Homos=Bad; Hillbilly=Good
Part 3 in the series Identifying the Real Enemy of America
In political circles it is popular to not support gay marriage. Opponents of such an institution are typically paranoid old white males and other intolerants that see a small number of homosexuals as a legitimate threat to family and country. To me, a couple of guys that like baloney in the can are the least threatening thing around. I speak from experience. Some of my favorite, long-term, balanced couples are guy-guy and gal-gal.
Whereas my gay friends have stable careers, rational ideas, upstanding morals and impeccably-appointed homes, they are not allowed the benefits typically associated with a life-long (even church-recognized) commitment. Each of the couple must carry their own insurance, they must make special arrangements for legal/ownership/financial issues, and those with children cannot benefit from full parental rights from both partners. Is this pro-family?
On the other hand, Cooter and his wife have 10 kids, feed them with government funded food stamps, receive Medicaid, and take take take from our bankrupt government. He can waste his unemployment check on a Jack Daniel's mirror and a #3 hat. Somehow all of his discretions are ignored when he sticks Ol' Glory in the yard, a “Bush/Cheney ’04” sticker on his car with no wheels and grass growing out of it, and a savior-on-a-stick on his wall. Somehow he’s a “good American”. At least we don’t have to pay much for dental insurance, as it is cheap to maintain a couple of teeth. His babies will have babies at 14 and you, me, and my gay friends with good jobs get to pay for that too.
Why is the latter acceptable and the former not? That’s right, it’s the old Great Big Book of Paranoia again. Let's be rational and think about who the contributors and the takers really are. Let's make good decisions that are fair to all and based on facts, not beliefs. Most of all, let's choose our intolerance wisely. Let's not tolerate sloth, laziness, and sponging off the broken system. That seems like a better idea to me.
posted by Schmootzie @ 8:23 AM
12 Comments:
Someone has to pay for all the healthcare from various medical problems.
Who says being homosexual is a sin? You do, along with people that hold a similar set of beliefs in an imaginary dude in the clouds. That's fine, I'm glad you have that.
However, I subscribe to a much higher power, the power of facts, evidence and proof. I don't need you, a priest or a president to tell me that my gay friends are good or bad people. Their actions, their kindness, their sacrifices are all positive and speak volumes to their character and integrity.
Their daily actions speak louder than words, especially words of intolerance, fear and hate. Strict adherence to old, empty, and biggoted ideas is narrow minded and quite contrary to the teachings of a great man named Jesus Christ. Sometimes the major themes of the Bible are lost in strict interpretation of specific passages.
Thanks for reading and sharing your view.
kf
Heather;
Fuck God.
This is not an issue for your gods, same sex couples simply deserve to have the same government appointed privileges as opposite sex couples IE; the right to visit when a partner is hospitalized in intensive care.
"That which you do unto others is that which you do unto me"
Remember who said that? How about what it means?
See you in hell!
mynym; Who pays for the health care costs of opposite sex couples? I do with the outrageous insurance rates I currently pay. I am very fit, I do not smoke and I don't have any kids. I have never required medical treatment, and yet my insurance rates are high because of hetero smokers and breeders.
I used to be mildly against same sex unions* due to possibilities of increased insurance premiums, until I stopped and investigated the numbers. I think that a bit of research will show you that the total health care costs of opposite sex couples are far larger than those of same sex couples.
*I have no ethical issues with it, and if you do, figure it is safe to assume that marriage will sap the sex lives of same sex couples just as it does the rest of us.
I don't need you, a priest or a president to tell me that my gay friends are good or bad people.
This argument is very silly. If fat people self defined by their excess adipose tissue as some have begun to, "I'm fat, and I'm proud!" as some fat activists say that would not cause me to use all my fat friends as an example of it being good or bad.
There are, of course, fat people who have an interesting perspective on life and so on. This does not mean much to me as far as the virtues of having excess adipose tissue.
And of course, some fat people would like to say that they are born with eating disorders and so on.
This does not mean much to me as far as the issue of gluttony and millenia of moral teachings. I.e., having fat friends does not refute the basic design of things. A recognition of design comes to be read as a sign, as in, the Designer does not intend people to be gluttons. And you do need some type of philosopher to help you understand Good and Evil if you have been taken in by such a thing as modern American pop-culture with its identity politics.
What is interesting about this, "I know some nice gays. Therefore, homosexuality is good, so good!" argument is that it demonstrates the power of a religious type witness. That is what it is. It is very like a Christian saying, "I was born again." Inverts say instead, "I was born this way." Christians say, "My own sexual desires may be sinful and do not define who I am or what actions I should take."
Gays say, "I self define by my sexual desires, they define who I am and define what is moral for me."
And so on.
It is very odd, in some ways. Of course it is very destructive to begin to define morality and one's Self by one's own desires. This is rather a precise inversion of Socrates, Plato and so on who say that those ruled by appetites are as slaves. And indeed, those who define themselves by such seem to be.
I have no ethical issues with it, and if you do, figure it is safe to assume that marriage will sap the sex lives of same sex couples just as it does the rest of us.
This is very articial, an American understanding of sexuality.
However, anthropology and history demonstrate that sexuality is relative to culture. There is not "the rest of us" vs. another group. The group cannot even be defined the way you apparently think it can be. I.e., people who choose to practice homosexuality "shift" into and out of homosexuality at rates over 80%. There is only that minority, typically dealing with some form of intersexuality that actually is fixated, or as some say, "oriented." This fixation, this definition of one's state of being and so on is rather destructive to them.
First, the identity politics of the pseudo-religious gay identity in which people "Come out" to bear witness and argue about something which defines "living a lie" vs. living the truth needs to come to an end. It is itself a lie.
Second, homosexuality does not promote the general welfare the way that the single form of heterosexuality being promoted does. That is why it and other forms of sexuality are not prescribed.
On the relativity of sexuality:
"In the West, for instance, it may be common
to expect that a homosexual preference is life-long,
exclusive, and may even be genetic. McIntosh
(McIntosh, M. 1968. The Homosexual Role.
Soc. Probl. 16(2):182-92) has argued, however,
that this kind of homosexuality is a relatively new
Western cultural phenomenon, and Weatherford
(Weatherford, J.M. 1986. Porn Row. New York:
Arbor House) questions the extent to which exclusive
homosexual preferences are even characteristic of
present day U.S. culture. The cross-cultural
evidence suggests that life-long or
exclusive homosexuality is a rare phenomenon.
Bisexuality and situational or ad
hoc homosexual behavior are more common."
(Annual Review of Anthropology,
Vol. 16, 1987, The Cross-Cultural
Study of Human Sexuality,
D. L. Davis, R. G. Whitten :69-98)
"This is not an issue for your gods..."
The sexes are designed as complementary. This basic fact of life has relevence as far as social structure.
Simply put,
"The attributes of mothering and fathering
are inherent parts of sex differentiation that
paves the way to reproduction. This is where the
sociology analogy so often drawn between
race and sex breaks down in the most
fundamental sense. Genetic assimilation is
possible through interracial mating, and we
can envisage a society that is color blind.
But genetic assimilation of male and
female is impossible, and no society will be sex-blind."
(American Sociological Review, Vol.
49, No. 1, Feb., 1984. Gender and
Parenthood
By Alice S. Rossi :10)
At any rate, civilizations have a way of declining and America will most likely eventually go the route you want it to go. Then perhaps you will see why it all matters. Why that, "I know some nice gays!" argument is mentally retarded, myopic and lacking in foresight.
I know some nice smokers. That doesn't make smoking healthy and desirable throughout society. It doesn't make it worth structuring society around.
But note, I am for people's right to smoke.
I am also against sodomy laws. If people want to put viruses up their butts, that's fine with me. But that is what feces in the bloodstream will cause. It's not rocket science. If there is a cure for HIV then there will be another virus, like syphilis was.
There are things that seem to generate viruses by degeneration. Moral degenerates come to know this. Whether it is the young run-away girl who goes to L.A. and is sodomized in the porn industry or someone who is mentored into homosexuality in San Fransisco.
They come to know degeneration just like fundamentalists come to know generation of the generations. There are few, even among gays, who are "born again" who come to know some regeneration too.
"Strict adherence to old, empty, and biggoted ideas is narrow minded and quite contrary to the teachings of a great man named Jesus Christ."
What do you know of the teachings of Jesus on this?
mynym...
I like you and appreciate your input, we just disagree on this one. To me, intolerance of someone based upon their genetic disposition is always wrong, and yes, I do believe that homosexuality is genetically defined. Your "I know some nice smokers" is a reasonable argument, but it falls apart in that one is not genetically a smoker. It comes from a decision.
And what do I know about Jesus? I can't quote scripture really, mostly because I find the hypocrisy of religion rather distasteful. I do have a general feel that Jesus was a tolerant dude (taxpayers, lepers etc). When Jesus crispies tell me that they hate gays I really wonder if they get it.
Thanks for your thoughts. A lot of people I know have been reading them. You elevate the discourse and I am encouraging others to enter the debate.
kf
You elevate the discourse and I am encouraging others to enter the debate.
Yet, were are they? Thanks, I guess it was a good thing I did not start making a satire out of things. Sorry I'm late on checking back.
Genetics.
Sexual desires.
One does not come from the others, sexual desires are more often based on hormones. They are situational and environmental. It's sex that is genetic, not sexual desires. In some ways, there is enough evidence to say that there simply is no sort of "sexual desire gene."
There is a genetic predisposition to various desires and behavior patterns. Basketball players have a predisposition if their genetic code makes them tall and athletic. Yet, not all who share similar genes necessarily become basketball players. It is also an environmental and culture thing, social interactions.
"I know some nice smokers."
I agree, it's not genetically programmed. However, "I know some nice alcoholics." I actually don't. But, I am sure there are some nice alcoholics. This says nothing of alcoholism or its impact on the general welfare and public policies. Is it genetic? It is probably just a predisposition too, you see. It is not as if it is specifically genetically programmed. Yet, alcoholics may have higher anxiety levels and this may well be heritable. Therefore, they may tend to rely on self-soothing techniques.
Smoking, alcoholism and drugs may all go together or correlate. I can cite the literature on where homosexuality falls in on this also. It also correlates with these things and may be a form of self-soothing for anxiety or phobias.
I think, in the end, what you are looking for as far as genetics is forms of intersexuality. That is genetic. And it is probably the predisposition to homosexuality. I.e., effeminacy.
So that may be how you can be clear about what you are saying.
I believe that we modify our genetic code and pass it along anyway. So we are still back to the general desirability of homosexuality. In some cultures in history it has been more widely practiced and in others, it has not been.
Note, any selective power of natural selection in evolution would always be selecting against such a gene.
I think people make decisions. That they are not the sum of their parts. And that they can change the some of their parts and pass along changes based on decisions that they make.
Like father, like son, this can go on a long time in whole nations and tribes....unless sons breaks the (perhaps genetic) chain and passes on something new.
So many spelling errors....
Sorry.
Post a Comment
<< Home