Fair enough, Tidbits. I cannot argue with true Libertarianism. Consistency is a virtue – most times.

Your view represents mainstream thinking about sexuality in the majority American culture. Mine does not. Sexual attitude is probably one of the few areas where most would consider me extremist or at least an outlier from the norm. That's why I don't get into a lot of specifics other than to say that consenting adults can do as they please. Anything beyond that risks making me the guy in the glass house with a bag full of stones.

That's really all I ask of homosexuals. Every time I turn the TV on, there is a show, or news, or entertainer telling or showing me how homosexuality is the right thing to do, and that if I think the way I do, I'm an oppressive and closed-minded individual. That could not be farther from the truth.

My view. I don't give a rip what consenting adults do in their sex lives. Sex isn't just for procreation. I think you'd agree that there is intimacy and bonding involved as well, even from the monogomous, heterosexual perspective. From my (admittedly libertine) perspective, sex is fun, enjoyable and, done properly, good exercise.

Folks flaunt publicly to attract partners, show off their partners or sell everything from ice cream to recreational vehicles. Well, God bless 'em, whatever their orientation. Some of the best times I've ever had didn't involve a bedroom…but that's probably getting close to too much information.

Thanks for respecting my views. As always, I will do the same toward yours.

“Explanation: I do not regard any sexual preference to be deviant as long as it involves consenting adults. Heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality constantly in public and on the airwaves.”

You hit upon the root of it all. “flaunting sexuality”.
This would not be as big of an issue if heteros and homos kept their affections in the bedroom.
The absolute best quote from this entire thread was “fetish politics”

And since the procreation urge drives against what you have become attracted to. We cannot accept the attraction to same sex as “normal”. I can't, maybe you can.

But as I maintain…. I refuse to show hatred toward homosexuals. I refuse to condone violence or abuse of any kind toward them. But I also refuse to give legitimacy in accordance to someone's fetish. If people are turned on by “whatever”, I don't care. But many of us are tired of being asked to change our “wicked and uncaring evil” feelings that it is an unnatural act – just as anal sex between heterosexuals is an unnatural act – just as scat or peeing on one another is an unnatural act. These people keep that crap in the bedroom and ask nothing of society. Yet homosexuals want normallization and acceptance.

No.

Twenty worthy and rewarding years…

Thank you, roro

Dorian

In things that might “freak out” and “drive away” a potential soldier, I'm going to put the horrors of war far above the horrors of having a collegue mention his husband or boyfriend. The fact that you're seemingly reversing that order says much more about you than about anyone else. Also — what's with the scare quotes around “your friends”?

I stand by my position and my comments without apology and without qualification.

Best to you this Veterans Day,

tidbits

Dorian

Basically, it is legal to discriminate against homosexuals for differing reason largely across the United States.

However after a veteran leaves the military, don't ask don't tell become irrelevent. Your point is moot.

It's not a matter of “allowing homosexuality”, it's a matter of giving homosexuals equal rights as homosexuals beyond what all of us all ready have guaranteed in the constitution. Then you could not protect yourself, business, or, find any public place that that could be legally free from homosexual behavior and sub-culture. You can throw someone out of your restaurant for playing loud music, but not a homosexual wearing pink hot pants, roller skates, and, behaving like a gay pride parade freak show. This offensive behavior would then be protected under the law. As it is now, the restaurant owner can discriminate this behavior off his/her business property open to the public. Homosexuals would thus have the same protections as race. IMO that would be wrong and causes harm.

Sexual proclivity does not rise to the nobility of racial equality. Whom with and how you have sex is a choice. It is an impossibility for one to chose one's race before birth. Therefore race must be protected by the constitution to prevent unfair discrimination. Homosexuality is a deviant choice to perform abnormal sexual behavior. It is also a described psychological addiction associated with self destructive sub-cultural phenomena. How people discriminate against homosexuality is irrelevant, as long as basic constitutional protections afforded all people are observed., but discrimination is allowed by law largely throughout the United Sttates.

Regarding rape, if violently attacking a homosexual for being homosexual is a hate crime, then a violent attack against a heterosexual for being heterosexual is also a hate crime. It’s not as simple as “rape is rape”, the law covering this was just signed by the president. If a heterosexual refuses to have sex with a homosexual and is raped for the refusal than a hate crime has been committed and must be prosecuted as such against the homosexual.

The first part of your last paragraph is irrelevant because universal suffrage is out of context. The rest of your paragraph is bizarre and irrelevant to any post that I made.

Get real.

dr.e

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/gays_too_…

As for hate crimes, I've made it clear many times on TMV that I oppose hate crime legislation as a violation of freedom of thought, speech and expression, though many have made strong arguments against me on that.

Exactly.

Some people here are trying to use the hate crimes legislation issue to bolster their arguments in favor of restricting the types of activities that gay and lesbian individuals should and should not be able to do. This is a complete red herring.

Like, tidbits, I have also argued time and time again against hate crimes legislation on the basis that such legislation criminalizes thought and expression. I personally have no problem with homosexuality. If others do, that's their problem. I have no desire to have the government force such individuals to accept homosexuality.

I have pointed out time and time again, that my belief that homosexual individuals ought to be able to live their lives as they wish so long as they are not infringing upon the lives, liberties, or properties of others. Since homosexuality, gay marriage, and gays serving in the military doesn't infringe on anyone else's lives, liberties, or property, I see no reason for there to be laws against such things.

This has absolutely nothing to do with tryng to force others to accept homosexuality as being good or criminalizing anti-gay thoughts. All of this “gay agenda” rhetoric is just fear mongering. One cannot simply assume that just because some people support gays being allowed to marry or join the military, that they support every conceivable law that is thought to sympathetic to gays. This is blanket a generalization. People cannot keep using the hate crimes legislation issue as some kind of trump card to make arguments against positions that have nothing to do with hate crimes legislation.

Well, some do…and so do some heterosexual men. Whatever revs your engine.

Best to all on Veteran's Day. Thanks to all who have served.

Thanks for your coments, nicrivera.

My post is intended, this Veterans Day, to thank gay and lesbian veterans for their service service to our country, along with other veterans I have recognized and thanked in previous posts.

And, yes, part of my thanks to them is to do my small part in trying to ensure that those young men and women who in the future want to serve their country, and who happen to be homosexual, can do so with dignity and without the shame, humiliation and worse that present “Don't ask, Don't tell” legislation requires them to endure.

If some of our readers object to this, that is their prerogative. (Some are doing such in a rational, dignified manner, some are not. But that's their right, too) As it is my right to continue to espouse what I believe is right.

Thanks again,

Dorian