MarineBrat #fundie

MarineBrat #fundie freerepublic.com

[On the Boy Scouts of America's decision to allow openly gay children to join.]

Scouts have spit in my face. Screw em if this is true. Let the stinking faggots run the asylum. I won’t donate a dime or a minute to them ever again.

Why is it that faggots and Fascism go hand in hand?

54 comments

Broton, that's the point. The fascists here want to tell the kiddies that any homosexual attraction or experimentation means that they are born that way, can never change, are Gay, it is done, dusted, settled, now come and let us 'enjoy' your participation in our civility and hopefest - because you are one of us now forever. Branded. Don't be confused and doubtful - you are branded now.

This in itself is the child abuse of this generation. The sexualization of youth. A truly stolen generation.

Like, good morning Pod People - screeching, more screeching, more cries of "liar, liar, liar" as visceral and guttural a sound as you can belt out.

What I didn't hear you? Louder, Louder, Liar, Liar, Liar.

Ebon. Show us that civility of the Gay Lobby act again.

Oh Ps Broton, Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, Baden Powell - it must have been what they always had in mind. WELL,, just because! SCOTUS can see stuff like that.
You don't need another constitution, it can be made to do any miraculous thing under the sun

old comment by capello moderno

Just a thought about the determinist consensus at FSTDT: In theory I'm surprised that the consensus here is so adamantly biologically determinist: you're either born gay, bisexual or heterosexual, and that's it. From experience here, I'm not so surprised, though, and this is the only thing, I think PG is right in pointing out: determinism is the perfect tool for taking away personal responsibility - it's me genes, dun' it.

Difference between PG and my position is, that when it comes to homosexuality I'm not out to 'cure' anyone, as it really is all the same to me, but you might want to consider something like Foucault's History of Sexuality: In the olden days sodomy was legally considered "an immoral and illegal act" that people might entertain, but then, along comes modern medicine and inscribes the "deviation" into the body of the individual creating "the homosexual patient".

Luckily, the homosexual is no longer a psychiatric patient, but we're still deep in identity politics territory, because we're still discussing people's rights to be homosexual - might it be better to just declare that engaging in sex with someone of the same sex is a-ok and hunky dory and leave it at that?

old comment by Kuno

@capello moderno:

I agree with you as far as it does not make the least bit of difference if a person chooses to be gay or is born that way. They shouldn’t be discriminated against either way.

I personally think that you cannot choose your sexuality, but if it is determined through genetics, hormones or any other mechanism, I am not qualified to say. I just know that I myself cannot conceive myself having sex with a man and from that I have to “extrapolate”. On the other hand I am sure that human sexuality is far more “fluid” than most people give it credit for.

But as I said, it should not make any difference to the topics of marriage or human rights.

old comment by capello moderno

@rikalous

Well, in one sense it is a silly question of semantics, but at another level, consider this: the biological determinist self-identifying gay person is in agreement with the militant homophobic in identifying "the homosexual" as a certain "type of" person. Their difference is in the question of moral judgment of this "type of" person (good-neutral >< bad-evil).

Insisting on being a certain "type of" person is what I call identity politics (it's particularly big in the US - so people can say stuff like, "speaking as a mother.. blabla" - as if that had any bearing on the rest of the sentence. The problem I have with identity politics is that it is anti-universalist: no-one is allowed to say anything to anyone else, because it might hurt their sensibilities). And while I think there are ample reasons for tons of policies that protect gay rights, this doesn't change the idea that "the homosexual" is a specific "type of" ("deviant") person.

Another way to look at it would be: the disctinction is really between reproductive versus recreative sex. Logically, homosexual sex is always recreative sex, most heterosexual sex in the modern world, however, is also recreative sex,so what's the big difference? Does it do any good - and this is a genuine question - to identify person X as "a homosexual" because he fucked his boyfriend?

old comment by rikalous

@capello moderno: You can certainly have gay sex without being gay. For one thing, you could be bi. Likewise, you can be gay or straight or bi without having any sex at all. The terms are about attractions, rather than actions.

Someone who engages in recreative sex of a certain kind does have a difference from someone who doesn't, though. Someone who engages in any action has a difference from someone who doesn't. For instance, I engage in recreative video gaming. Specifically, I play RPGs. That makes me an RPG gamer, which makes me different from a non-gamer or an FPS gamer. Hopefully we'll come to a point sooner rather than later where the one difference isn't any bigger a deal than the other.

old comment by Adrian

"Screw em if this is true."

Sooooo, you want to screw scouts? Why don't you take a chair? [/Chris Hansen]

"I won’t donate a dime or a minute to them ever again."

Implying that you were donating to them regularly until now... I suppose that you can provide evidence for your donator status? [/sarcasm]

@Broton:
Despite what prudes and puritans would love to believe, children aren't pure, sexless angels until they get possessed by the demon Puberty. Just because it isn't mature yet and because they are -hopefuly- not sexually active yet doesn't mean that they don't have a sexuality. Ask any non-fundie child psychologist.

As for the Boys Scouts, as others already mentioned, you can be one into your late teens.

@Frank

"Scouts have spit in my face"

Can you get a badge for that?

I most certainly hope so! :P

@capello moderno:
Regarding the "biological determinist concensus", it's simply that this is the way the evidence seems to point.

As for straight people having homosexual sex, you have the Gay-for-pay porn actors, for example (and for female career pornstars, bi or lesbian scenes are pretty much unavoidable), or the many instances of situational sexuality with people stuck somewhere without access to members of the opposite gender for a long time (prisons, boarding schools, monasteries/convents, ships,...)

old comment by Felix Wilde

@nazani14: I'd probably call then transgender, since that's quite clearly what you're describing. Sexuality and gender are not the same thing.

Point, though: in some cultures, such as Thailand, it's quite normal for children to identify as gay or transgender.

@PG: please stop pretending anyone says any of the insane things you ejaculate onto the interwebs. It's (mostly) not the equal rights crowd who deny bisexuals exist; that's your side's job.

@All: I personally feel human sexuality is more fluid than most give us credit for, perhaps because of my own experiences; on the other hand, it's becoming clearer with each new discovery that however sexuality is determined, it isn't something that can be controlled or manipulated, and features of it are set from before birth. Capello moderno is correct that this isn't the important aspect though; whatever we learn about ourselves, it doesn't make same-sex relationships right or wrong. They simply are, and there's nothing harmful or wrong about it, so it's no one's damn business and if they disapprove they can fuck off.

old comment by capello moderno

@ rikalous

I don't think your analogy does the intellectual work for you that you want it to do.
1. You play RPG games, not FPS games, and that makes you a RPG gamer, you write. But would you also call someone - pace your homosexuality analogy - who would like to play RPG games, not FPS games, but never did, a RPG gamer? This is how your definition of homosexuality works.
2. Different identities carry weight in different cultural settings. The vast majority of people couldn't care less whether someone is a RPG gamer. A whole lot of people, however, care an awful lot about whether a person is homosexual. Homosexuality often becomes a "master" identity that colours how other people (and the person himself as identity politics) view every action taken by the person: here's a homosexual buying a cup of coffee, etc. Sex, race, nationality, sexuality, religion, sometimes class and vocation often work as master identities, gaming preferences do not.
3. Difference is the key. I am not saying that there is no difference. The world is chock-full of potentially relevant difference; the interesting question is what our consensus is about the weight of different differences: which differences matter to us?

...continues

old comment by capello moderno

...continued

You and Adrian both argue that someone can engage in homosexual sex porn, prison, etc. without being homosexual. If the person lacks a certain genetic make-up, their homosexual acts do not count for you as genuinely homosexual. In follows from this argument that a person with a certain genetic make-up will always-already be homosexual whether or not he ever engages in homosexual sex, while another person may bonk away at the same sex for years without ever becoming homosexual. So, in your view, gene differences clearly trump action differences. Do they also trump self-report?

Anyway, my point is this: there’s an unlimited supply of potential difference. We decide through our culture what differences matter. The argument I’m trying to make is that we would do better with having homosexuality be about actions same-sex sex than about “types of” people.

old comment by rikalous

@capello moderno:
I see I was unclear. The analogy was in response to your questioning whether "it does any good to insist on the difference of someone, who engages in recreative sex of a certain kind" by pointing out that there is in fact a difference between anyone who engages in a certain type of recreative activity and someone who doesn't. That was an entirely separate thought from the bit on the difference between sexual act and sexual orientation. I hope that helps my post make a bit more sense.

So, in your view, gene differences clearly trump action differences. Do they also trump self-report? Since I am unaware of any method to determine orientation other than self-reporting, I'm not sure how it could.

In follows from this argument that a person with a certain genetic make-up will always-already be homosexual whether or not he ever engages in homosexual sex

It might be genetics. It might be hormones in the womb or something. I have no idea, and it's not a topic of particular interest to me. What matters to me is that it is by all evidence I'm aware of innate, by whatever mechanism. Actually, the question of whether or not it's harmful rather trumps whether or not it's innate as far as legal and moral issues go, but that's wandering a bit afield.

old comment by rikalous

Part 2

Okay, here's the thing: Say you've got this boy, this Boy A. And there's this Boy B that Boy A thinks is simply the most beautiful boy ever. Boy A can't bring himself to so much as talk to Boy B without blushing and stammering and being distracted by those perfect cheekbones. Now, Boy A has never had sex of any form. He has never kissed anyone, or even held hands in a romantic context. Despite his lack of engagement in gay sex, I would indeed argue that Boy A is gay, due to his attraction to Boy B. (Unless he was bi, or one of the forms of straight higher on the Kinsey scale, but I'm simplifying a bit.)

Let us look now to Man A, a porn star. Man A has been doing gay scenes for the past five years, during which he maintains an erection by thinking of sex with attractive women. Despite his frequent engagement in gay sex, I would argue that Man A is not gay.

An advantage of focusing on orientation, or genre differences if you prefer, is that it allows us to tell the homophobes, "When you say gay people are evil, you're demonizing Boy A for his adorable first crush. When you move to prevent marriage equality, you're trying to ensure that Boy A will never be allowed to marry his soulmate." Given the way that homophobes like to portray gay folk as debauched sex fiends with an anal fixation who want to teach kindergarteners how to use condoms, people like Boy A are a useful counter.

MarineBrat #fundie freerepublic.com

54 comments

Confused?