as possibly being 'equivalent'.

I am obviously less persuaded on that point than you are. I figure once we're at the point of talking about a specific kid (whatever age), the relevant parental pairing is already established. So in his world, the only important facts are already established. His parents, or primary caregivers are already in place and that's what he has to deal with. Other possibilities, even if 'ranked higher' on a given scale, aren't a factor.

I appreciate your explanations.

 

[Meanstreak]

Parsons,

I have read and re-read your posts and for the life of me I have no idea what the hell you are trying to say.

Are you trying to tell me that my daughter will lack an identity and a purpose in life because she is taught to accept others for what they are !? Are you trying to tell me that my daughter will somehow grow up disillusioned and bitter because she was taught not to judge others ?

What truth is it that you keep speaking anyway ? The truth is that there are millions of heterosexuals having sex - with no intention of ever procreating ! HAve you never used birth control !!? The TRUTH, Parsons, is that sexuality is but one facet of an individuals 'identity'. Sex is a pursuit we all engage in to satisfy certain emotional and physical needs, period. That some can enjoy sex in a different way than others is neither 'good' or 'bad'.

As far as your 'rankings' of ideal parental match-ups goes - the bottom line is a child requires love, support, and guidance through their formative years, PERIOD. There are plenty of 'traditional' parent arrangements that offer none of these things.

There is plenty of room on this planet for us all to live, that is the message I intend on sending to my child. As I cannot rid the planet of closed minded haters like yourself, the best I can do is teach my child that your negative, hypocritical, small world view is not the only way to look a things. Hopefully, given all the information, my daughter can choose for herself what to believe.

My deeepest sympathies to your children, they will be force fed your bigoted, prejudiced, un-enlightened crap and mistake your identity for theirs. Hell, if all you wanted was a 'mini-me' for yourself you could have trained a dog to hate just as easily.

Peace.

 

[DarrylParsons]

MS,

You are too funny accusing me of hate when all I want is to protect my children from politically correct propaganda. I am willing to go halfway ie. to not discuss values in the classroom and focus on learning. I won't impose my values on your kids if you don't impose yours on mine, deal?

My rankings are relative and do not imply that even kids who come from the bottom of the list are lesser beings. What I am saying is that they will have a tougher struggle ahead of them than those at the top of the list, but the extra obstacles can still be overcome.

I'd really be curious about what the forum thinks about who injects more negative emotions into his posts between you and me. Contrast that with who is accusing whom of hate and you have a situation which is somewhere between amusing and sad IMO.

 

[DarrylParsons]

Bar,

I agree you have to work with what is given and try to make the best of it. I personally came from the 3rd ranking situation so my rankings even go against myself to some degree.

But when one is objective one usually doesn't come out at the top of the list, just as the world found out after much heated resistance that the earth is not at the center of the universe.

I find it interesting how often powerful emotions get in the way of looking at one's own situation objectively. We really, really want to think we're good, or so it seems. It must be some sort of built-in survival mechanism. It seems logical for such a thing to exist but I am often surprised at just how powerful a force it can be in a world in which survival is so laughably easy.

 

[jointpleasures]

I do not give homosexuality much thought. That being said, I think it is wrong. It's the damn parades and the political tone that pisses me off and thus the term homosexuals become homo's. I would like the homo's to stay in the closet, but it seemed Rock Hudson and the AIDS epidemic made it coming out easier, as long as you had lawmakers, that would do anything for your vote as well as the homo's partners vote. Taking a "moral" stance on the homo's behalf, the demi's saw a group they could count on for their vote. This moral stance became a fund raising event for the homos as well as a legal one. Now it has gotten ridiculous and thus part of the reason for my disdain of the democratic party. The war on terrorism and the war on AIDS are two wars Americans are putting a lot of interest and money in. The war on AIDS would be a lot easier to win if it were not for the homos. I realize though that not all homo's have AIDS and not all Muslims are terrorists.

 

[kayaman+]

"I would like the homo's to stay in the closet"

Well at least you admit you're in favor of discrimination.

 

[Meanstreak]

Parsons,

I'm glad you're amused, but for the record, I would suggest the laugh you are having is one of sheepish shame and humility. You preach the high and mighty philosophy of 'calling a spade a spade' but when the spade happens to be your hate of homosexuals then all bets are off. I'm sorry the "TRUTH" hurts, but those are the facts, jack. Would you feel better about yourslef if I termed your hate just "extreme prejudice" ? ... it's all the same to me.

Incidentally, the surest sign of a weak minded individual, such as yourself, is invoking support from the masses to rally around and protect poor wittle dawwyl ... I am talking to you specifically parsons, and if you can somehow construe my message of acceptance and understanding as anything but positive than you are simply unwell.

Peace.

 

[DarrylParsons]

MS,

You've got me shakin' in my boots with that tough guy talk. I have to pause so I can find a place to run and hide...

Oh well, can't find any so I guess I'll just have to respond...

Think what you like about whether or not I hate (or am prejudiced against) homosexuals, but in 19 years of adult life including a job in which I hired and fired over 500 people, not a single gay or lesbian person has ever expressed dissatisfaction with how I have treated them, and that even includes gay guys who have tried (and failed, of course) to pick me up. What's more, I've even defended homosexuals from abuse on more than one occasion.

If I were you I'd get some more practice differentiating apparent contradictions from actual ones (hint: leave room for doubt, ask questions)

 

[Meanstreak]

Parsons,

AS I say, reading your posts I have no idea what ideas you are trying to convey. You enter this thread by yapping something about "politically correct BS" and "lose identity" then when you are called out for being just the average bigot you come back with how self-important you are and that no homosexual has complained about you because you treated them fairly.

So, in other words, the gays and lesbians you have so much experience with don't know you teach your children they are second class citizens - WOW - I'm sorry I can't commend you on treating people fairly and respectfully while secretly castigasting them - that just makes you wishy washy and hypocritical.

As I have yet to make head or tails from any of your posts I can only surmize that in the world according to Darryl - as long as homosexuals accept their fate as good little worker bees and don't complain too harshly if their employment is terminated then all is right. However, once those little slaves decide they want the life affirming experience of raising a child - we'll just eliminate all their rights as humans and send them back to the factory ... what a wonderful world.

Peace.

 

[DarrylParsons]

MS,

I don't want to send anyone back to any factory. Homosexuals have it bad enough as it is since their family tree has run into a dead end. I am all for letting them do as they please provided they don't influence me or my family with it by having teachers act as unwitting salesmen for their values for example.

To see where I'm coming from you'll have to extend the time horizon way out there. I'm thinking several generations ahead. I want my family tree to have lots of branches down there. Why? Because I like the thought of spreading my genes as far as possible. It's the same reason most guys like sex.

If two guys who I don't even know have sex with each other, why should that bother me? It has nothing to do with my genes and my future family tree. If they enjoy it, more power to 'em.

As for gay marriage, there are financial implications there like tax breaks, insurance discounts etc. that affect me so I vote against it. As with anything else, I look at the impact it has on me and that is the main angle on which I base my opinion. The other impact on me is what I mentioned before -- there will be culture defining elements that will filter into the public school system and that will give me another thing to explain to my kids which contradicts what the teachers say. It can be worked around of course, like just about anything else, but why give yourself another nuisance when you can vote no and avoid it!?

With adoption I have already said that it beats the orphanage by a long way, even if the couple is gay. And I also said that a straight couple is a better environment for the kid than a gay couple. This is because he will have a higher likelihood (IMO) of experiencing the joys of raising his own children and the added sense of identity and purpose which that gives. Of course a harmonious gay couple is still better than chaotic straight couple. My list assumes all other factors are equal.

Is my position still unclear to you?

 

[barman]

Originally posted by Darryl Parsons:
MS,

I am all for letting them do as they please provided they don't influence me or my family with it by having teachers act as unwitting salesmen for their values for example.

BAR: What values are you referring to? The ones that say it's ok for people of same sex to have intimate relations?

Here's a news flash and why it's appropriate for teachers to share this information: IT'S OK.

DP:To see where I'm coming from you'll have to extend the time horizon way out there. I'm thinking several generations ahead. I want my family tree to have lots of branches down there. Why? Because I like the thought of spreading my genes as far as possible.

BAR: This is part of the paradigm shift I mentioned earlier. It's clear that 'families' from the late 20th century forward will often be made up of individuals who may not have direct biological ties, or at most, genes from only one 'parent', and not from the other.

We can pretend that this won't be the case. We can protest that we think it was better the old way. But neither action will stop the inevitable shift from occurring. Don't our children deserve the benefit of receiving accurate information based on most current information?

DP: As for gay marriage, there are financial implications there like tax breaks, insurance discounts etc. that affect me so I vote against it.

BAR: Then your complaint is more with the tax code giving breaks to people who are married instead of unmarried. I think you should join those of us who believe the tax code should be revised to eliminate such breaks and each wager earner should be taxed at an equal percentage.

DP: -- there will be culture defining elements that will filter into the public school system and that will give me another thing to explain to my kids which contradicts what the teachers say.

BAR: Gasp! You mean you might have to admit to your kids that your previous point of view has been modified based on rational and accurate new information? Now I'm jacking with you a bit, because I have three kids of my own and I know how much having to do that sucks...smile

DP: It can be worked around of course, like just about anything else, but why give yourself another nuisance when you can vote no and avoid it!?

BAR: Because (figuratively) voting no to allowing fair public treatment for homosexuals means you condone undue discrimination based solely on sexual preference. You CAN feel that way, but acknowledge the consequences of your choice please.

DP: With adoption I have already said that it beats the orphanage by a long way, even if the couple is gay. And I also said that a straight couple is a better environment for the kid than a gay couple.

BAR: Already mentioned above that I disagree with this perception, if we base it only on the above factors.

DP: This is because he will have a higher likelihood (IMO) of experiencing the joys of raising his own children and the added sense of identity and purpose which that gives.


BAR: Bingo. It's in your opinion. Which you have a right to of course, but without more supporting data, it's insufficient to attract support for your declaration that a child with gay parents in the house will be at a disadvantage in the 21st century when simply compared to a child from a male/female parented household.

 

[DarrylParsons]

Bar,

The purpose of my last post was not to convince anyone to vote against gay marriages. It was to explain to MS my point of view because he asked for clarification (in his own special way).

I'm the last person to get out and start campaigning about such an issue which has only minor relevance to me. There are private schools out there which teach values I believe in so in the worst case scenario I'll just send my kids there. Luckily this issue is nonexistent in Hungary at the moment so my involvement in this topic is only from a theoretical angle anyway. I could never live in the US with all the rampant feminism, leftism and PC BS. In that environment it's no wonder homosexuality is becoming the norm.

 

[DarrylParsons]

Feminists in the US who have not yet become homosexual secretly dream of intelligent, strong and stern men putting them in their place. But unfortunately for them the men are smarter than that. They follow the path of least resistance and go outside the borders where they can find women that turn them on and treat them right. These are sad trends but anyone who has been around the block can see that it's true.

 

[Meanstreak]

Well, DP, I'll give you full marks for clarification ... now atleast I can be sure that you just don't GET IT.

The reason I know this, is because I USED to be EXACTLY like you. I was the type of person that KNEW what was right and wrong. I KNEW that my VALUES were the BEST values. I knew that my PERCEPTION of the world was the truth, and that anybody who disagreed with me was WRONG and in some way just a little 'beneath me' in a relative way. I HAD all the answers and if somebody wanted to know what they should do - then they should have asked me 'cuz I could sure tell 'em. In short, I was an ABSOLUTIST (no not the vodka).
Sometime since then I have changed rather drastically. Major influences have been my daughter, some Zen related literature, and probably most significantly a Bachelor of Arts degree from an accredited university. Those factors combined with a little travel to give me a much more relativistic view on the world and my place in it.

With all the violence, hatred, and general animosity between everything from people, to religions, to cultures, to nations, to sports teams - you name the human organization - I just feel that now is the time to live and let live, period. That goes for EVERYTHING and ANYTHING that does not infringe upon my pursuit of a meaningful existence HOWEVER I choose to define that, and that goes FOR EVERYBODY.

I have no right to tell somebody how to live their life, but above all - I would never want to. But that's just me.

Peace.

 

[FunkSoulBrother]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Darryl Parsons:
Feminists in the US who have not yet become homosexual secretly dream of intelligent, strong and stern men putting them in their place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you're just making an ass of yourself. Stop. Seriously. Stop.

 

[barman]

First off, FS Bro...

Now back to Darryl, who offered a fair response to my own last post then closed with this:

DP: I could never live in the US with all the rampant feminism, leftism and PC BS. In that environment it's no wonder homosexuality is becoming the norm.

BAR: Couldn't say for sure about how rampant F, L, and PC BS is, but I'm reasonably sure that homosexuality is not 'the norm'.

In fact I bet it's just the same here (5-10%??) as it is in Hungary and most anywhere else on the planet. Whatever the normal percentage is, it likely only varies based on how dangerous it is for someone to honestly acknowledge their sexual preference.

Since that is becoming less dangerous in the U.S., I can see why to some it might appear to be a 'growing' phenomena, though in fact it's simply biology being more accurately defined.

PS: My wife is kinda feminist, fairly left and when she wants to be, PC. (Aren't we all?)

And she treats me like a fukking king. Sorry you had to go all the way to Hungary to find similar adoration, but I'm glad you found it.

 

[Railbird]

Gay mafia spends a billion dollars a year to promote their deviant lifestyle, they use words like hate and tolerance, but they are amongst the most hateful an intolerant people out their.

 

[DarrylParsons]

MS,

Talk to me when you've LIVED in another country for at least 2 years. Travelling is one thing but it takes years to really absorb the other culture.

So you used to be a bad boy and then realized you're better off being a good boy. Good for you. I see the first priority as being true to oneself. There are many ways in which this is in conflict with society and I and am constantly at war with that. Part of that war is speaking my mind even if it may be offensive. Sometimes I regret the style in which I express my opinion but I do not regret my opinion itself because it is the product of many, many years and is not something I have a whole lot of control over.

Believe it or not, I also believe deep down in the live and let live maxim. I only oppose feminism, leftism, PC-ness and homosexuality to the extent that it affects me and my family. When movements like that go lobbying for their rights they are influencing the authorities to exercise power for their benefit. That affects me (if it is in my country that is). They are not satisfied just having their practices tolerated. They want to have proactive influence in defining future generations' thinking. This to me is problematic. I am willing to meet halfway but these movements want to go more than halfway.

Women, minorities and gays were pretty badly oppressed in your country until about the mid 20th century. Now the descendants of the oppressors are paying the price by having the pendulum swing in the opposite direction. In a way they deserve it, but since my ancestors had nothing to do with the oppressing I feel I do not deserve to get the backlash.


Bar,

I agree that the percentage of homosexuals in Hungary is probably not much different from the US, but for some reason they do not feel the need to make political waves like they do in the US, despite the fact that the right wing party (currently with 55% support) actually states publicly that they believe heterosexuality is a virtue. Despite these statements the gay community does not feel oppressed. Neither do women or minorities. Hungarian women will be the first to admit they would rather have strong opinionated men give them sexual pleasure than to be president of a big corporation. They do complain about the small number of strong opinionated men, though.

I have no agenda to change anyone's lifestyle to the extent it doesn't affect me. I will express my opinion but I will never get politically active because I have no desire to exercise force. You guys should really think about that. If there are two sides to a debate and one side just expresses its opinion while the other side is politically active, then which side is trying to use force on the other and which side is more tolerant? Try to be objective here honestly.

[This message was edited by Darryl Parsons on May 17, 2004 at 06:43 AM.]

 

[barman]

DP: If there are two sides to a debate and one side just expresses its opinion while the other side is politically active, then which side is trying to use force on the other and which side is more tolerant? Try to be objective here honestly.

BAR: Oh my, you keep beginning posts with sensible sounding reasoning and then conclude with baffling comments.

So if I attempt to be politically active and remove the heretofore legal discrimination against gays, I am being overly 'forceful', and those not involved at the political level are 'tolerant'?

What about those who led the civil rights work for blacks? Are they only using force while the racist bigots who endorsed segregation were tolerant?

If the gay community in Hungary is not politically active it suggests one of two facts.

Either they are happy with their standing in Hungarian society or they are afraid for some reason(s) to openly discuss their sexuality.

You will NEVER get polticially active? What if new policies came into play that announced any U.S. born immigrants cannot have their children eat at the same restaurants as native born children. What if those policies were proposed and put to a vote? Would you just stand by on the sideline, for fear of appearing 'forceful' or would you weigh into the discussion with your friends and neighbors (I presume you may have no voting rights?)?

In other words, I DO believe you are not politically active with regards to equal rights for homosexuals, but I do NOT believe you would just sit by and watch you and yours be trampled by political injustice.

So I find it puzzling why you would be critical of others who defend their own when facing said injustice, though their issue may not be yours.

 

[xpanda]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FunkSoulBrother:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Darryl Parsons:
Feminists in the US who have not yet become homosexual secretly dream of intelligent, strong and stern men putting them in their place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you're just making an ass of yourself. Stop. Seriously. Stop.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a feminist myself, I back up FSBs assertion that this is seriously weak on your part, DP.

In fact, I would go one further and add that men who believe that feminists must be homosexual or have fantasies of power struggles with men, are themselves weak-minded and suffer from extraordinary inferiority complexes.

I call it 'small penis syndrome.'