[dilligras]

Quote by: JohnMK If people of all persuasions had been allowed (say, for the last 2000 years) to legally marry and furthermore to do so without social reprobation (at least in coupling), perhaps a grand tradition and precedent of longer-term relationships might have arisen amongst homosexuals.

Perhaps, perhaps not.........pure conjecture, however, rather than a valid reflection of reality, evidencing a grasp of either "sociological phenomenon" or logical debate.

Your observation, and the implication that you're taking from it, evidence your ignorance of sociological phenomenon.

Implication? Me? I'm honored that you consider me capable of perceiving such subtleties, steeped in ignorace as I am.

The fact that you don't bother raising the issue of equal protection and application of the law is, however, far more disappointing.

Sorry to disappoint, but I had no idea that I was expected to comment on every single facet of an issue before posting. But now that you've asked, I will glady do so.

I told my gay golf buddy awhile back that he should sue under exactly that provision of the Constitution, because if a man and woman can be deemed as married under common law, simply by cohabitating and declaring a spousal relationship, then it is illegal to deny that ability on the basis of gender alone. It is discriminatory to do so, by any standard not involving religious belief.

In other words, if you want to get married in a church, abide by their rules; otherwise a judge or ship's captain should be sufficient to the task.

And no, I don't buy Bill O'Reilly's position that the equal application rule would apply to those other abnormalities, like bestiality and polygamy, just because one may find relief there for gays seeking to publicly declare their unions.



-----

Quote by: dilligras My gay friends and I have an understanding: They don't hit on me and I don't hit them. ... We occasionally argue about one thing or another relating to their lifestyle choices, (when we discuss it at all) but few will deny that it is neither safe nor healthy, when viewed under the klieg lights of stark reality. Whatever it is that dilligras' supposed "gay friends" do, is not a valid argument against anyone's "lifestyle choices" but their own, if even theirs.

Nor did I suggest otherwise. Your writing belies the inference of an ignorance of the language that your "argument" would suggest, however, so I will eschew the claim of a shortcoming of reading comprehension on your part--leaving me only with the inescapable conclusion that, malice aside, you naturally tend toward the argument of straw.

This vacuous discourse about (male) homosexuality as an unhealthy lifestyle is what I refer to as the framing of homosexuality.

Vacuous discourse? Gee, I love that kinda talk. But could you raise the level of condescension just a bit?

If you could, I would be forever in your debt, as I am struggling with my own delusions of intellectual self-importance and would greatly appreciate any assistance you may provide in that regard.

The indiscriminate reference to individual instances of homosexuality in terms of "lifestyle" enforces a conceptual marriage between two logically separable frames of reference: (1) individual homosexual acts and individual homosexual relationships and (2) some supposedly uniform "homosexual lifestyle."N This kind of spin is designed to distort people's perception of what is actually referred to by words like "gay," "homosexual," etc, because these general-reference words are used as synonymous with spesific subcultural conditions like "gay culture."

Ooooo, very nice. I find your use of tropologous verbosity quite amusing, albeit somewhat obtuse in its design.

Indiscriminate reference? I object to this characterization, as all my references are highly discriminating, my spindifferously oppugnant messenger of discord.

I mentioned no individual or specific acts, in an attempt to generalize from the specific, which, if I interpret your musings correctly, is your charge.

But in the interest of clarity, subjugating propriety, I will only say that my mention of the gay lifestyle's inherent dangers reference only current realities, vis a vis AIDS and its likely appearance in the lives of those who insist on the indiscriminate release of ejaculates into each other's hirsute nether regions.

To attempt to censor with ridicule, by complaining that one unfairly warns of this deadly likelyhood when pointing to a few cases, is to pervert logical argument in a desparate ploy to support the unsupportable with what can best be described as blatant, ideologically driven propaganda.

There is more than one way to foist selfishly motivated agendas on a public whose senses are dulled by a litany of leftist absurdities, eh, Myrtle?

"Gay culture" is logically other than "homosexuality" and only a fraction of homosexual practices ever occur in contexts which could reasonably be referred to as a standard lifestyle. Statements about gay culture (whatever that is) are never rationally acceptable as statements about homosexuality.

Surely, you jest. I think one could fairly say that "gay" and "homosexual" have EXACTLY the same meanings, simply because the community itself absconded with the word "gay", as a more desireable epithet than "queer", which was in common use at the time. Maybe you can sell that crap of yours to someone who wasn't around when it happened, but as for me, you may ring up a "no sale" on your Malibu Barbie Bikini Boutique cash register, 'cause I ain't buying anything from your flea market.

The confusion about frames of reference in anti-homosexual discourse is what allows people like dilligras to pretend that idle references to some unspecified "lifestyle choices" made by "gay friends" constitute a valid argument against homosexuality as such regardless of the specific expression it assumes.

People like me? My, my. aren't we the aloof and superior moderator of what is real and what is pretense?

If you can back up the spinmobile several leagues, you'll notice that I never used the reference to my friends as proof of anything. I make my argument against the safety of anal sex based solely on its likely transmission of disease..........or will you now postulate that homosexuals are not the overwhelming victims of AIDS because of their proclivity toward such behavior?

Oh wait.............but the fact of disproportionate levels of this deadly disease among gays proves nothing about any specific person, so it is to be discounted as irrelevant to any discussion of the "lifestyle", is that how the logic goes?

However, saying that the "lifestyle choices" made by a certain group of homosexuals are "unhealthy" is not a rationally acceptable description about homosexuality in general. That sexually transmitted deseases are not transmitted from one healthy male to another healthy male in a monogamous relationship remains a biological fact unchallenged by dilligras' loose references to the choices made by his "gay friends."

Yes, it appears that IS how the logic goes.

And your argument that disease is not spread by healthy people is made entirely of straw, since no one here ever suggested such. I did mention my friends acknowledgement that, as a group, they tend not to stay in one relationship very long, usually a year or two at most. No doubt there are some who do, but by and large, they constitute the pitiful minority of those willing to forgo the "soap opera" that results so often from unmitigated self-indulgence.

And men, gay or no, are nothing if not self-indulgent. Alas, I speak with authority on this, rest assured.



As you were.