[Peace-discuss] Re: petition period has begun for next year's D and R primaries

[John W.]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 5:52 PM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:

 Far be it from me to suggest that people should be lacking in compassion.
> We certainly need more compassion not less.
>
> I would suggest that homosexuality is a form of expression of  uncontrolled
> lust.
>
> I would liken it to the same sort of lust that drives imperialism,
> warmongering, crony capitalism,
> corporate malfeasance, greed, and other social ills.  There really isn't
> any indication of any sort
> of genetic tendency to homosexuality, although many people do think or want
> to think that there is.
>


I beg to differ.




> I have been told that he is a Lutheran who is one genetically but I am not
> convinced.  The fact
> that I am not a Lutheran and there are no known Lutherans among my
> ancestors does not
> prove or disprove the notion.  I don't see any evidence of homosexuals
> being a definable minority
> with Obligatory membership, any more than one has a genetically based
> predestination to be
> a tyrant, scam artist, serial rapist, Ponzi schemer, or scorcher of
> humanity.
>


Nice comparisons.




> One can't say that the expression of uncontrolled lusts in the society is
> harmful only to the participants.
> In paedophilia the age of the young participant or exploited one becomes
> the issue, but it's a very thin line.
> Three months, three weeks, three days later the legal outcome is different
> but the role of the participants is
> virtually unchanged.  The harm to the participants in homosexuality is
> manifested in the changes that
> they receive in their bodies and their typically shortened lifespan and
> chronic disease states.  The liars
> are not looking at the figures.  They spread the diseases to others and
> through the society since the majority of those who participate in
> homosexual activity have heterosexual partners as well.  Their activities
> become a burden for all of us to bear.
>


These diseases you're talking about are spread through sexual contact,
period.  Heterosexuals spread these diseases.  I'm not even sure what
diseases you're talking about, but there is no evidence whatever that STDs
originate in homosexual acts.




> Those who participate in homosexuality do so by their own choice and they
> recruit their partners
> from the population by convincing others to make similar choices.
>


I beg to differ.




> As they pass their ideas through
> the population seeking sympathy and acceptance the chances for successful
> recruitments are enhanced.
>
> Although the so-called LGBT community is not a definable minority, it is a
> granfalloon that oft has organization and a definite agenda, and indeed an
> agenda that is harmful.  Compassion yes.  Acceptance no.
>
>
>
> On 8/27/2009 12:48 PM, Stuart Levy wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:06:51PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>
>  Amongst those for whom identity politics have replaced class politics --
> i.e., diversity (politics as etiquette) is all the more tenaciously insisted
> upon as a substitute for economic equality as a real political goal --
> voicing such opinions about homosexuality becomes a "hate crime," the worst
> delict in the liberal decalogue.
>
>
>  Carl,
>
> This woman is (was?) openly calling for either homosexuality,
> or homosexual sex, to be made *illegal*.  This isn't a question of
> niceties of arguments over "identity politics", this is calling
> for outright repression of a minority group under color of law,
> under some legislature's definition of that group.  It should make
> any self-respecting libertarian's blood boil.  And this is the
> strongest you have to say about it?
>
> Wayne,
>
> Please say it ain't so.  Inviting Rosanna to retract her retraction
> sounds as if you are asking her to repent of compassion.  Isn't that
> what it amounts to?  Ugh.
>
>
>
>  American society today seems to have a Victorian prudishness about the actual
> consideration of sexual morality, which is quite different from relegating
> the matter to the rather minor importance it deserves.
>
>
>  I agree with that.  In a just society this would be a non-issue.  But
> it is not, since there is a long history in our society and others
> of recognizing homosexuals as a distinct group, persecuting them,
> and giving them reduced rights and protection under the law.
> Seeking to change that status is a political process.
>
> And complaining, as you seem to be, that there should be no need for
> such a political process -- as if "identity politics" were nothing but a
> distraction -- simply acts to entrench the existing persecution.
>
> It doesn't make the group labels irrelevant as one might hope,
> since they're already out there -- not only in the minds of people,
> but also in habits of communication, as Bob Naiman's example
> of a few months ago showed beautifully.  (A verbal job offer in a
> Protestant Northern Ireland factory gets spread by word of mouth
> mostly to other Protestants, not uniformly across the local population,
> even with no ill will on anyone's part.  Social networks aren't random graphs.)
>
>
> And, of *course*, opposing persecution of less-privileged groups
> should not mean that pursuing economic equality isn't also on the table.
> (How many negatives in that?)
>
>    Stuart
>
>
>
>  But as a political matter we attribute far too much importance to it,
> ignoring
> e.g. the wisdom of Gore Vidal from long ago,
>
> "Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than
> there is
> such a thing as a heterosexual person. The words are adjectives describing
> sexual acts, not people ... The reason no one has yet been able to come up
> with
> a good word to describe the homosexualist (sometimes known as gay, fag,
> queer,
> etc.) is because he does not exist. The human race is divided into male and
> female. Many human beings enjoy sexual relations with their own sex, many
> don't;
> many respond to both. This plurality is the fact of our nature and not
> worth
> fretting about."  --"Sex Is Politics" (1979)
>
>
> E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
>
>
>  It's not clear to me what sort of standards for etiquette and language
> exist
> for blogs and the internet.
> Certainly the FCC ban on Carlin's "7 Words" doesnt apply, and one probably
> can't write for the Rolling Stone or Wonkette without being well-versed in
> punctuating ones remarks with a profusion of explicit calumnious
> metaphoric.
> What bothers me most is the hypocrisy implicit in calling the expressed
> admonitions of a group "homophobic", "wacko", and "hate-mongering".   Some
> of
> the so-called left liberals are the most likely to engage in intensely
> disparaging and often obscene remarks about those who oppose their
> immorality.  Isn't it "hate-mongering" to call someone a "hate-monger"?
> Isn't it Wack to call someone a wacko?
> If I lived in Ms. Pulido's district, I would be likely to vote for her,
> knowing that she understands the dangers of homosexuality and is therefore
> more likely to favour measures that would tend to contain and extinguish
> homosexuality rather than encourage it.
> I would guess that those who engage in homosexual behaviour and those who
> actively condone and promote homosexual behaviour would have a similar
> response to any opposition to their ideas regardless of what descriptive
> colloquialism is employed.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090827/35f2cacb/attachment-0001.htm