All Pornography Makes You Gay

Pornography makes you gay?

And all along....here I was thinking that is was being a liberal made you gay!

LOL

More of "the Family" values?. . . .

and a bit more on "the Family" values. . . .

Video: Jeff Sharlet on "The Family" with Bill Maher

http://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2009/0...



http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/07/08/to...

I thought it made you blind!

No no, it makes hair grow on your palms.

Huh! I love it when the homobigots show themselves clearly to be the totally off-their-rockers nut-jobs they are.

Let's not confuse (even strong) correlation with causation...

Value Voters, do they get Val-Pac coupons?

lol, so Larry Craig and Mark FOley are sekrit libruls then.

From the books-once-banned-as-pornography section:

"The unspeakable beauty to the touch, of the warm, living buttocks! The life within life, the sheer warm, potent loveliness. And the strange weight of the balls between his legs!" D. H. Lawrence, *Lady Chatterley's Lover*.

From the scandelous-once-removed-from-gallery-walls-fine-arts section:

Renoirs' "Young Boy with a Cat"...the nudity, the inferences of beastiality and masturbation...scandelous, I tell you, scandelous.

From the American-political-discourse section:

"Nazi, communist, facist, knuckedragger, mouthbreather, death panel, you lie, imbecile, reactionary, Barack the Magic Negro, teabagger, racist."

Now, that's pornography.

JD -- I think it's more that being gay makes you liberal. I think it's the whole "you're going to burn in hell" thing that turns them off of the party of the religious right. Or maybe it's the "you don't count as a full person deserving of rights". Or "it goes against nature", or "it goes against God", or "you people are disgusting". There are others, of course. Maybe it can all be summed up as: why would you be a part of a party that hates your guts?

Homobigots.
Nice word. You think of that one all by yourself?

You continue to think it is something you're born with (although the human genome completion put that to rest).

If someone wants to be gay, be gay. I don't care. But don't expect those that play by the rules of biology to celebrate it. I don't celebrate drunks, crackheads, or lazy people either. Those, too, are choices in behavior.

Just because you throw "bigot" at another that does not share your enthusiasm to embrace a chosen behavior, does not make it so.

As for me, I love my fellow man with all of their flaws, and we all have flaws. Personally, I smoke cigarettes. I chose that habit a long time ago. Though the tobacco-bigots won't let me celebrate my choice anymore.

"Homobigots.
Nice word. You think of that one all by yourself?"

Nope, it's just so darn apt that I've chosen to repeat it. Have you made up all the words you use?

"You continue to think it is something you're born with (although the human genome completion put that to rest)."

You fail at science. Also: I don't "continue to think" anything about the genesis of homosexuality in individuals. I mean, most mammal species display homosexual tendencies in roughly the same proportions as people, and heaven knows it's been around since the beginning of humanity, but quite frankly, I don't care why people are gay. We know lifestyle choices like religion are certainly a choice, yet we maintain that those who choose to practice religions are entitled to equal protection under the law. This is a founding principle because, much like who we love and befriend, what we believe about our souls (or lack thereof) is something intensely personal that government shouldn't be in the business of dictating for us.

I am also a tobacco-enjoying American, so if you're trying to get a rise out of me on that, you're kind of barking up the wrong tree. If you're trying to compare being gay with smoking or drinking or being lazy...well, the basis for such a comparison would be? What? Because smokers aren't allowed to get married and companies are allowed to fire workers based on whether they're lazy on their own time? Oh wait! No -- that's just gay people.

No, I'm not trying to get a rise out of you at all. I'm sorry you took it that way.

And how did I "fail" at science. The entire homosexual community was awaiting the grandiose news that someone found a "gay" gene. They did not. It does not exist. The homesexual community is looking for anyything to justify their choices. I am not trying to justify or condemn them - they are doing that themselves. As I stated earlier, I love my fellow man - homosexuals included. It is something my religion demands. However, my religion also demands that I do not enable or condone the behavior - but love the man.

And although your mention of religion was poinient, I don't think you are comparing apples to apples. Yes, people chose their religion (religious freedom) Yes, people chose their lifestyles (pursuit of happiness). Both are mentioned in the Constitution. If two people want to solidify their legal status with a civil union - I don't care. I'm not against that. But the symantics are important to us when we wish to keep the word "marriage" to heterosexuals.

Would you concur?

Why the obscession with this? If this was "all over the blogosphere," it definitely makes appropriate the Nutroots name.

Why the obscession with social conservatives ("values voters") attending a conference years before the 2012 election? The straw poll conducted was only of token importance at this time.

Why the obscession? [sigh]

JD -

First, I respect your religious beliefs whatever those may be. And, I would respect your religion's right not to perform gay marriages. But, for you as someone who often comments in favor of personal freedom, how do you justify imposing your personal and religious morality on others through legislation outlawing gay marriage? I do not understand how a civil marriage, or a marriage performed by another religion, in any way impacts you, your religion or your faith. If you believe in adult baptism by immersion, would you advocate outlawing infant baptism? Would you advocate outlawing extramarital heterosexual sex...also immoral by most religions? How about alcohol consumption...immoral and unacceptable to some religions? Why single out homosexuality?

You see, JD, just because one of us does not believe in something, or thinks it's immoral, does not give us the right to prejudice others who believe differently. My (freedom loving) view.

"And how did I "fail" at science."

One of the most prominent and overarching things that have come out of the HGP is that genetics is a lot more complicated than once thought. When we found single genes that coded for particular diseases, it was thought that most genetic qualities would have some single gene or simple combination of genes that would determine any number of things. The HGP is finding more and more that that is not the case, even for simple things like height. If homosexuality is something that people are born with (and note: I'm saying "if"), then it is likely some fairly complicated set of base pairs that raise probability of homosexuality, plus takes into consideration minute changes in chemistry in the amniotic fluid depending on who knows what.

"entire homosexual community was awaiting the grandiose news that someone found a "gay" gene."

This just makes me certain you don't know anything about the "homosexual community". In fact, there's a great deal of trepidation about what would happen if a "gay gene" were found. Scientists found an easily-traceable extra or missing chromosome for certain diseases (most talked-about is Downs), and now parents are screening for that during pregnancy and sometimes abort those children. Most gay people will tell you that they knew they were gay well before puberty, probably from birth, but that's not something they need science to prove to them, and they certainly don't consider themselves "diseased". It's true that it might be easier to convince people from outside the community that "they can't help it", but it's become much more a matter of not feeling they should have to change who they love or what they do behind closed doors because others may not approve.

"But the symantics are important to us when we wish to keep the word "marriage" to heterosexuals."

I'm sure it won't surprise you at this point to hear that no, I don't concur. Why is that word "marriage" so important to you? There's a word that translates to "marriage" in every language from every culture since the beginning of civilization, and in every single culture, the traditions that go around that word are different. Just looking at the last 100 years right here in this country, the definitions have changed because the culture has changed. Marriage in this country has never been a strictly religious thing. I got married very recently and nobody from any church had a hand in that marriage. My husband and I don't call it a "civil union". Why do you think that the word "marriage" is something you get to define for me or for gay people or anyone other than yourself? What's the sticking point?

You are talking in circles, roro.
We both agree that people have the right to be gay. Correct?
Ok.
With that said, you have to realize that people shun any behavior that "society" deems as inappropriate. Most Americans deem the act of homosexual sex as inappropriate and (as you said) unnatural, thus, they tend to shun them when it's openly celebrated.

Once again. If you want to be gay, no one cares. I don't, and most others don't. The biggest issue we have is having Hollywood and the liberal media shoving it down our throats.

As far as the "marriage" word is concerned, the sticking point is that the word literally means "giving a woman to a man".

Old English from Latin:
"from maritus `married man or husband.' It is thought that maritus might have its source in a participle that meant `provided with a bride or young woman,' from Indo-European *mer- or *mor-."

Direct Latin:
Matrimonium: literally "mother's tribute", refering to the giving of a bride to a husband (matris munium).


The actual word "matrimony" or "marriage" is, thus, inappropriate to a union of man and man; or woman and woman.

I'm not trying to define those words "for you". The Romans did that long long ago.

"You are talking in circles, roro."

How so, JD? Did I lose you on the biology stuff? In my defense, you brought it up.

"Most Americans deem the act of homosexual sex as inappropriate and (as you said) unnatural,"

First: I said nothing of the sort. It most certainly is "natural", even if it turns out not to be inborn or genetic, but I tried to make it clear that I don't actually care either way. The list of "unnatural" things that we take for granted could fill up a book: we can start with "eyeglasses" and "baby bottles". Hopefully, you understand my point.

Second: there are plenty of things that people do that are considered inappropriate by certain groups that nonetheless allow those who partake in such things equal protection under the law. I don't have to approve of your life (I probably wouldn't), nor do you have to approve of mine (you probably wouldn't), for us to agree that we both should be able live out our lives in the way we want, so long as we're not taking away from the freedoms and happiness of others.

"As far as the "marriage" word is concerned, the sticking point is that the word literally means "giving a woman to a man"."

Really, JD? We're going to go to etymology here? And etymology that starts with "it is thought that..."? C'mon. We no longer speak Old English, nor Latin (good lord, English isn't even particularly Latin-based), and frankly, sh*t changes. Even if we take Old English to be exactly equal to modern English, it is quite clear that "marriage" is certainly no longer defined by giving a woman to a man. Women no longer go from property of dad to property of hubby. Women actually aren't owned by anyone now. (I know! It's these crazy kids these days!) Honestly, the change from marriage-as-transfer-of-hymenal-property to marriage-as-expression-of-love is a much, much bigger change then simply allowing the 8% of the population who happen to like people with the same genitals in on the fun.

Pretty much every other word has changed between the time of the Romans and modern days -- like, the entire language -- so maybe the way they thought of this particular word doesn't so much have full bearing on anything I care about. That's taking the definition of "conservative" (wanting absolutely nothing to change ever) to a whole new level, JD.

Why the obscession with this? If this was "all over the blogosphere," it definitely makes appropriate the Nutroots name.

DLS,

A conservative activist is spewing pseudo-science. This--in and of itself--is no reason for public outcry. It becomes a reason for public outcry, however, when you consider that conservatives have actively used the power of government to outlaw certain forms of pornography and to prosecute those who have sold or distributed such pornography.

Which is exactly what the United States Justice Department did under president Bush.

The conservative movement has become utterly laughable when it comes to civil liberties, free market capitalism, and smaller government. At at time when the United States was attempting to fight a war against actual terrorists and federal spending was skyrocketing out of control, the U.S. Justice Department made it a priority to send federal agents to warehouses to confiscate videos of naked people and to prosecute distributors from selling/distributing such videos. Under Bush's politicized Justice Department, U.S. district attorneys actually faced backlash for not prosecuting pornography hard enough!

Conservatives can believe whatever they want about pornography. But the minute they advocate that the federal government use its powers to prosecute people for simply distributing pornography, those conservatives have opened themselves up to criticism.

You are the one that first broght up etymology:

"Why is that word "marriage" so important to you? There's a word that translates to "marriage" in every language from every culture since the beginning of civilization, and in every single culture, the traditions that go around that word are different. "


You've touched on one of my hobbies - linguistics and etymology. Sorry.
It does matter, because of the traditions and cultural meanings that have gone along with those words for thousands of years. Now, the social progressives want to take it away. "It used to mean that, but now it means this" doesn't cut it in this respect.



"The list of "unnatural" things that we take for granted could fill up a book: we can start with "eyeglasses" and "baby bottles".

Are you seriously going to equate anal sex with baby bottles and eyeglasses?
Yeah. That makes sense.

The only point I was trying to make, well actually two points were:

1. Liberals should stop attempting to force celebration of homosexuality, and the acceptance of behavior-based laws and protections.

2. Homosexuals can do anything that heterosexuals can do (except marry in most states). And if they chose to legally bind themselves to one another, then call it a "civil union" to make everyone happy.

I was talking about the legal definition of marriage. Etymology is interesting and all, but we shouldn't be using it to make policy. I think you must admit that in the legal sense, the definition of marriage has changed many times in the last century. That was my point.

And no, I'm not trying to equate anal sex with baby bottles. I'm trying to point out the fallacy behind labeling as "bad" everything that isn't "natural", and at the same time bring up the idea that anal sex isn't particularly unnatural. Not to mention, of course, the falic-centric and male-centric definition you are using for sex. I guess lesbians marriage would be ok since there is rarely anal sex involved? It should also be noted, that many straight couples engage in anal sex or sexual practices I'm sure would upset you, but they're allowed equal protection.

As for your points:
1. While social liberals want for members of different communities, including the gay community, to be able to celebrate themselves, by all means, don't show up to the parades. Nobody cares if you show up -- they just want to be able to show up themselves. We'd also like to offer equal protection under the law to members of the gay community. You know, like is supposed to happen anyway.

2. First, civil unions are neither transferrable like marriages, nor are they available throughout the United States. In addition, there are many rights that gay people do not currently enjoy that straight people do. For example, in many states, it's perfectly legal to fire someone just because they are gay. Gay couples are not allowed to adopt children in many states. Gay people are often subject to denial of things like health care, service at restaurants or in public places, etc, only because they are gay. They are subject to much higher rates of violent crime because they are gay, and higher rates of poverty due to being gay. So no, marriage is not the only equal protection issue the alternate sexualities are battling.

How has marriage changed many times over the last century? I'm not doubting you. Just explain.

And I'm not labeling "bad" on anything. If homosexuals or heterosexuals or transsexuals or bisexuals or metrosexuals..... want to put there penis into a tree, a vice, or another person..... They can. i don't care, nor should I. What people do in the PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN BEDROOMS is just fine and dandy.

And I capitalized that for a reason. You mentioned the parades which I "don't have to go to".
"Look at me. my sexual habits should be accepted!"
No!
Your sexual habits should be kept in the bedroom. Do what or whom you like. Just don't flaunt it.

And if civil union couples want healthcare, then let a private corporation give it to them. That IS legal even now. And to deny service is wrong. Period. I agree with you on that.

I'm torn on the adoption thing, but tend to be against it for a number of reasons that aren't worth debating. I'm in negotiations with myself on that one.

My main point is this:
What makes a homosexual different from a heterosexual?
Sex and attraction. Correct?
Why do you wish to sort Americans by sexual attraction items? You cannot.
If you do, you must then give the foot fetish people special rights. Give all of the fetishes equal rights under the law. You just can't do that.

"How has marriage changed many times over the last century?"

Among many smaller changes -- a married woman's right to own property in her own name or keep her maiden name, as well as no-fault divorce -- the biggest legal one is the repeal of all antimisegination laws. In 1948, California became the first state to make it legal for two people of different races to marry, followed in 1967 (? -- around then, anyway) by the Supreme Court. 1967 is not that long ago. Of course, as I touched on earlier, the whole idea of what marriage means has changed. My father did not go to all the white fathers of young men in my city to find the mate that would be the most suitable and provide him the largest dowry. I went out and found a man I love very much. The idea that one marries -- and remains married -- for love is romanticized in literature as far back as the Greeks, but hasn't been in general practice for all that long. And the idea that one can get out of marriage if that love dies, or if one partner cheats on the other or there is domestic violence -- well, that's not something that even in my grandmother's generation was at all possible.

" Period. I agree with you on that."

Cool.

"Your sexual habits should be kept in the bedroom."

I don't necessarily disagree with this statement *for myself*, but quite frankly, the heterosexuality of heterosexual people is flaunted much, much more often, and without consequences. I don't, for example, make out with my husband on the street; I do walk hand-in-hand with him. In either case, I wouldn't be at risk of losing my job, or being beaten up. Banning the open celeberation of love and sex -- hetero or homo -- would constitute huge and oppressive limits on free speech. Again: there's no reason for you to participate if it's not your thing. Many (most?) gay people also choose to stay away from these celebrations, just like a majority of straight people stay away from sex toy shops and porn houses.

" you must then give the foot fetish people special rights"

Foot fetish people have every right to practice and flaunt their fetish on their own time. Also: feet aren't people, and cannot legally enter into a legal contract, so I don't think there's any fear of having feet fetishists want to run off to Vegas and get married to a foot. As it stands, there's nothing to keep the foot fetishist from running off to Vegas and getting married to the owner of said foot, as long as said foot belongs to someone with different genitals. Theoretically that foot would be covered under any health insurance gained through the marriage, even if it does have to share with the rest of that person's body. So, as it stands, pretty much every fetishist is already covered as far as equal protection, as long as the object of their desire is connected to a person of the opposite sex. That just leaves gay people. So "you just can't do that" becomes, "we already did; it's done".

"but quite frankly, the heterosexuality of heterosexual people is flaunted much, much more often, and without consequences".

You just made my entire point. Liberal thought in the 60's and 70's helped to bring down the moral fiber of the nation. Now, I'm not a puritan by any stretch of the imagination (my wife and I can get quite freaky), but once the sexual act (and everything else) was brought out into the open (free love, etc), it opened pandora's box. If all people (regardless of sexual orientation) kept their "business" to themselves, this wouldn't be an issue. Sex is a deeply personal act between two people, or at least, should be.


"I don't think there's any fear of having feet fetishists want to run off to Vegas and get married to a foot."
Now don't be ridiculous. Foot fetish people are turned-on by another person's foot. They don't want to marry a foot. Stop being goofy.
My point was if you make special laws for gays, then you may have to consider special laws for every single fetish out there. The same sex turns you on? You have your own law. Men dressed up like clowns turn you on? There's a law for you too. And so on.

The broader point of the matter is that, as I alluded to earlier, once the sexual morality of our nation was flaunted into public, it made way for many other forms to make their way to acceptance. It has had an irrevocable effect on our nation. Unmarried pregnancy: through the roof. Venerial disease: through the roof. Divorce: through the roof. It's the legacy that the baby boomer generation has left us.

The gay argument is a part of that general degradation of the nation's morality and culture. Every nation that has gone through it in the past, has fallen.
As I said earlier. I love a homosexual men and women. I love the alcoholic, the gambler, the drug addict, and all Americans that fall prey to weekness. They are my brothers and sisters. But the behavior is what I do not like. It's making our nation weeker in the long run.