Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4394
Reputation: 245.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:45 pm    Post subject: Maybe Phil Robertson has a point ... Reply with quote

Our American neighbours are in the midst of being enrolled in a big government program -- government medicine -- which, in this Christmas season, perhaps is a little like Caesar's census, the one that sent Joseph and his pregnant girl friend, Mary, to Bethlehem in the first place.

You might have heard. You know, the website that won't work, and all the rest. The root problem is that young people -- particularly those who have no real health problems -- are being compelled to sign up for hugely expensive plans that they'll never use. Without those young, healthy folks, the plan won't work. Insurance is like that -- it doesn't work if everybody has a claim.

Meanwhile, at the same time, GLAAD launched an attack on the patriarch of Duck Dynasty, for more-or-less quoting the Bible when he was asked what he thought was sinful. What a can of worms that opened.

The two things don't really have much to do with each other ... except ... this is an ad, put out by the Obamacrats, that hopes to get homosexuals to enroll in the plan.


Link


Maybe Phil has a point.
beaver





Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 246
Reputation: 81Reputation: 81

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 6:16 am    Post subject: Re: Maybe Phil Robertson has a point ... Reply with quote

Cannot agree with you on this. Regardless of anyone's views on Obamacare, Phil Robertson's quotes should not be justified. They are harmful not just to homosexuals (including gay youth who have a higher suicide rate due to this type of hateful rhetoric), but also harmful to Christianity as well as to conservatism.

Bugs wrote:

Meanwhile, at the same time, GLAAD launched an attack on the patriarch of Duck Dynasty, for more-or-less quoting the Bible when he was asked what he thought was sinful. What a can of worms that opened.


Christianity is about radical love and inclusion for all people, including the most marginalized. Picking one verse out of the Bible (without context) and using it to condemn a minority group is actually Pharisaical, not Christ-like. Robertson's comments are frustrating and frankly embarrassing.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4394
Reputation: 245.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally, I don't much care how someone gets their kicks, sexually. Most of the time, I don't care to know. But, to me, this isn't about Christianity or homosexuality -- it's about the culture.

I put this up because I thought people would get a smile out of it. That's all.

Like it or not, organized homosexuality is a cultural force in our world. It imposes on all our rights, and insists that we change our attitudes and the way we do things to suit them. Why? Because they don't get the social applause they think they deserve -- all for doing things which, for the most part, has been seen as one of the moral indulgences allowed the financially and bureaucratically well-placed.

The scary part is that organized homosexuality has penetrated our educational system, and is actively recruiting young men into homosexuality. The current 'zero tolerance' policy on violence in schools is an illustration. There have always been bullies in grade schools. What's new? The appearances of weird gender choices appearing in the lower grades of schools! It's a way of giving extra protection to kids who 'identify' as homosexual! In Grade 5? Who knows what they are, at that age?

People generally don't accept that they are homosexual until they have come into conflict with the dominant sexuality ... in their late teens and early 20ies, as adults. Not as kids as early as Grade 5, when paid agents of the state, public health officials, give classes special presentations that feature putting a condom on a banana. Why? Does anyone seriously believe that 12-year-olds are passing AIDS around? Or is it to make sure the kids get a high impact lesson that tells them that they can be any gender they want?

Homosexual groups have a big impact on what goes on as sexual education, certainly more than parents do. And their goal is to 'mainstream' homosexuality through any means possible. That's why I have the attitude I do.

I have no animosity to consenting adults ... it's none of my business. People get to pursue their happiness as they will. Come on over for supper ... I don't give a shit about any of that, as long as they bring something to the party.
beaver





Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 246
Reputation: 81Reputation: 81

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Respectfully, your post reveals some misunderstanding about the situation facing homosexuals.

Bugs wrote:
Like it or not, organized homosexuality is a cultural force in our world. It imposes on all our rights, and insists that we change our attitudes and the way we do things to suit them.


Just like Women's suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement, sexual minorities organize themselves to stand against discrimination and fight for a fairer society. So yes, they do want to change attitudes, just as women and ethnic minorities continue to change attitudes for greater equality in schools, workplaces, and society.

Bugs wrote:
Why? Because they don't get the social applause they think they deserve -- all for doing things which, for the most part, has been seen as one of the moral indulgences allowed the financially and bureaucratically well-placed.


It is not about social applause nor "moral indulgence." It is about basic human dignity. You need to understand that homosexuality is not a choice. No gay person wakes up wanting to be gay; it's trait that is integral to who they are as people. Brain scans suggest that gays and lesbians actually have different brain structures than majority heterosexual people, so there is a biological basis for their difference.

Ask yourself honestly - would anyone choose greater discrimination and bullying?

This issue is about basic human rights. At a time when divorce rates are skyrocketing and families are breaking down, loving and committed same-sex couples in most countries are ironically denied basic rights. In many places, gay people are even denied hospital visitation rights for their partners, and can be fired just for being gay. And in impoverished countries like Uganda, gays are often targets of brutal violence. It is about basic rights. I cannot express enough how this is not "moral indulgences allowed the financially and bureaucratically well-placed."

Bugs wrote:
The scary part is that organized homosexuality has penetrated our educational system, and is actively recruiting young men into homosexuality. The current 'zero tolerance' policy on violence in schools is an illustration. There have always been bullies in grade schools. What's new? The appearances of weird gender choices appearing in the lower grades of schools! It's a way of giving extra protection to kids who 'identify' as homosexual! In Grade 5? Who knows what they are, at that age?


Like I explained earlier, you cannot "recruit young men into homosexuality." This is a great misunderstanding. Nobody chooses to be gay. The rationale behind teaching students gender and sexual diversity is so that the gay youth who frightfully realize they are attracted to the same-sex don't feel so alone. I explained earlier that LGBT youth have one of the highest suicide rates. I have heard story, after story, of gay youth who feel deeply isolated, alone, and bullied, and attempt suicide.

Bugs wrote:
People generally don't accept that they are homosexual until they have come into conflict with the dominant sexuality ... in their late teens and early 20ies, as adults. Not as kids as early as Grade 5, when paid agents of the state, public health officials, give classes special presentations that feature putting a condom on a banana. Why? Does anyone seriously believe that 12-year-olds are passing AIDS around?


It is important not to generalize. It seems that the experience is different for everyone, many youth realizing they are gay when they are just teens.

I do agree that Grade 5 kids don't need to be taught to put a condom on a banana. This should be taught later when they are more mature. But that is an issue of sex ed, not homosexuality.

Bugs wrote:
Or is it to make sure the kids get a high impact lesson that tells them that they can be any gender they want?


No, I wouldn't think so. I can't begin to imagine how tough life can be for transgendered people (those who feel intensely that they are the opposite gender). Teaching youth that a few of their peers are transgendered will create a more inclusive and healthy environment; not turn your average boy or girl into the opposite gender.

Bugs wrote:
And their goal is to 'mainstream' homosexuality through any means possible. That's why I have the attitude I do.


At one point, I too was unsure and in fact fearful of the gay rights issue in the past. But as one comes to know more gay people - family, friends, coworkers, neighbours - and listen to their life stories, I realize they have been deeply marginalized. Many are fantastic people, and it is important to stand for their rights. That's why I had to call out your reference to Phil Robertson.

I am an ethnic minority and know what it feels like to be excluded and different from the "mainstream majority." Bugs, I don't think you're a bad guy or anything, but I'm asking you to think from their human perspective - what if your close family member or friend turned out to be gay? I'm guessing you would still love and respect them, and perhaps your attitude on this issue would change.

I also think conservatism deeply values families, liberty, compassion, and human dignity, and it's important we help to further this for the LGBT community.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4394
Reputation: 245.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I can see you have commitments to the homosexual perspective that I don't share, sorry.

Here's the thing. You think that gender is rooted in young men can't be recruited and induced into homosexuality. That view generally claims that gender is rooted in biology, and is not a matter of choice at all.

The trouble with that is that homosexuality has grown (in Canada) to the point where, according to some surveys, as much as 30% of high school graduates identify themselves either as homosexual or bisexual! Not just the boys, either. Girls, too.

Times change. When I was in high school, the ideal was that students should identify themselves as 'non-sexual'!

You don't get an increase from perhaps 2% to 15% -- that's like doubling three times in a generation or two -- that doesn't happen if it's just biology talking. Or, put it this way -- if it were the inflation rate, the Bank of Canada would want to do something fast.

My interpretation is entirely different. I think that the system has made traditional masculinity essentially impossible. They have afflicted men with obligations and a kind of subjection to the female, with the result that many young men are attracted to the homosexual world, where there are jobs, and tickets, and all kinds of bonuses for boys who like to have fun.

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a good thing. For one thing, part of the package is a school atmosphere that is increasingly hostile to what we might call 'traditional masculinity' -- the central aspect of which was that sex had to be responsible. Ideally, this meant both parties in a marriage 'saving themselves' until the vows were stated. The 'honeymoon' used to be a high-tension event, believe it or not. But the ideal was often broken, which was OK ... as long as the couple got married.

The men that this regime produced were the 'greatest generation'. My father's generation, as an example, matured in a depression, graduated into a world war, raised families during the Cold War, and ended up building a welfare state.

The boomers relaxed all of this. They also quit having kids. Well, they came to have one, maybe two ... no more. But they never meant for the old morality ... which came from history and the various churches ... should be presented as a form of oppression!

No, I think we're probably throwing out the baby and keeping the bath-water.

==============================

This amusing ideas that the 'sexual minorities' stand for anything but irresponsible sex, and lots of it ... deserves a good test. Your comparisons to the (American) civil rights movement are more odious than ennobling. What did homosexuals have to endure that compared to Jim Crow? Pul-leeze! In fact, why is society supposed to accept the parallel at all? In Canada, homosexuals had all the rights that a marriage partner has -- before the issue of same sex marriage even came up. In fact, there was no discrimination involved in the case. Homosexuals could marry, as could heterosexuals,, and probably often did. All they had to do was find somebody of the opposite sex to have them. That was the drag.

So let's cut the drama. Never in my adult lifetime, in Canada, have homosexuals faced actual legal persecution. Even in the cases that were set up as test cases, meant to be taken to the Supreme Court, the 'perp' couldn't get arrested! He actually had to commit other crimes, and implicate himself. He couldn't seem to be arrested for being a homosexual. It took him five or six tries! More to the truth -- the system just didn't want to deal with the situation created by old laws.

When Trudeau made his famous quip: The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation ... most Canadians said "YES!!" and fist-pumped. The social peace, since then, has been the result of a social attitude that there are, indeed, different strokes for different folks, and that consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedrooms ... but the cool people will keep it all to themselves.

beaver insists that ... at a time of family breakup ... Yeah, with you there ... loving and committed same-sex coouples in most countries are ironically denied basic rights ... um... I thought we were talking about Canada, about which none of the items ... yes, I said NONE of the items on the list apply! In fact, Canada is about as good as it gets for homosexuals. Where is it better?

I'm not trying to change any of that.

Besides, what fraction of the homosexual 'community' are loving and committed couples? For more than three months, I mean. Seriously, this might be 1 or2% of homosexuals. Tops. We have yet to see how long these marriages typically last, and what impacts they will have on those involved.

Even ten years ago, few even thought about same sex marriage, but there were other legal forms they could use to be effectively a marriage.

This is it ... I deny that homosexuals had it so bad, in Canada, in the past fifty years.

I don't understand why it is up to 'Society' to provide anybody with 'dignity' in the first place? Why do we, the Public, even know who does what to whom, so far as sex is concerned? Officialdom has never seemed to feel they had to provide me with dignity, based on my bedroom performance, which was perfectly OK with me ... so why would they do so for homosexuals? I mean, this gets seriously bizarre, and goes way beyond what it is reasonable to expect a 'state' to provide. (You will note how I resist the temptation to lampoon.)

The essence of dignity, it seems to me, is that is is earned, after all. Not that it is bestowed.

I guess what it comes down to, beaver, is that Canada treats homosexuals as well as they treat any other citizen, and better than some. And the population generally accepts that policy. You make your appeal in the name of a small section of the homosexual world. There is a sprinkling of loving couples, seemingly as beaver describes, but for every one of those there are -- how many? 20? 40? 50? times more that are obnoxious kids ... who are attracted by the prospect of endless irresponsible sex, and who are perfect willing to accept in return, a kind of social castration. Isn't this the spiritual vacuum in homosexual society, after all -- the meaninglessness of all that fun, without ... biology? What is it that attaches us to society, after all, if not our children?

Without kinship, without children, without a system of mutual responsibility, all that frenetic activity comes to be mere fun, always the frivolous decoration around the main event. What is more pathetic than the fifty something homosexual? It's because, as a sub-culture, it has no root, no gravity because it isn't about anything permanent.

In any case, all this 'progress' hasn't satisfied the activists. They take it as a sign of weakness.
beaver





Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 246
Reputation: 81Reputation: 81

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Here's the thing. You think that gender is rooted in young men can't be recruited and induced into homosexuality. That view generally claims that gender is rooted in biology, and is not a matter of choice at all.
The trouble with that is that homosexuality has grown (in Canada) to the point where, according to some surveys, as much as 30% of high school graduates identify themselves either as homosexual or bisexual! Not just the boys, either. Girls, too.
You don't get an increase from perhaps 2% to 15% -- that's like doubling three times in a generation or two -- that doesn't happen if it's just biology talking. Or, put it this way -- if it were the inflation rate, the Bank of Canada would want to do something fast.


Sorry, but this is not convincing. One simple explanation for the rise of LGBT identification is the progression of their rights in the last two decades. Before then, many LGBT were simple too fearful to ever come out.

Scientific evidence increasingly demonstrates a biological basis for homosexuality – so it is an innate trait.

Also, please show me these surveys you speak of. I highly doubt 30% of high school graduates identify as homosexual.

Bugs wrote:
They have afflicted men with obligations and a kind of subjection to the female,


You mean how women continue to be paid less for jobs? Or how just a fraction of CEOs and our political leaders are women? Or how violence against women continues to be a problem?

Bugs wrote:
with the result that many young men are attracted to the homosexual world, where there are jobs, and tickets, and all kinds of bonuses for boys who like to have fun.


This is just ridiculous and doesn't need a response. Any reader can see for themselves that this is just plain silly.

Bugs wrote:
I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a good thing. For one thing, part of the package is a school atmosphere that is increasingly hostile to what we might call 'traditional masculinity' -- the central aspect of which was that sex had to be responsible. Ideally, this meant both parties in a marriage 'saving themselves' until the vows were stated. The 'honeymoon' used to be a high-tension event, believe it or not. But the ideal was often broken, which was OK ... as long as the couple got married.


And this relates to gay people how?

My personal values are commitment and having one life partner in marriage, but fail to see how this relates to this debate.

Bugs wrote:
The men that this regime produced were the 'greatest generation'. My father's generation, as an example, matured in a depression, graduated into a world war, raised families during the Cold War, and ended up building a welfare state.
The boomers relaxed all of this. They also quit having kids. Well, they came to have one, maybe two ... no more. But they never meant for the old morality ... which came from history and the various churches ... should be presented as a form of oppression!
No, I think we're probably throwing out the baby and keeping the bath-water.


Again, I still fail to see how this relates to gay people. Giving them the right to be themselves and love who they want does not jeopardize society.

To be sure, the sacrifices of the past generations are honourable (although not without flaws and mistakes of course). But the world changes and evolves, and each generation has its own context and issues to deal with. Especially with the rise of the internet and technology, what worked for one generation may not work for the next.

I think the timeless values that make society successful are hard work, commitment, compassion, honesty, etc. not necessarily hyper masculinity that you idolize.

Bugs wrote:
What did homosexuals have to endure that compared to Jim Crow? Pul-leeze! In fact, why is society supposed to accept the parallel at all?


LGBT people been oppressed for a long time. Even homosexuality itself was illegal for a very long time. People could be put in jail simply because they desired (and are wired) to be with the same gender. In fact, Alan Turing, the a British mastermind that helped decode and defeat the Nazis (one of those ‘real men’ of old whom you speak so highly of) was gay. He committed suicide instead of facing imprisonment/hormonal treatment for being with another man.

As we speak, LGBT people around the world are being persecuted. Just look at Uganda’s anti-homosexuality law. This is most certainly a basic human rights issue.

Bugs wrote:
In Canada, homosexuals had all the rights that a marriage partner has -- before the issue of same sex marriage even came up. In fact, there was no discrimination involved in the case. Homosexuals could marry, as could heterosexuals,, and probably often did. All they had to do was find somebody of the opposite sex to have them. That was the drag.


What an insensitive comment. Imagine if someone had said something similar during the interracial marriage debate, “Blacks could marry, as could whites, and probably often did. All they had to do was find somebody of the same race to have them. That was the drag.” Shaking my head. If you want to debate with reason, then I suggest you reevaluate what you're saying.

Bugs wrote:
Canada is about as good as it gets for homosexuals. Where is it better? I'm not trying to change any of that.


I never said it wasn’t, and I’m glad you don’t want to change it. Although, from the majority of your comments, it seems like you do.

Bugs wrote:
I don't understand why it is up to 'Society' to provide anybody with 'dignity' in the first place? Why do we, the Public, even know who does what to whom, so far as sex is concerned? Officialdom has never seemed to feel they had to provide me with dignity, based on my bedroom performance, which was perfectly OK with me ... so why would they do so for homosexuals? I mean, this gets seriously bizarre, and goes way beyond what it is reasonable to expect a 'state' to provide. (You will note how I resist the temptation to lampoon.)


Not sure why you need to equate homosexuality with sex and bedrooms. There is more to life than that – just like how a heterosexual couples nurture and love one another in non-sexual ways, the same can be said of same-sex couples.

Bugs wrote:
The essence of dignity, it seems to me, is that is is earned, after all. Not that it is bestowed.


Not necessarily. Governments, societies, communities, and families all have role to play in caring for and restoring dignity to the oppressed and marginalized. One of these marginalized groups (outside of Canada and a few European countries) are LGBT people.

Bugs wrote:
I guess what it comes down to, beaver, is that Canada treats homosexuals as well as they treat any other citizen, and better than some. And the population generally accepts that policy.


Canadians are mostly supportive of LGBT rights. There is still, of course, more work to do on issues like bullying not just for LGBT kids, but for many of our youth.

Bugs wrote:
You make your appeal in the name of a small section of the homosexual world. There is a sprinkling of loving couples, seemingly as beaver describes, but for every one of those there are -- how many? 20? 40? 50? times more that are obnoxious kids ... who are attracted by the prospect of endless irresponsible sex, and who are perfect willing to accept in return, a kind of social castration. Isn't this the spiritual vacuum in homosexual society, after all -- the meaninglessness of all that fun, without ... biology? What is it that attaches us to society, after all, if not our children?
Without kinship, without children, without a system of mutual responsibility, all that frenetic activity comes to be mere fun, always the frivolous decoration around the main event. What is more pathetic than the fifty something homosexual? It's because, as a sub-culture, it has no root, no gravity because it isn't about anything permanent.
In any case, all this 'progress' hasn't satisfied the activists. They take it as a sign of weakness.


The answer to this tangent about gays just wanting to have “fun” is really simple: “first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.” If you want to talk about promiscuity, then let’s start with the majority heterosexual people first.

The majority of your arguments are unsupported judgments about LGBT people, which ultimately weaken and cheapen your arguments.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Maybe Phil Robertson has a point ...

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB