Defending the Truth

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

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.).

But racism wouldn't exist unless a race comes to a region where they are not indigenous. Racism against blacks or Indians wouldn't exist here if the Pilgrims hadn't landed here. Of course people will think other races are different. But hatred against other races isn't automatic. You have to be taught that having sex with your own gender is "normal" just as you have to be taught to hate another race.

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.

The only parallel I see is as I pointed out above. You have to be taught to "accept" homosexuality and you have to be taught to "hate" another race. Additionally I the only "racist" tack I've used is the unnatural. Which homosexual attraction is. There is no way you can rationalize homosexual attraction that won't include other sexually deviant desires.

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.

I disagree. It seems that there were cultures where men treated subordinates with homosexual acts. But homosexual "marriage" was a rare occurence in history. That's why until recently it was unheard of ALL OVER THE WORLD. Regardless the religion, race, or culture.

You sir are the one that is wrong.

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.

WOW really? And you don't consider the fact that the Muslim nations actively kill prosecuted homosexuals wouldn't elevate them to "poster child" of homosexual persecutors. If you don't, your denial is as great as some homosexuals.

AS for the rest of the WORLD, I counter your argument by saying that the Greek, Asians and other cultures also practiced pederasty but they came to an enlightenment that eliminated those practices. And acceptance of homosexuality was also eliminated, and in the case of Islam deemed bad enough to kill to avoid. You can call up all the cultures in history that you want, but throughout human history, there are instances of bestiality, pedo and homosexuality. The only one that is required to support the species is heterosexuality. The only one that is indicated by our physiology is heterosexuality. And the only one that is accepted worldwide from the beginning of time until we are gone is heterosexuality.

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.

And I counter that by argument by pointing out the laws preventing interracial marriage wasn't just against the blacks. But they encompassed any other race, including Indians and the Asians that were imported for the railroads. The racism that was introduced in this country wasn't the result of the people themselves being racist, it was a learned reaction.
Again, nursery school kids know that boys and girls are supposed to be boyfriend and girlfriend. Unless they are gay, or influenced by some "gay activist" re-education. And even gay kids know the difference. That's why gay kids have such "identity" issues.


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 I'm pointing out that although they may look the same on the outside, the mechanism and what drives the feeling are totally different.

And what do you mean racism wasn't brought about by natural circumstances?

I mean that there are few racial problems unless a large influx of another race invades or is invaded by another. Religious issues yes. The Whites and Indians were fine until the whites decided they wanted the Indians country. The Aborigines of Australia were fine until the Whites decided they wanted to "colonize" another land that already had inhabitants. Etc.
THAT is what I mean.

Surely, like the differences which you like to stress between the homosexual and the heterosexual, the differences between skin colors are natural.

No, it's not that simple. I have dark skin because it helped protect my ancestors from the sun. Homosexuals are homosexual for some unknown reason just like pedos and zoofies. It is an aberration that some humans have. Equating homosexuality to racial differences like an Asian person's eyes is embarrasing.

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.

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

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.

SO are you trying to force your minority moral view about the exploitation of workers on to everyone else??





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.

Maybe so, but the fact remains that the majority view - that public nudity is morally unacceptable - prevails. Even though your test about harm to others is not violated.






"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.

I was talking about the spread of AIDS rather than its origin. AIDS is far more prevalent among the homosexual community, could this be used as an argument to make homosexuality illegal, according to your test about harming others?





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.

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

Katczinsky, you have written several excellent posts within the past couple days regarding this issue.

I have a feeling that those you are replying to will never see themselves in your messages.

They will simply never get that their homophobia is no different than the feelings of racists, anti-semites, etc.

I'm not sure where they are keeping their heads - but it's definitely someplace dark and moist.

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

Katczinsky, you have written several excellent posts within the past couple days regarding this issue.

I have a feeling that those you are replying to will never see themselves in your messages.

They will simply never get that their homophobia is no different than the feelings of racists, anti-semites, etc.

I'm not sure where they are keeping their heads - but it's definitely someplace dark and moist.

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

Katczinsky, you have written several excellent posts within the past couple days regarding this issue.

I have a feeling that those you are replying to will never see themselves in your messages.

They will simply never get that their homophobia is no different than the feelings of racists, anti-semites, etc.

I'm not sure where they are keeping their heads - but it's definitely someplace dark and moist.

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Thank you, and I had a feeling as soon as I posted my first post in this thread that I was making a mistake. I usually avoid topics such as these, because to me, it seems a no-brainer: it's none of my business that two men or two women want to love each other and I should just leave it at that. I personally don't understand some people who consider themselves heterosexuals and their obsession with the issue, and perhaps they're so insecure that they feel the need to stick their noses in other people's sex lives. And usually talking to a bigot makes just about as much headway as talking to a brick wall. But, I got my hands on some articles on the subject of gender and sexual identity at my college library (OSU) for my sociology studies, and to just read what some of the statistics had to say. Pretty interesting stuff, and perhaps it inspired me to post here, though predictably, it seems to no avail.

Originally Posted by fxashun

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.