The Gay Fray

I think it was hyperbole stressing homosexual's inability to procreate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah. All these gays would just stop being born of all these gays would just stop having gay babies!

Wait. I'm being told that, in fact, gays don't have babies and that--indeed--the purpose of existence for a sentient species goes beyond simple procreation. It's actually the straight parents who keep having the fucking gays. DOH! That means that the fence won't help!

Apologies to the homos. Though, the bit about locking up a bunch of human beings in concentration camps and electrifying the cages was a really tasteful homage to a very large historical event. Perhaps you've herd of it. It's called. Shit. I forget. Well, you know what I mean.

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One of the problems with addressing homosexuality is connected to the impact of politics on science and the mutant form of science that results. Although individual studies will follow all the rules of valid science, only certain types of studies are PC allowed. This strategy amounts to erasing data points by preemptively boycotting and blackballing studies.

For example, say all the data points on a graph are best fitted with a straight line. But we want a sine wave since it is prettier and makes us feel better. We draw the sine wave and then erase all the odd points that make the sine wave look off.

Let us reverse engineer this. We want a sine wave but anticipate a straight line, before the studies begin. What we do is protest and boycott the odd points before they get generated. Then we promote the points we want so these get more funding. If any odd points get through, we try to discredit the scientists and the studies as bigotted, thereby erasing these points. The result is called mutant science. At one level, each point is done in a valid science way, but through political means we cherry pick the data points until the conclusion is what we wish to achieve.

This is why the buzz words racists, sexists, homophobic, anti-semetic, etc were all invented. This is enough to preempt studies.

There are polarized POV, could also be sources of studies. The results may not be warm and fuzzy, but at least it would allow us to draw a science curve and instead of a mutant curve. Science is suppose to be cold blooded based on cold hard facts. Science is not about sparing feelings or telling people what they want to hear. Guys dp that in bars. There is no valid relationship between science, politics and PC. These bed fellows results in various forms of mutant science. There should be a separation of science and politics like the separation of church and state.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One of the problems with addressing homosexuality is thinking that it needs to be addressed in the first place. I've yet to see any convincing reason why -- beyond the hatred of homphobs and the Abrahamic faiths -- gays should not just be accepted and allowed to live their life like anybody else. No evidence has ever been shown that gays make straight marriages somehow worse. Gays don't bring down societies. Gays do nothing but live gay lifestyles.

What, exactly, are you so desperate to "see addressed"?

~String

 

The current statistics say that cigarettes will shorter your life by about 10 years. The life expectancy of gay males is shortered by 20 years. Why is PC not trying to control behavior that is doubles loss of life expectancy, if it is so concerned about those addictive cigarettes<

Many people are concerned about people who smoke and those exposed to second hand smoke, not to be bullies or smoke-o-phobes, but because of its impact on life expectancy. Many are also concerned about first and second hand (bi and try) gay an its impact on life xpectancy; tough love.

Should we use the 20 year standard fo gay mortality as the standard for PC hands off? That means smoking should also be hands off. Or do we use the liberal dual standard?

 

Pork Rind

Well, in addition to the striking ignorance ... the thing about actually watching the clip is that Worley is a living, breathing stereotype. What is that part? "God's ag'in'it. Yo'g'in'it. I'm ag'in'it," or something almost like that. I mean, the dude is a pork rind.

It almost doesn't surprise me. And it's like, "No, Pastor Worley, I can't imagine another man kissing you. And if you can't figure out why, sir, well, I can't help you."

Obsessing over other people's sex lives often leads to masturbatory fantasies at the very least. Concentration camps where millions of people will die over the course of a few years? Well, now we know what rings them Christians' bells.

Might be a strange—even queer—masturbatory fantasy, but in a Freudian context, that's all that's going on here.

Really. That's not just some subversive joke on part to make everyone who reads this think about the idea of Pastor Worley flogging his fry.

Lusting over the mass extinction of one's enemies is the sort of thing that can certainly emerge from neurotic complexes connected to sexual repression.

 

True! And blacks have a shorter life expectancy than whites. If we could just ban blacks (or even "cure" them a la Michael Jackson) conservatives would be so much happier - longer life for everyone and fewer scary black people.

 

I still don't get what you're trying to address. Kill all gays? Illegalize homosexuality? "Cure" gay people? What? Gays aren't them. Gays are us. Gays are human beings. Many identity groups have different mortality rates. So, I'm curious what you're suggesting.

~String

 

Which is funny in itself. Some guys like blonds. Some like brunettes. Some guys like fat chicks and others like toothpicks. Some guys like a freak, some like a librarian, some like freaky librarians and some guys like guys.

Preferences are preferences.

Let's make blond chasing illegal.

 

You want to fix life expectancy then fix homophobia. There is REALLY good evidence to suggest the risk taking behaviour which lead to early death are as a result of the prejudice. Furthermore increased rates of mental illness and suicide also have there roots in predjuce and lastly direct physical violence is an obvious cause of shortened life expectancy. If someones elimination would lead to increased life expectancy the obvious conclusion is that it's the homophobes.

 

Equal Protection: Illinois

Equal Protection: Illinois to Face the Question
Marriage equality lawsuit challenges Illinois equal protection, due process

Marriage equality advocates are pushing forward in Illinois, challenging the state's standard of separate-but-equal civil unions that, as most are aware, are not actually equal.

Last week, a federal judge allowed equal protection to join the gay fray; Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that California was bound by equal protection to provide proper and equal benefits for the legally-married same-sex spouses public employees. The Illinois suit, brought by Lambda Legal and the ACLU, charges that the separate-but-equal arrangement violates the state's constitutional standards of equal protection and due process. Specifically, the target is the clerk of Cook County (Chicago and environs), for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Activists say they will continue to press lawmakers to legalize same-sex marriage. But these lawsuits mean that the judicial system, and possibly the Illinois Supreme Court, will play a role as well.

"We always thought this was something that had to happen," said ACLU attorney John Knight. "We think it's time to try in the courts, and we're optimistic about our chances."

President Barack Obama formally endorsed same-sex marriage earlier this month, and his statement was echoed by Gov. Pat Quinn.

"We feel like we're at a tipping point," said Camilla Taylor, a Lambda Legal attorney who headed up a similar case that led to the legalization of gay marriage in Iowa. "You reach a point where you can no longer tell these families that they should hold off. You lack the justification when we reach a national moment, when it's clear that our time is now.

(Huppke)​

While the two organizations have mustered twenty-five same-sex couples as plaintiffs, the poster pairs for the lawsuit appear to be two families parented by same-sex couples. The ACLU presents Carlos Briones and Richard Rykhus have been together for eleven years, and raise together a seven-year old son. "Most couples who've been together in a long-term, committed relationship like we have," explained Rykhus, "don't have to give a 10-minute explanation to their children about how their relationship is or is not recognized." Lambda Legal, meanwhile, offers Theresa Volpe and Mercedes Santos, whose twenty-year partnership now includes two children, ages four and seven. Santos said that a year spent joined in civil union "just kind of defined even more the differences between our family and other families who are married". Volpe reminded of confusion about the nature and status of civil unions: "Our daughter had to explain that to her classmates," she told reporters. "We shouldn't have to explain that. Our daughter shouldn't have to explain that."

Now, this is where things get interesting. Rex Huppke tries to explain:

The two Illinois lawsuits are similar to ones filed in California not long after the state enacted a domestic partnership law that provided the legal equivalent of civil unions. The suits in California led the high court there to rule that it was unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage. But that ruling was eventually trumped by Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that barred gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

That turn of events in California is one reason some activists would prefer to win marriage equality through the Legislature, believing it puts same-sex marriage rights on more secure footing.​

But then add in a couple of twists:

Cook County Clerk David Orr's office issued a statement from the clerk, who is out of the country: "The time is long past due for the state of Illinois to allow county clerks to issue marriage license to couples who want to make their commitment. I hope these lawsuits are the last hurdle to achieving equal marriage rights for all."

Because the governor has voiced his support for same-sex marriage, it's unclear whether the state will fight the lawsuit. Obama has instructed the U.S. Department of Justice to stop defending any lawsuits against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.​

That is to say, the county clerk being sued is on board with the purpose of the lawsuit, and if Cook County either loses the suit or fails to fight it, the state runs into the same issue with its governor.

Naturally, traditionalists are incensed:

Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, which opposes gay marriage, said he would expect the state's attorney and the attorney general's office to "defend the constitutionality of state laws."

"We would expect them to forcefully defend the state's marriage law," Breen said. "We will provide whatever assistance we can to help them in that defense."

Robert Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, said the lawsuits show that the gay rights advocates who fought for civil unions never intended to be content with that law.

"Civil unions afford all the benefits of marriage," he said. "The justification for passage of civil unions was to get all those legal rights. But we had said all along that civil unions weren't the issue and that same-sex marriage was really the issue. This clearly proves our point, that really what they want is marriage."

Breen said he doesn't believe the equal protection and due process arguments are applicable to the issue of same-sex marriage: "Conceptually, when you look at the foundation of the country and the fact that the folks who gave us the equal protection and due process guarantees would have rejected same-sex marriage, to turn around and try to use those same clauses to escort this new legal construct into existence makes no sense."​

It is worth pointing out that Breen's suggestion doesn't make a whole lot of sense when carried over to general constitutional considerations. After all, the Founders didn't really know what a modern assault rifle would be like; and to judge by the NRA's rendering of the Second Amendment, the political arena is wrong to exclude weapons of mass hazard, such as grenade launchers, mortars, or even nuclear weapons in the hands of private citizens—that is, yeah, I might not see the point of packing an M-203 for personal defense because it's excessive, and is there really any question about the intimacy of defending oneself with a W87 warhead, but if we insert Breen's logic, those points are moot.

And while it might remain an open question what the Founders would have thought of child pornography—it was okay to get on a ten year-old girl in Massachusetts at least as late as 1875—people tend to exclude child pornography from free expression under the First Amendment. Again, if we apply Breen's logic, it doesn't matter, and child porn ought to be legal and unrestricted.

The most obvious problem with Breen's constitutional logic is that if the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment intended only to apply to skin color, the point could easily have been made; see, for instance, Amendment XV.

Of Mr. Gilligan's argument, it should be noted that civil unions do not provide "all those legal rights", which returns the American constitutional argument to the days of Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the infamous separate-but-equal standard. And it is worth noting that the one dissenting vote on the Supreme Court in Plessy came from Justice Harlan, a man who had previously owned slaves and, as such, could apparently foresee the functional problems with such an outcome.

It only took sixty years to deal with separate-but-equal, so, hey, maybe by 2070, or so, Gilligan's argument will be obsolete, anyway. And, you know, in terms of humanity and civil rights, what's sixty years, more or less?

So now Illinois faces the question, and the asking is apparently reasonably coordinated. With the governor as well as the targeted county clerk on board with the cause, one might well suspect that equal protection will prevail for same-sex couples in Illinois:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws.

(Constitution of the State of Illinois)​

It should be noted, as well, that Section 3 of Article I therein also notes, "nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship".

The lawsuit goes forward under Section 2, Due Process and Equal Protection. That should be sufficient. With the governor and the targeted county clerk on board with the lawsuit, it will be interesting to see what the traditionalists bring to court.
____________________

Notes:

Huppke, Rex W. "Lawsuits challenge Illinois gay marriage ban". Chicago Tribune. May 30, 2012. ChicagoTribune.com. May 30, 2012. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-gay-marriage-lawsuit-20120530,0,7824171.story

Constitution of the State of Illinois. (n.d.) ILGA.gov. May 30, 2012. http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm

 

And again with the "Homosexuality = pedophilia/incest/bestiality/etc.." argument.

 

The life expectancy of homosexuals is shorter than it is for straights. Average gay males lose about 20 years of life. Smokers only lose about 10 years of life. If there is such thing as homophobia, it may have to due with this fear of early death that is all around us. This can't be good for you.

This data is why I can't see how this can be natural behavior. Picture an animal behavior that lowers its life expectancy by 25%. You won't see that in nature, since this is not beneficial to natural selection. It would not become part of long term genetics.

I can see homosexuality, being a product of the mind. But like an addictive behavior, such as cigarette smoking, is not easy to quit and appears to almost natural to the smoker. Any form of sex is pleasurable and the easy it is to come by, the easier it is to become long term addicted. Since this behavior is not natural the body is more vulnerable to early death.

If we protect smokers from early death, why not protect homosexuals from themselves, especially if we could extend the life expectancy of a large group of people. Instead we ignore the obvious and pretend this is natural. Homephobia could also be analogous to second hand smoke, with some young people vulnerable to the addiction that can reduce their life expectancy.

 

Again? Why do you keep spamming this post. I already showed you WHY homosexuals might be subject to a lower life expectancy and almost all of it can be laid at YOUR feet and those like you.

 

How is this homophobic bullshit allowed to stand? This kind of trash should lead to a permaban, and I'm holding all moderators personally responsible if it doesn't.