Defending the Truth

BRAV-FREAKIN-O

and, once again, BRAVO!!!

you're on a roll today, Katc!

Actually, these things are not banned - merely regulated. There are places where public nudity, prostitution (and gambling, for that matter) are perfectly legal. They're simply regulated.

I personally believe they're regulated too strictly - but, nonetheless, there are places in this country where they are perfectly legal.

Well that's fine then. But you'd better avoid the text that "Christians" base their religion on. Because it specifically and repeatedly forbids activity that defines homosexuality.

And we may all have sinned. But we aren't all compelled to do it as homosexuals are.

I have shoplifted once. But I'm not compelled to do all the time like a klepto.

And you can turn that around and say that the "homonormatives" always come up with the APA deeming them unpathogenic, they are a "normal" variation, they are "just like you", homosexuals have their own kinds of sex, etc.
So friggin what? There isn't a single biologic aspect that "normalizes" homosexuality that can't be transferred to at the very least zoophilia that would also normalize it as well.
As far your associations with racism against blacks, that racism wasn't brought about by "natural' circumstances. Black people were brought to this country as slave labor. An entire country was built on the premise that black people were inferior. That was taught. The species-wide aversion to homosexuality is a natural reaction to a distinct human aberration. Just as the other sexual deviations.

Wrong; racism is always thought to be a natural aversion to inferiority according to the racist. In this we find distinct parallels. Thus in the distinctions I made, not only are attitudes similar to the racist, but you could say homophobes are plagiarizing from the racist when they stress certain differences (AIDS, unnatural, unchristian, etc.).

Regardless if you think homosexuals are immoral in some sense or not, you can't deny the parallels you're making with the racist by assigning value to differences, and in turn using that value in an attempt at substantiating your discriminations.

You're just factually incorrect. Sexual identity is largely a force of western imperialism. Before our European ancestors embarked on their crusade to eradicate what you probably consider as barbaric unnatural cultures, many non-western (and indeed in some places pre-Medieval European) cultures generally considered homosexual acts as something some men do, not something they become. In other words, to the world gender and in turn sexuality is performative and in the west it is 'fixed' identity.

Wrong again. In fact, you have it backward; the simplistic and dualistic heterosexual vs. homosexual (as well as female vs. male) distinctions are actually pretty new in human history. Most indigenous cultures to some degree not only recognized what you would consider as "unconventional sexuality" but condoned its practice. Some even considered it holy; the Berdache in Native American cultures (practically continent wide) for example. Or the Hijra in Hindu cultures, which until the advent of western ideology (via imperialism) in India and Pakistan, were considered holy and following the ways of the gods. Hell, even in Oman, a Muslim country (a religion which you hold up as the poster child for persecution of homosexuality) the Xanith (trans or homosexual) can retain a legal status of male yet have a social role of women and partake in roles that would otherwise be forbidden for a man, and they can also serve as a prostitute.

I can compare the two because, as I have pointed out in detail in my last post, the thought process and the rationalizations are parallel. Incidentally, it was this colonial racism and ethnocentrism on the part of the Europeans in the Americas, that imported this idea of sexual identity onto the Native Americans, and alienated the Berdache. So not only do the two ideologies share the same tactics, but they have a history together.

I don't think you understand what I was attempting to convey. I was pointing out the similarities between homophobia and racism. That both rationalize their systems of oppression and discrimination in the same exact way.

And what do you mean racism wasn't brought about by natural circumstances? Surely, like the differences which you like to stress between the homosexual and the heterosexual, the differences between skin colors are natural. It's just that you're assigning value to the differences between sexuality rather than race. And, yes racism was a taught ideology, but society also reinforces the ideology of the alleged inferiority of homosexuality.

Pay attention, Gary, I said both of your examples are examples of acts which can potentially harm others. Therefore, legal persecution of these acts are more justifiable because they can be argued to protect the well-being of others; they don't dictate a personal morality onto two consenting adults only.

Depends; obviously if their 'union' creates abnormalities (to put it in PC terms), then it is harming others now isn't it? If the relation is far enough whereby that wouldn't be a problem, then by all means the state shouldn't dictate to them where they should and shouldn't put their love.

Oh, Gary, but they are. There is a difference between dictating a personal morality (a form of oppression) on consenting adults and requiring that people respect the well-being of others. I don't think you're able to make that distinction very well.

I was mainly speaking of prostitution vis-a-vis subjugation and in many instances a forced dehumanizing exploitation of women. Perhaps you could argue in favor of instances of true consent; though I personally can't imagine what women would sell their bodies if they didn't have to. But of course, in the same breath you can argue that in the same way capitalism is the subjugation and dehumanizing exploitation of the worker; but then again I am a socialist (but that's a different debate all together) so I guess there's no inconsistency there at least for me.

The suppression of public nudity, however, is harder to justify. I personally don't see any need for a law against it, but then again maybe I'm just a little more European in tradition than most Americans. Though it is debated by many that public exposure harms the psychological health of others, especially children, and I can see that when people make a big deal about it and maybe (like homophobes) they're severely insecure then yes they could be harmed. Likewise you can argue that the public, which is seen as a party involved in "public nudity", didn't consent; though I would attack such a position in some regards.

"We 'know' that AIDS originated with the negro" says the racist.

You know nothing Gary. Most experts who examine the evidence concur that AIDS originated from wild species of primate, to which they also concur that it was transferred to humans via hunting or otherwise direct contact.

You could argue that the condoning of homosexual practices is harmful to the survival of your particular brand of 'morality' which has been used as a justification of different oppressions throughout history.