You are not a mammal.

[Keep The Reason]

uncontrollable biologcial urges and genetic defects!

Two strawmen back to back in a mere 6 words. A record of some kind?

No one says it's "uncontrollable" -- humans control their sexual urges all the time.

No one says it's a "genetic defect" -- in fact, it's like nothing of the sort; it's wholly compatible with evolution as has been very clearly discussed.

The very idea you harbor these ideas as a defense mechanisms indicate that there's something very disturbing going on with you, but then you've exposed enough of your upbringing here to make that fairly well known, of your own choice. But as a rebuttal?

Fail and fail again.

I think the one of the more telling issues that uncovers a lot hypocrisy in many liberals is the issue of the adoption of children, where I see people arguing the whole gay ideology spiel and then suddenly play a whole other tune when it comes to that issue. Its like saying those people are good as long as you keep them away from children. What hypocrites! Yeah I know their excuse is some belief that it is important for children to have both male and female parenting, but in that case the burden of proof is on them to PROVE it!

What are you babbling about? Care to support this bit of numbnuttery? Because I can easily dismantle your assertion of through-the-looking-glass jabberwocky:

Meanwhile, conservative activists across the country are working hard to make sure that no court, at any level, has the final word on gay adoption. Like gay marriage before it, conservatives are looking at the issue of who can raise children as one best decided at the ballot box, not in the courthouse. Those efforts received a boost on election day in Arkansas, where voters easily passed a law that restricts any unmarried couple living together from adopting children. Arkansas joined Florida, Nebraska, Utah and Mississippi as the only states with laws that either directly or indirectly ban adoption by gays.

Similar statehouse fights are pending in South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee, says gay adoption expert and advocate Jennifer Chrisler, and more are likely to follow, as conservatives try to duplicate their successful strategy to ban gay marriage state by state. "The other side was very strategic about their efforts to ban gay marriage," Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Center in Boston, told TIME. "They were able to bring that issue to the attention of the American people well before Americans were ready to have that conversation. They are likely to use a similar strategy when it comes to parenting issues."

Supporters of a traditional definition of marriage have pushed for statewide votes in more than 30 states, and gay marriage has survived in none of them. Those bans, together with existing legislation, make gay marriage expressly illegal in 45 states. And while the outcome of the legal challenges to California's recent vote to ban gay marriage will be watched closely, even gay rights activists say the momentum is draining from the gay marriage fight.

Notice anything about those states? Those bastions of conservative religiosity? Even in California, the vast majority against gay marriage were such thanks to religious fundamentalism.

Now for the flip side, same article:

Several states — including California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York — already expressly forbid discrimination against gays seeking to adopt. A handful of other states, even without specific legislation, allow gay adoption.

Link

From the Pew forum:

Among religious groups, majorities of white mainline Protestants (56%) and white non-Hispanic Catholics (54%) express support for allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children. In contrast, white evangelical Protestants and black Protestants oppose the practice by large margins, with 66% of white evangelical Protestants and 60% of black Protestants expressing opposition to adoption by same-sex couples.

Link

Let's note that while blacks are often democrats, they are a far smaller segment of the population and so 60% of black protestants are far less in number than 66% of white protestants, which is a huge number of the overall population.

A note to the wise: whenever mitch flings the bullshit word, it more often than not lands on him than it does on his targets.

[tirtlegrrl]

I was confused by the comment about gay rights supporters who don't support gay adoption as well; I've never encountered a single pro-gay-rights person that doesn't support gays adopting children. Is this sort of person common?? I hope not...

[Keep The Reason]

I was confused by the comment about gay rights supporters who don't support gay adoption as well; I've never encountered a single pro-gay-rights person that doesn't support gays adopting children. Is this sort of person common?? I hope not...

Well, I suppose there must be some, as there are always exceptions I suppose, but thats why I demand support for mitchs absurd claim that liberals are against gay adoption. The only gays I've ever encountered who are "against" adoption are those who just don't want kids anyway, and they are only against it as a choice they would make-- not taking it away from others.

However, Mitch has me on ignore so unless he sneaks a peak at the challenge, he won't see it (personally, I think he reads them all despite claims to the contrary) but the upshot is he uses this as a way to avoid responding to me calling him out on nonsense just like this latest bit of numbnuttery he espouses. So, I recommend a chorus of posts to him saying, "hey Mitch, can you provide any support for this ludicrous claim of yours that liberals are against gay adoption?"

[Brad]

Mitch,
Thanks, as ever, for your gracious and humble post.
I continue to marvel at the “good works” you do here on the forum!

I went back to find the exchange of posts I had been thinking of, and I’ll grant that I may have mischaracterized your earlier response. Or not. Honestly, it’s kind of difficult for me to figure out the content of many of your posts, althought your emotional tenor always comes through clearly. Along that line, I’ll mention that I’m aware that exactly what I'd like to convey doesn’t always come through clearly in my own posts. We're not editing books here, are we?

Below is the post I had been thinking of when I wrote above that “as I recalled” (intending to indicate that I might be mistaken) you had vehemently disagreed that having close relationships with a gay person or couple might help soften the notion that being gay was most often a “choice.” This post was from a thread entitled (ironically?), “True Tolerance.” Maybe I was wrong about your viewpoint. Rereading the post, the only thing that seems particularly clear to me now is that you charge me with having some sort of extreme inflexibility and know-it-all attitude. I’ll leave it to anyone who may be perusing this to decide for themselves to whom such a charge might best apply.

By the way, for anyone who has a general interest in learning more about the biological origins of I bring these up because I think there are two key elements involved in gaining a realistic and reasonable perspective about homosexuality (and trans-sexual/trans-gender folk). By far the most important is getting to know personally - as real face-to-face friends, if not family - some gay or trans-gender people. It doesn't take too many face-to-face friendships to realize that the entire "gay life-style choice" notion is utterly absurd and that it must arise from either ignorance or hatefulness or both - among other realizations.

Incorrect. I have personally known a homosexual all my life because one WAS a member of my family all the time when I was growing up -- and this is in addition to various friends of the family. This is like all the other ideologies that people have been brainwashed with -- this utter certainty that they are absolutely right and everyone who disagrees with them is morally deficient is a product of the arrogance and narrow mindedness that came along with this brainwashing like so baggage.

The second key element is to obtain some real knowledge about the broad spectrum of human sexuality by studying its development and origins and variations through a variety of sources that are as unbiased as possible.

That is a laugh. The delusion that someone or something is unbiased is one of the most sure guarantees that they ARE biased, because at they have demonstrated that they are blind to their own bias.

Any new forum readers:
You may find it useful to note that while my ol’ buddy Mitch may not think of himself as a mammal, he does self-identify as a Christian.

TG,
Thanks for the kind words. I’m very much in agreement with you, too.
Here are a few other thoughts I had since seeing your reply:

It seems to me that the “feeling of being threatened, and the “addiction” theory might both be outgrowths or variations of a root desire to scapegoat.
And wouldn’t the “addiction” notion be closely tied to the “enemy,” idea, with both lower and upper case “e?” “The Devil makes them do it” (whoa, another silly pun ).

Anyway, about the "I think gay sex is icky" factor, maybe this is something we can all relate to, but in the case of homosexual people, the term “straight” might be substituted for “gay,” no? I understand that not a few homosexuals find heterosexual sex as unappealing, i.e., icky, as many heterosexuals find the idea of some homosexual sex practices. In other words, “icky” depends on who you ask. “Icky” is on its face a subjective opinion, not a fact, as I'm sure we agree.

Then of course there is the fact that many heterosexuals engage in the essentially the same practices as do homosexuals, not to mention the fact that some of the other stuff many of us heterosexuals do from time to time might be considered “icky” by anyone not, so to speak, in the middle of it, no?
(I’m really trying not to be specific or graphic here for propriety’s sake.)

And for the record, I think some of the points where sex is mentioned in the Bible are fairly “icky,” too, like the chap who sent his daughters out to be raped by the mob and the daughters who jumped the bones of their father. And these fine stories are brought to us by the tribe (including Paul) that Christians rely upon to give them their views of homosexuality in the 21st Century?

Also with regard to the “ick” factor, I personally find the bizarre prudishness, paranoia, and not-so-subtle forms of female subjugation promoted by large swaths of all three Abrahamic religions icky to say the least. Of course now we also have, at least within Christianity, hucksterish crassness when it comes to sex, like that described by the article I linked in the “Blowhards” thread.

And to anyone who may have read my previous post above:

Another thing I thought might bear mention after my last post is that by no means all the gay people I encounter are as wonderful as the dear friends I described in the post above. I don’t wish to be perceived as Pollyanna-ish in gushing about all the saintly gay people.
Without going into excess detail, fairly regularly in my work and travels I encounter gay people who I don’t care for very much at all because they behave, by my lights, in obnoxious and even anti-social ways. And sometimes the very traits that make it evident to me that these persons are gay seem somehow part and parcel of the behavior that I find irritating or even outright rude. In other words, it would be easy to imagine that their rude, self-absorbed, and obnoxious behavior happens because they are gay. And I’ve noted in such situations that some of my heterosexual colleagues think exactly that. Could that conclusion be correct? If so, it might be right to say that there’s “something wrong” with being a homosexual.

But I think that conclusion would be wrong for at least three reasons:
1) Again, my experience with gay and lesbian people who possess all the qualities and traits of the best people I’ve ever known gives me great confidence that being obnoxious could not be fundamental to, or an integral part of, being gay any more than being obnoxious equates to being straight.
2) In the same settings in which I encounter gay people whose behavior I find disagreeable, if I stop and think about it, there are usually about the same percentage of heterosexuals who are just as disagreeable, although I wouldn’t ever think to equate their unpleasant behavior with the fact that they are heterosexuals. That would be simply because their sexual identity is the same as my own.
3) It seems a part of human nature that if one is part of any group that the “mainstream” of society unjustly spurns and scorns, a great incentive is created to depart from that mainstream – to be angry, and even to purposely do things that will “piss off” the mainstream just for fun or to maintain a sense of self-respect / to avoid being overwhelmed. There are loads of examples of how this plays out - one would be the writings and actions of some atheists, would it not?

In all of these ways, anti-gay bias has very strong parallels to racism and non-reality based views on gender, it seems to me. And like racism and sexism, I'd guess it will take a really long time for our culture to get past cruel and unproductive discrimination against homosexual people - toward the betterment of all. Also like racism and sexism, progress will require people using their reason - and probably secular laws - to finally counter the primitive influences of Abrahamic “holy” books.

[Keep The Reason]

Without going into excess detail, fairly regularly in my work and travels I encounter gay people who I don’t care for very much at all because they behave, by my lights, in obnoxious and even anti-social ways. And sometimes the very traits that make it evident to me that these persons are gay seem somehow part and parcel of the behavior that I find irritating or even outright rude. In other words, it would be easy to imagine that their rude, self-absorbed, and obnoxious behavior happens because they are gay. And I’ve noted in such situations that some of my heterosexual colleagues think exactly that. Could that conclusion be correct? If so, it might be right to say that there’s “something wrong” with being a homosexual.

In my work I deal with a huge cross section of gays here in Los Angeles, and there are petty, obnoxious jerks among them as much as any other group. And there are also really angry gays who have knee-jerk reactions against the heterosexual community because of how the hets have treated them -- or even because they themselves weren't trreated badly but "historically gays are treated bad".

In short, they are like every other group. Most are decent poeple, and then there are the subcategories of douchebags and asswipes.

[mitchellmckain]

I went back to find the exchange of posts I had been thinking of, and I’ll grant that I may have mischaracterized your earlier response. Or not. Honestly, it’s kind of difficult for me to figure out the content of many of your posts, althought your emotional tenor always comes through clearly. Along that line, I’ll mention that I’m aware that exactly what I'd like to convey doesn’t always come through clearly in my own posts. We're not editing books here, are we?

Nope. Errors are are permissible. But so are apologies. As I said, if your implications were unintended then by all means make some effort to make your meaning more clear and I WILL apologize for even thinking badly of you. BUT that is NOT something you have done at all as of yet. All you have done is confirmed that your intention was this tactic to imply all sorts of lies and THEN to defend yourself with this bogus argument that people should go about this by judging our respective characters! Our characters and such ridiculous unfounded judgements are irrelevant. For you these discussions may be all about "looking good", but I find that sort of pretense stupid and absurd and will have nothing to do with it. None of it changes the fact that your apparent tactics are abomnable and dishonest. AND... YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE PRINCIPLE QUESTION! WHAT the FREAK is it that I supposedly "vehemently deny as a possibility"?

Any new forum readers:
You may find it useful to note that while my ol’ buddy Mitch may not think of himself as a mammal, he does self-identify as a Christian.

Yes and that is supposed to prove what???

Frankly the very idea that this is supposed to prove ANYTHING only goes to prove something about YOU. It smells of all the bigotry and irrational hypocritical bias of the liberal community I grew up in and am thus so very familiar with.

Another thing I thought might bear mention after my last post is that by no means all the gay people I encounter are as wonderful as the dear friends I described in the post above. I don’t wish to be perceived as Pollyanna-ish in gushing about all the saintly gay people.
Without going into excess detail, fairly regularly in my work and travels I encounter gay people who I don’t care for very much at all because they behave, by my lights, in obnoxious and even anti-social ways. And sometimes the very traits that make it evident to me that these persons are gay seem somehow part and parcel of the behavior that I find irritating or even outright rude. In other words, it would be easy to imagine that their rude, self-absorbed, and obnoxious behavior happens because they are gay. And I’ve noted in such situations that some of my heterosexual colleagues think exactly that. Could that conclusion be correct? If so, it might be right to say that there’s “something wrong” with being a homosexual.

I find the whole question here to be rather bizzarre and offensive because it is unimaginable to me that people would think that somehow "homosexual" could possibly equated to being irritating and rude. Thus I find your discussion of it somewhat puzzling. But I do understand the point you seem to trying to make, even if it seems a bit too obvious to me. I think we can even add that like anyone, they are going to be prone to much the same human failings such as insularity in a gay dominant community or automatic hostility and defensiveness in an area where they are regularly harrassed and abused.


------------------------

I was confused by the comment about gay rights supporters who don't support gay adoption as well; I've never encountered a single pro-gay-rights person that doesn't support gays adopting children. Is this sort of person common?? I hope not...

May not be many people at all. I only encountered one. But the point is that I think that this issue is far more telling than this bogus (and typically legalist religion like) standard of submission to a bunch of unsubstantiated dogma, which I frankly think can be proven as quite harmful and destructive to the well being of a large number of people.

[Keep The Reason]

May not be many people at all. I only encountered one. But the point is that I think that this issue is far more telling than this bogus (and typically legalist religion like) standard of submission to a bunch of unsubstantiated dogma, which I frankly think can be proven as quite harmful and destructive to the well being of a large number of people.

vs

I think the one of the more telling issues that uncovers a lot hypocrisy in many liberals is the issue of the adoption of children, where I see people arguing the whole gay ideology spiel and then suddenly play a whole other tune when it comes to that issue. Its like saying those people are good as long as you keep them away from children. What hypocrites! Yeah I know their excuse is some belief that it is important for children to have both male and female parenting, but in that case the burden of proof is on them to PROVE it!

Face palm

It smells of all the bigotry and irrational bias of the community I grew up in and am thus so very familiar with.

I think you mean "morbidly obsessed by".

[Rian]

and I think you, KTR, mean "am blinded to"

[Keep The Reason]

and I think you, KTR, mean "am blinded to"

And I think you, Rian, mean "have no trouble embracing".

[mitchellmckain]

LOL Oh there is a new towering PEAK of hypocrisy that reeks to the heavens -- the hilarious suggestion that we should not get so excited by the bad behavior of some group and that this should be called by names that denigrate the people who do so. LOL

I cannot imagine stooping to such a hypocritical and irrational low in this absurd team sport approach in forums like this.

All atheist and Christians who see the hypocrisy and irrationalities of any Christians or "christian" groups should be COMMENDED for their efforts to point these out these hypocrisies and irrationalities -- AND I do commend them, congratulating those who leave such groups, because the fact is that I DON'T demand that people believe what I do! But likewise people who see the hypocrisy and irrationalities in other groups whether they be other religions or atheists or liberals should ALSO be commended for their efforts to point these out. This is NOT a team sport. The victory of one irrational and hypocritical group over another is not a victory for humanity. A real victory for humanity is a victory over irrationality and hypocrisy wherever it is found and fighting against these does not give you or groups you are in immunity from this any more than the government or the police should have exemption from the law.

[marcuspnw]

With respect to the topic...my objection would be that I do prefer clarity in language so yes we are mammals but when people start saying that is "all we are" or we are "just mammals" or what have you, then Hobbes tail starts to twitch, too.

[tirtlegrrl]

With respect to the topic...my objection would be that I do prefer clarity in language so yes we are mammals but when people start saying that is "all we are" or we are "just mammals" or what have you, then Hobbes tail starts to twitch, too.

I feel similarly...especially when people reject the theory of evolution because they're disgusted by the idea that we "came from monkeys" (to quote a common ignorant paraphrase of evolutionary theory regarding the development of homo sapiens). What's so bad about monkeys, I would like to know? Who's created more destruction, humans or monkeys? If anything monkeys could be ashamed of being related to US.

[Moonwood the Hare]

With respect to the topic...my objection would be that I do prefer clarity in language so yes we are mammals but when people start saying that is "all we are" or we are "just mammals" or what have you, then Hobbes tail starts to twitch, too.

I feel similarly...especially when people reject the theory of evolution because they're disgusted by the idea that we "came from monkeys" (to quote a common ignorant paraphrase of evolutionary theory regarding the development of homo sapiens). What's so bad about monkeys, I would like to know? Who's created more destruction, humans or monkeys? If anything monkeys could be ashamed of being related to US.

There was this idea that associated the worst aspects of human nature with the bestial. I think Plato may have had something to do with it. I always wondered why if Michaelangelo was gay as they reckon he was he sculpted David with such a small willy. I mean it's tiny Apparently a large penis was seen as bestial and therefore bad whereas a small one was spiritual. So there is this trend of seeing animal as bad. It's there in Freud where the id is the beast that needs to be kept under control. I've now remembered a story about evangelicals and David's penis. Does anyone want my slightly amusing evangelical cocktale?

[Rian]

Sure, bring it on! We're up for it ...

(ps - David is amazing, but what I really liked in that museum were the unfinished pieces ... we got there right before closing, and as we were walking out, they were shutting down and turning off lights, and you just knew that as soon as everyone was gone, the unfinished pieces would pull themselves out of the marble and start walking around ... Seriously, there was such power in them! They were amazing.

[tirtlegrrl]

Why not? Let's hear it. Although if you don't mind, I'd rather not be surprised with any more photos of marble male parts, even if they are unrealistically small.