|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
All I ask is they do it behind closed doors, and don't harass the rest of us with what they believe.
That's exactly what I want. Take your own advice for once. Please.
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Jackson:
And I'll take being a jerk over being a narrow-minded, bigoted fascist any day.
You Christians sure turn the other cheek well, don't ya? One more phoney.
JJ
I believe "fascist" would apply to those who repress all dissent to impose their own rules. That would be your side.
Love the cheap shots and insults. You seem oblivious to the hypocrisy of your own repressive views toward those who don't share your opinion. Which would, of course, make YOU the true phony.
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Jackson:
quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy:
Ah, back to personal insults.
No, not meant as an insult. You said earlier you'd like it if gays kept what they do with each other behind closed doors. IOW, you don't want to have to deal with it. OK, let's make the reverse happen. YOU do the same thing. Keep your dislike for gays out of everybody else's face.
Oh, I guess all the other profanity and character assassination wasn't meant as insult either?
You guys seem to feel that as long as you rip on conservatives and people who disagree with your views, THAT is freedom of expression and democracy.
But as soon as I or anyone else voices a counter-viewpoint of dissent, then we need to be shut up and silenced. You guys would make great communists.
You seem oblivious to the fact that what you advocate is VERY much in my face, and stomps on the values of myself and a majority, who see a decadent and corrosive influence on American --and global-- culture, based on the wrongheaded acceptance of the perversion that you advocate.
As I said, the level of sexual decadence and vulgarity in our popular culture is a direct result of the American society's acceptance of gay culture and other sexual abberations to the level that they're accepted already, over the last 30 years. And there's never a point of satiation for liberals, it's always more, more, more.
Even as the destructiveness of what has ALREADY been accepted is quite evident. Drugs. Promiscuous sex. Increasingly prevalent group sex. Teen pregnancy. Sexually transmitted diseases. High school shootings. Ever increasing divorce rates and single parenting. Rampant and pointless cynicism, exemplified by "Goth" and other subcultures.
And just an unbearably rude and vulgar culture.
I don't know how you can rationalize further reforms, based on the obvious destructiveness of what's already occurred.
I should be calling YOU names.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
You guys seem to feel that as long as you rip on conservatives and peole who disagree with your views, THAT is freedom of expression and democracy.
No...It's you who's twisting my intent. I was merely pointing out (for at least the 4th time in this "discusion") that you seem to feel that your definition of morality is the definitive, all powerful measuring stick. That's just not the case. You want me to live my life behind closed doors and out of your face. I want you to keep your opinions and beliefs behind your doors. Feel free to think what you want about me and others like me. Just do not expect to impose your definition of right and wrong upon me. How can you not see the absolute arrogance of your stance? You say I'd make a good communist...but you my friend make a damned fine nazi.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Jackson:
"It is not your right, as a minority view, to tell a majority that they don't have a right to their beliefs, and a right to VOICE those beliefs."
Fine. You voice your beliefs that you feel are in a majority. This is America.
But I can tell you this...on a personal level, I am making sure that my children recognize bigots like you who want to cloak yourself in the Bible and pseudoscience to push your agenda of hate.
And the obligation of the majority is not to trod all over the minority. This is America.
Yeah. As long as you get to shut out all opposing views and hijack American culture with your own beliefs, this "is America".
You're clearly bigoted and stereotyping of any views that oppose your own.
If you had your way, I and those who share my beleifs would have no representation, and you could just railroad your own agenda right over us, and to hell with our rights. God knows, if your side hasn't shut us out, it isn't for the lack of trying. I'd say the term "bigot" is more applicable to your side, who can't even have a reasoned discussion of both sides of the issue without getting ugly, vicious, and vulgar.
Us conservatives at least respectfully listen to what you have to say.
You liberals want to deprive us of even having a voice, because you oppose what we have to say.
I'm allowed to have an opinion, as long as I can't voice it, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
You guys seem to feel that as long as you rip on conservatives and peole who disagree with your views, THAT is freedom of expression and democracy.
No...It's you who's twisting my intent. I was merely pointing out (for at least the 4th time in this "discusion") that you seem to feel that your definition of morality is the definitive, all powerful measuring stick. That's just not the case. You want me to live my life behind closed doors and out of your face. I want you to keep your opinions and beliefs behind your doors. Feel free to think what you want about me and others like me. Just do not expect to impose your definition of right and wrong upon me. How can you not see the absolute arrogance of your stance? You say I'd make a good communist...but you my friend make a damned fine nazi.
YOU'RE the one representing the 2% who is trying to change the definition of marriage out from under the 98% majority.
YOU'RE the one trying to not only live your life the way you want, but to pass laws that change my ability to practice my lifestyle and force me to accept a standard of "marriage" that is in polar opposition to what the Bible clearly states.
I'd be content (and was for 10 years) to allow spousal benefits for gays, and a don't-ask-don't-tell policy for gays in the military. That was the balance for 10 years. But that's not good enough for your kind.
BWe see that gays and liberals are not content with a balance where conservatives and gays both get to practice what we believe, you have to force a national standard that forces your beliefs on ALL of us !
I ask you : which side has proven to be intolerant of a balance?
And when you cross that line, to hell with you. I don't support ANY rights for gays now, because it's clearly just a beach-head from which to push ever-increasing concessions from the mainstream.
Any concession of rights just results in ever increasing push for greater permissiveness, greater decadence. And greater loss of freedom for conservatives.
Basically you feel that you have a right to attack conservatives and push for gay rights (i.e., greater decadence).
But that conservatives should "just shut up" and take it, and don't have a right to respond, or even voice a counter-argument. You clearly have a very warped concept of democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
Dave, careful where you throw the term 'conservative' in this discussion. I will admit to agreeing with you on many occasions, but not this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
You know Dave...you're so right. I don't know how I didn't see it before. You're right to live your life as you choose without having to make concesions for others is far more important than my right to enjoy the same rights and freedoms as the rest of society. Fuck...I can't believe I'm being so bloody selfish, wanting equal rights and all when you're opinion is so much more important. Thank you for opening my eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Fair enough, C.J.
I was speaking in the general sense. I'm sure there are conservatives who would disagree with me, and liberals who would disagree with Jim Jackson and Klinton.
Traditionally, gay rights is a liberal issue, and opposing it is a conservative issue. I think we're all grown up enough to know there isn't 100% consensus on either side, or any side.
I'll limit my comments to those who have expressed views here and elsewhere, who are clearly activist for one side or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
You know Dave...you're so right. I don't know how I didn't see it before. You're right to live your life as you choose without having to make concesions for others is far more important than my right to enjoy the same rights and freedoms as the rest of society. Fuck...I can't believe I'm being so bloody selfish, wanting equal rights and all when you're opinion is so much more important. Thank you for opening my eyes.
You've had a right to your lifestyle for at least 10 years. Why push it now to include "gay marriage" and force your beliefs unnecessarily on the rest of us, who clearly disagree with your lifestyle?
THE PROBLEM is that you're not content to live as you want to, but that you force the rest of us to accept and agree with it. And force the rest of us to accept a decadent standard that clearly contradicts the Bible (see verses), and what we know to be right.
Is this a necessary "freedom"?
Or is it in fact an imposition and an attack on conservative beliefs and religion? You can rationalize it all you want, but you know the answer.
I was content to let gays have their rights, but now they've gone beyond the right to live as they want, and instead imposed their beliefs on the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Listen to what you are saying. I'm simply saying the same thing from the other side of the coin...Why is it that I should be limited by your beliefs? Really, why? You sit here and say that I'm imposing my lifestyle on you, when all you are trying to do is impooe yours on me. I don't agree with your value system, or your interpretation of scripture....why should my rights be limited by your religious convictions? It's been pointed out before in here that marriage is a far older institution than Chrristianity, and as it exists today is in itsef a skewed version of the origional intention...why can it not be changed further to accomodate me?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
"I'd be content (and was for 10 years) to allow spousal benefits for gays, and a don't-ask-don't-tell policy for gays in the military. That was the balance for 10 years. But that's not good enough for your kind."
You have outed yourself. You hate those who do not conform to your Bible thumping way of life. You've already said that Islam is the enemy.
My god, you are an insular, pathetic creature, if what you say here is any indication of the kind of human being you are.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
You constantly bypass the point I made.
Gays have been able to live together and work without persecution for at least 10 years.
But you're not content with that, you try to force your own concept of "gay marriage" (blatantly contadictory to the Bible, and also to 6000 years of marriage tradition across every culture), and impose that definition against the grain of the other 98% of the population.
You HAVE the ability to be gay, and live and work as a gay person without persecution. But you choose to push way beyond that, and urinate on the sacred ground of those who would otherwise let you do whatever you want.
To impose your decadent and perverse standard of "marriage" on the rest of us is the height of arrogance. I've explained at length previously the definition of marriage in the Bible, and its significance as a symbol of purity and loyalty, and a sacred bond that is symbolic of Christ's relation to the collective Christian church, described as "The Bride". The concept of "gay marriage" is a clear perversion of that. And thus warps the whole concept of purity and Christianity.
And thus "gay marriage" is a clear attack on Judao-Christian values. That goes way beyond "the right to be gay".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Jackson:
"I'd be content (and was for 10 years) to allow spousal benefits for gays, and a don't-ask-don't-tell policy for gays in the military. That was the balance for 10 years. But that's not good enough for your kind."
You have outed yourself. You hate those who do not conform to your Bible thumping way of life. You've already said that Islam is the enemy.
My god, you are an insular, pathetic creature, if what you say here is any indication of the kind of human being you are.
More insults. To rationalize your own anger and ignorance toward those who don't believe as you do.
You seem oblivious to the fact that I allow for a balance between Christian and gay rights, but that gay rights has crossed a line that infringes on MY rights.
What an insular, pathetic excuse for a human being YOU are, that you need to lash out with this kind of venom at those who disagree with you.
Truly, you are so closed minded that you can't even hear an opposing viewpoint, no matter how respectfully voiced, without lashing out like this.
Aww, I'm being too nice. Certainly, your antagonism deserves a backlash deconstructing precisely what an angry and intolerant piece of human crap you are. Who in your intolerance and vindictiveness, has the audacity to call ME intolerant.
You're just annoyed that I can even voice an opposing view. And like so many liberals, you need to slander, box-categorize, and otherwise dismiss anything that opposes your own views. Because after all, you're a liberal, and you have all the answers, if these conservatives would just shup up and take it. Damn them for daring to have a dissenting opinion, and even worse, one that makes sense.
Like I said, your ideal is a liberal police state, where any conservative opinion --opinion, mind you, just opinion-- is a hate-crime, and too vile to even be permitted to be spoken.
Our culture is rapidly moving in that direction.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
It's clear. Your anti-gay stance is clearly reaction formation.
You're really gay.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Jackson:
It's clear. Your anti-gay stance is clearly reaction formation.
You're really gay.
Aw, gee whiz, that must be it. How did I miss that !
In your dreams, Jackson.
That is always the last-resort attempt to make conservatives uncomfortable, accusing them of being latently gay or whatever.
You're pulling out all the stops in your spineless and malicious attempt to discredit me.
Just more evidence of your deceitfulness, that doesn't faze me a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
This is depressing. ![[no no no]](graemlins/nono.gif) Why can't we argue over who's gonna do what in the playoffs like normal human beings? ![[sad]](images/icons/frown.gif) :lol: Can't we all just step off our soapboxes for a minute and go do something fun??? This thread has been open for far too long. For the love of Rob, somebody close the damn thing! :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Y'know, barring further comments, I'm content to let it go.
If the comments were not of such a personal nature, I would have responsed less. It should be enough that I state my perspective of the issue, and klinton or Jim Jackson or whoever states their perspective of the issue, that both sides are stated, and that's the end of it.
I don't understand why it's so necessary to call me names, to personally insult me, just because I hold a different perspective than they do.
I'm constantly amazed at their inability to simply discuss the issue, as opposed to angrily trying to discredit and insult me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Dave, I have tried to state dissenting opinion to what you've said. I've given you reasons to reconsider what you've said, but you don't want to. You're content to operate that a few in the APA means all of them, you're content to accept that being gay is a choice (despite any scientific evidence supporting it). I've given you reason to be skeptical of clinical psychologists in general, but you'll accept what they say if it supports you.
Ok, you can pick and choose.
I'm pretty much done with this argument. As I've said in other forums, you're just not worth it.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Yeah, ok, maybe I'm kicking a dead horse here, but there was one point made that I feel compelled to contend, it's an itch I have to scratch: "YOU'RE the one representing the 2% who is trying to change the definition of marriage out from under the 98% majority." Not quite, Dave. As I said in the other thread, it's actually more like 40%, and those numbers have shown growth over the last few decades. ....that's all I wanted to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
your influence is growing!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
"There is a revolution brewing, my friends, and what a queer one it shall be."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
It should be enough that I state my perspective of the issue, and klinton or Jim Jackson or whoever states their perspective of the issue, that both sides are stated, and that's the end of it.
One last comment...To you it's just an issue, to me it's my life, People like you sit on your soap box and preach your morality...telling me that the core of my being is somehow immoral. It's not just an issue Dave. I cannot simply state an opinon and let it go. If I sat here and told you that you cannot possibly meet a girl and marry her, because that is against my moral code, you too would be outraged. How can I ignore people like you? How can I agree with you? I am not asking you to foresake your beliefs. I'm asking that you make room for other people that don't share them...is that really so wrong? Is that really some 'evil force' trying to undermine your faith? You are free to go on living your life as you see fit...But I too should be allowed the same freedom. Can't you see this?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
"There is a revolution brewing, my friends, and what a queer one it shall be."
![[cool]](images/icons/cool.gif)
Great line my freind.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
![[biiiig grin]](images/icons/grin.gif) I will add to klinton...it's my life too. I am a gay man myself (and yes, my children are biological ones). So, it's not simply "an issue." It's about life. To have you sit there and say or insinuate that being gay or bi is a kind of mental illness deserved of treatment is not something that sits easily with me...or with others, I'm sure. And I AM a psychologist. I have a trained insight into how the discipline works, how the APA is not fully representative, how a few shrinks may feel that pedophilia is normal behavior (I am presuming you're referring to NMBLA), and how many clinical types in general operate from their pet theory as if it were e=mc2. Please give some credence to what I say, because I have knowledge that's beyond my "anti-conservative" thing that you've hung on me. Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
I don't exactly see how gay marriage would be forced on anyone. If it was made legal, as a straight man I don't think I would in any way be forced to marry another man.
Marriage exists outside of religion (I may get married oneday, I dn't intend it to be in a church), if your church starts performing gay marriage, then it affects your religion. Otherwise I don't see how it's anyone elses business.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
This is a horse that has died many times! It's like a gay Canadian version of SeaBiscuit!
I think views are changing not because of some moral degradation but because gays are not hiding anymore & there is less ignorance about homosexuality. Gays were a bit of a boogie man & it's so easy to fear or ascribe traits to something like that. Now it's harder to do because Joe Average is much more likely to know somebody who is gay. That gay person may be a jerk or a nice guy but either way it's a person that very unlikely fits the stereotype an opposing side likes to advocate.
I wouldn't mind getting married to my boyfriend. Considering we've been together for over 13 yrs, I think most people would agree we should have some legal protections. It's actually pretty nice seeing even the dissenting posters agree on that. Dave the Wonder Boy you bring up some pretty ugly imagery in respect to how gay marriage affects you & your religion but beyond that, where does it actually affect it? Even if/when gay marriages became legal in this country, your church certainly wouldn't be forced to have them. It would be like forcing a Baptist Church to perform a Jewish ceremony- not going to happen. So your right's remain unchanged.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
Dave youve got the ladies in an uproar!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
A step back to the dark ages and tribute to one who brought a bit of enlightenment in a sea of ingnorance and hatred. I think Jim will appreciate this story. quote:
December 20, 2003
OBITUARIES
Judd Marmor, 93; Helped End Classification of Gays as Ill
By Elaine Woo, Times Staff Writer
Dr. Judd Marmor, whose criticism of the belief that homosexuality was a mental disorder made him an important ally in the gay struggle to force American psychiatry to change its views, died Tuesday at UCLA Medical Center after a short illness. He was 93.
Marmor, a longtime resident of Los Angeles who taught for many years at UCLA and USC, played a prominent role in the successful 1973 campaign to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the authoritative compendium of mental illnesses maintained by the American Psychiatric Assn.
The decision, highly controversial at the time, was seen later as a landmark in the history of the gay and lesbian rights movement, which considered the illness theory of homosexuality the major stumbling block in the modern struggle for gay rights.
Marmor, as one of a handful of prominent, heterosexual psychiatrists who joined gay activists in challenging the theory, was "one of the foreparents of the movement," Ronni Sanlo, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Center at UCLA, said in an interview this week.
"It couldn't have happened without that change in the APA," she said.
Marmor's death came a day after the 30th anniversary of the American Psychiatric Assn.'s vote to "depathologize" homosexuality, which took place Dec. 15, 1973.
Widely respected as an analyst and scholar, he published more than 350 papers and wrote or edited six books, including the classic text "Modern Psychoanalysis," originally published in 1968.
He also was known for his research on why therapy works, which showed that factors such as trust and empathy had more to do with successful outcomes in psychotherapy than any particular theoretical approach, such as Freudian or Jungian analysis.
In later years, he was an advocate of group and family therapy and spoke of the benefits of short-term treatment versus lifelong analysis.
An avid tennis player into his 90s who saw patients until just before his death, Marmor saw his influence reach into the ranks of daily newspaper readers as a longtime advisor to Abigail Van Buren, who wrote the "Dear Abby" column and was one of the first national figures to support gay rights. He later advised her daughter, Jeanne Phillips, when she took over the enterprise in the late 1980s.
"If Mom had a question about homosexuality or other behavior, she would ask him," Phillips said Friday. "You could call Judd up and he would answer your questions very sweetly and very thoroughly."
Marmor was born in 1910 in London, the son of a Yiddish scholar. He grew up in Chicago and later moved to New York. With odd jobs and debating scholarships, he supported himself through Columbia University.
He began a psychiatric practice in New York after earning his medical degree from Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1933.
In 1946, after serving in the Navy during World War II, he moved to Los Angeles, where psychoanalysis was coming into vogue, and gained prominence as an analyst to Hollywood celebrities.
He served as director of the psychiatry division at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center from 1965 to 1972, then launched an academic career at USC, where he was the Franz Alexander Professor of Psychiatry from 1972 to 1980. From 1980 to 1985, he was adjunct professor of psychiatry at UCLA.
Marmor had begun to treat homosexual patients who wanted to change their sexual orientation in the 1940s. Like most of his colleagues, he believed that psychoanalysis could help them change. But, as he told historian Eric Marcus in the book "Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990," "I wasn't too successful."
What eventually changed Marmor's views were his clinical experiences with gay patients and later his social interactions with closeted gays who had successful careers. He gradually reached the conclusion that "psychoanalysts didn't know enough gay people outside the treatment community who were happy with their lives, who were satisfied and well-adjusted," he told Marcus.
Marmor said: "If we made our judgments about the mental health of heterosexuals only from the patients we saw in our office, we'd have to assume that all heterosexuals were mentally disturbed."
Marmor also was influenced by the groundbreaking research of Evelyn Hooker, a UCLA psychologist who in 1957 published the first empirical study to challenge the view of homosexuality as an illness. In her research, she found no measurable psychological difference between heterosexual and homosexual men.
Her study buttressed Marmor's clinical observations that homosexuality was not pathological. He asked Hooker to write a chapter for his first book on homosexuality, "Sexual Inversion," published in 1965. She in turn recruited him for a task force on homosexuality sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health in 1969, and they often lectured together to dispel the notion that homosexuality was a sickness.
Marmor and Hooker, however, were "voices in the wilderness," said Franklin E. Kameny, a scientist and gay activist who was at the forefront of the fight to change the psychiatric orthodoxy on homosexuality.
Marmor's convictions about the normality of homosexuality emerged against a backdrop of growing activism by gay and lesbian people. A series of national protests by gay activists had culminated in the Stonewall riots in 1969 in New York City. In 1970, activists disrupted the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Assn. in San Francisco, which led in 1971 to the first address by gay people given at a meeting of the eminent group.
In 1972, a gay psychiatrist made a dramatic presentation at the association's Dallas convention. Wearing a mask and identifying himself only as "Dr. H. Anonymous," he was joined on the panel by Kameny, longtime lesbian activist Barbara Gittings and two straight psychiatrists: Robert Seidenburg and Marmor, who was then vice president of the association.
The disguised psychiatrist shocked many members of the group who did not realize that policies they had endorsed for 100 years discriminated against some of their own.
That same year, Marmor wrote in an article published in the International Journal of Psychiatry: "I submit that the entire assumption that homosexual behavior per se is 'unnatural' or 'unhealthy' is a moral judgment and has no basis in fact."
His views were denounced by classical psychoanalysts, who insisted that homosexuality was deviant behavior rooted in unhealthy family relationships. The issue of whether to remove homosexuality from the diagnostic manual was so contentious that it was placed before the full membership, which in late 1973 adopted the resolution in a split vote. Marmor became association president the following year.
The action set in motion a transformation of attitudes toward homosexuality. The American Psychological Assn. adopted a position similar to that of the American Psychiatric Assn. shortly afterward, and policies opposing anti-gay discrimination were embraced by other major national groups, such as the National Education Assn. and the American Bar Assn.
The elimination of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders was crucial in breaking down other barriers, Kameny said Friday.
"You don't give rights to and equality to loonies. That was the situation," he said. Changing the psychiatric view of homosexuals "took away part of the basis for belittling and disparaging us and our efforts as people. It was one of the single most important events in the modern history of the gay movement." He remembered Marmor as "an effective combatant in our corner of the battle."
Marmor's role in eliminating homosexuality from the official lists of psychopathologies is often forgotten, according to Marcus. "If you asked gay people who he is, most would have no idea," Marcus said in an interview from his home in New York City.
"But gay people all over the country have benefited from his work," he said. "Many of them have been saved from horrible psychological damage because of his leadership efforts to change the official listing."
Marmor is survived by his son, Stanford University ophthalmology professor Michael F. Marmor; a granddaughter, Andrea K. Marmor of San Francisco; and a grandson, David J. Marmor of Los Angeles.
Encouraged to collect art by his wife, Katherine, who died in 1999, Marmor lent and contributed many of his artworks to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles. His family requests that any memorial donations be sent to those museums.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
Dave you've got the ladies in an uproar!
Ha !
Don't I, though.
I initially just responded to a point, and went through two topic pages addressing the off-topic insults and allegations against my character, for simply voicing logical objections to the gay perspective, and how it treads on my beliefs.
Ultimately, all I did was offer the counter-view, from the conservative/mainstream perspective.
I definitely take exception to the view by Klinton that gays having a right to marriage "doesn't affect" me, as a non-gay.
On the contrary, as I've detailed repeatedly, it changes the definition of marriage and the integrity of Christianity, if our culture permits gay marriage.
If gays are recognized as a "legitimate" minority, then a Christian who owns a business doesn't have the right to not hire a gay person whose lifestyle they don't agree with.
A Christian apartment building owner doesn't have the right to refuse a lease to gays whose lifestyle he doesn't want to endorse or associate with.
And ULTIMATELY, Christian parents attempting to raise their children teaching them Biblical principles, don't have the ability to prevent public schools from teaching a contradictory values system about homosexuality, without public school teachers and the entire system undermining the core values these parents are trying to teach their children.
And as britney said to Animalman's post about the CBS opinion poll on the previous topic page, that says 40% of America is okay with gay marriage. All that shows is the liberal/pro-gay propaganda already in britney's words "your influence is growing", and have swayed a whole generation away from the true Biblical perspective.
And as I said, to even quote Biblical verses that say homosexuality is immoral, can ALREADY be considered a "hate crime" in Canada. If that's not an infringement on freedom of religion, then I don't know what is. So much for gay rights not affecting me.
And, bottom line, Christians (and others who don't share an enthusiasm for the gay lifestyle, and there are many) lose the ability to preserve their culture because of government interference.
Because liberals are hell-bent on promoting decadence and anarchy, as the end result of their confused definition of "tolerance".
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
Yeah, ok, maybe I'm kicking a dead horse here, but there was one point made that I feel compelled to contend, it's an itch I have to scratch:
quote:
posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
YOU'RE the one representing the 2% who is trying to change the definition of marriage out from under the 98% majority.
Not quite, Dave. As I said in the other thread, it's actually more like 40%, and those numbers have shown growth over the last few decades.
....that's all I wanted to say.
Here are the details of the survey poll you linked:
quote:
CBS news poll:
NEW YORK, July 30, 2003
(CBS) Just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Texas law banning sodomy, more Americans object to legal marriage for homosexuals than support it.
In the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, 55 percent would oppose a law allowing homosexual couples to marry, giving them the same legal rights as other married couples, while 40 percent would favor such a law.
GAY MARRIAGE
Favor
40%
Oppose
55%
Republicans hold particularly strong views against gay marriage: 71 percent of them oppose it, and 27 percent favor it. Democrats and Independents are more evenly divided; 45 percent of Democrats support it, as do 45 percent of Independents.
Younger people are much more likely than older Americans to support gay marriage. Sixty-one percent of 18- to 29-year-olds favor it; that drops to just 18 percent among people 65 and older.
Opposition to gay marriage is strong among conservatives (71 percent oppose it), blacks (63 percent) and Protestants (64 percent). Catholics also oppose it, though by a smaller margin than the entire population; 44 percent favor it and 50 percent oppose it.
There are no real differences between men and women on this issue.
____________________________________
This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 3,092 adults interviewed by telephone July 13-27, 2003. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus two percentage points for results based on the entire sample.
I'll assume (and that's a big assumption) that the poll is an accurate representation of American public opinion.
As britney already said on the last page of this topic regarding gays, "your influence is growing!
", and that 40% approval number is the end result of three decades of liberal propaganda that have corroded public opinion, which has solicited a more politically correct passive response in those taking the survey.
It's ALSO not 40% of the public in this survey that endorses and embraces the gay lifestyle, it's 40% of people saying yeah, sure whatever, let them marry if they want to.
So it's still 2% of the population who is gay and wants to change the definition of marriage -vs- the definition of marriage as one-man/one-woman that works for the other 98% who are heterosexual.
But again, that's assuming the survey can even be trusted to be an accurate representation of what our nation truly thinks. (As the poll says, just over 3,000 people were surveyed for their opinion, out of a U.S. population of 290 million people. And as others have said, the way questions are asked in a poll can get the kind of answers someone wants. )
And again, as I said prior, regarding it being "a small group of psychologists" lobbying for homosexuality to again be categorized as a mental illness, as Jim Jackson alleges, it is again political correctness that keeps many psychologists from objecting, since any psychologist will have their name dragged through the mud for holding or publicly supporting such a politically incorrect view.
Again, the links at the top of page 23 show what happened to the editor of PSYCHOLOGY TODAY, who lays out his liberal credentials and says he was trashed for simply making an objective inquiry to prove or disprove that homosexuality is a healthy state of mind. Even asking the question is an outrage, for which liberals and the gay community will trash someone for even attempting to objectively address.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Here's a link describing the call to the Psychology Today editor Epstein http://www.gaytoday.com/world/101602wo.aspHere is another one that argues why Epstein was wrong (He didn't merely ask a question but accepted an advertisement for a book telling parents that they can change their children's sexual orientation) http://gaytoday.com/events/101702ev.aspPsychology Today is a respected magazine and a leader in the field of psychology. It is successful because it focuses on factual information, credible research and respectable work. Unfortunately, NARTH does not meet any of the criteria or high standards usually set by Psychology Today. HRC would like to inform you about NARTH's work so you can better judge whether the magazine wants to associate with their harmful efforts. There are four main issues here. The first is whether NARTH is a reputable organization that is truthful and accurately represents gay life. The second is whether NARTH's political activity clouds its work. The third issue is NARTH's offering a platform to people with dangerous views. And the final issue is the harmful, bizarre techniques endorsed by NARTH's leaders. I. NARTH Misrepresents Gay Life On the first issue the evidence is clear. NARTH uses base stereotypes and misrepresentations of gay life to lure and retain its clients. Consider the following quotes from NARTH's Dr. Nicolosi: * "I do not believe that any man can ever be truly at peace in living out a homosexual orientation," says Nicolosi in his book, Reparative Therapy in Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach. * "I think the homosexual condition has certain limitations to it," he once remarked on CNBC's Equal Time. "I think that two men in a relationship have difficulty and two women would have difficulty where there is a certain compatibility between male and female." * According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Nicolosi once told a crowd at an anti-gay seminar that gay men are "disconnected" from other people and live in an unreal world and that's why they like theatre. * "Homosexual men are twice as more likely to sexually molest than the heterosexual man. And then let's think about it for a moment, let's look at this heterosexual man who sexually molests a homosexual boy. How do you define homosexual or heterosexual? Is he a homosexual or is he heterosexual. Well he might be married, but so what don't gays themselves say 'we are everywhere?' Is he homosexual or is he heterosexual? One of the best ways to define a person's identity is by his behavior and let me get this straight, you're having sex with a boy, hmmm, two penises, now is that homosexual or heterosexual, this is how absurd it becomes. I said the word penis, they'll have to edit that out." (Nicolosi at ex-gay conference in Atlanta, October 2001) Dr. Epstein, I'm sure you would agree that there are many openly gay people who are happy and have found peace in their lives. Nicolosi's attempt at tying gay people to child sexual abuse is also reprehensible and not consistent with the scientific facts. Therefore, Nicolosi's statements are unscientific, clearly biased and an imposition of his own values at the expense of the truth, if not his clients' mental health. This type of bias, stereotyping and antipathy towards a group is usually absent from Psychology Today and endorsing it now would set a bad precedent. II. NARTH's Work Clouded By Politics On the second point, NARTH is a group tied to virulently anti-gay political organizations, such as Focus on the Family. Many of their statements reflect strident political judgments, rather than measured scienti fic opinions. For example, consider the following statements: * "It [homosexuality] is a purple menace that is threatening the proper design of gender distinctions in society," said former NARTH President Charles Socarides. * "Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion in American society," said Nicolosi in his book. * Prominent members of NARTH have lobbied government against laws that would protect gay and lesbian Americans against job discrimination. As you can see, the rhetoric used by NARTH has more in common with a direct mail fundraising letter from Rev. Jerry Falwell, than it does with the pages of Psychology Today. III. NARTH's Dangerous Ideologues On the third point, NARTH has given a platform to scientists who offer peculiar views about homosexuality. Consider the following statement from one of NARTH's favorite doctors: * "When we consider that there is no objective distinction between homosexuality and the other perversions, we can easily see how the development of the homosexual 'habit' fits into this framework (of cures through medication)," wrote Jeffrey Satinover in his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. "Some...are being successfully treated with Prozac..." Another NARTH contributor is Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, co-author of The Pink Swastika, a book partially blaming gays for the Holocaust. * "The Pink Swastika will show that there was far more brutality, torture and murder committed against innocent people by Nazi deviants and homosexuals than there ever was against homosexuals," wrote Lively in his book. IV. NARTH's Bizarre Techniques and Theories Finally, NARTH's leaders have some bizarre theories and techniques that are unscientific and may harm patients: * Nicolosi theorizes, "Non-homosexual men who experience defeat and failure may also experience homosexual fantasies or dreams." * Nicolosi seems to blame any mental health issue a gay person might have on his or her sexuality. In his book he faults one man's "fear of tall bridges" on the clients sexual orientation. Anther client's "phobia of the phone" is somehow traced back to his homosexuality. Nicolosi even says gay men are more likely to be "pee shy" and have trouble urinating in public places. * Nicolosi's patients, most controversially, can be as young as 3 years old. * NARTH's leading trainer is Richard Cohen. One of Cohen's methods for a patient to achieve heterosexuality is retrieving "intrauterine memories". This is where clients are induced into having flashbacks, remembering traumatic events that happened while they were in the mother's womb. As long as prejudice and violence against gay people exists in society, there will be a few gay men and lesbians who try to avoid discrimination by attempting to change their sexual orientation. These tormented individuals often fear coming out will mean rejection by family and friends, as well as withering condemnation in their house of worship. There are groups, unfortunately, who are in the business of exploiting these vulnerable and desperate people by peddling false hope and illusive cures for homosexuality. We hope Psychology Today will continue to support only legitimate organizations and not embrace politically motivated, scientifically bankrupt groups such as NARTH. If you have any questions, please contact me and we can discuss this issue further. Sincerely, Wayne Besen Deputy Director of Communications Human Rights Campaign You offer no evidence of larger numbers of Psychologists that support your views but are essentially afraid of what a 2% percent miniority will say about them. It's just not a logical argument. You also need to ignore the various groups actively working to turn back the clock on gay rights with lots of money, a huge audience & lobbyists. On a personal note, some of the most fucked up gay people I've known came from parents who would not accept a gay child. You can also do a simple Google search & find people who did the thearapy & read how well it worked or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Dave TWB said: "Ha !
Don't I, though."
It's so nice to see that you don't resort to name-calling.
Of course, you probably forgot that you referred to klinton as "your kind"...
JJ
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
"On the contrary, as I've detailed repeatedly, it changes the definition of marriage and the integrity of Christianity, if our culture permits gay marriage."
Dave, this statement seems to presume that Christianity holds marriage as singularly belonging to that faith.
Of course, that's wholly absurd and erroneous.
Your Christo-centrism is astonishing.
You have presented "logical" counterpoints to the "gay perspective" yet refuse to see that anyone else can present equally logical counterpoints to you.
You just don't get it, do you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
"And again, as I said prior, regarding it being "a small group of psychologists" lobbying for homosexuality to again be categorized as a mental illness, as Jim Jackson alleges, it is again political correctness that keeps many psychologists from objecting, since any psychologist will have their name dragged through the mud for holding or publicly supporting such a politically incorrect view."
Refresh me, then, on why it is that you are saying that any shrink who disagrees with this pro-gay perspective will be intra-professionally discredited. How do you know this? You are not in the profession of psychologists, so how can you know this?
And if MOST psychologists would disagree with someone taking an anti-gay stance...what is wrong with that? Is it perhaps MOST psychologists no longer think it's appropriate as mental health professionals and students of the science of human behavior to label homosexuality a mental illness?
If you've presented "reason" why earlier, I apologize...I am not going back and re-reading a 25 page thread. If you'd be so kind as to clarify it again, I'd be grateful.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
I've gone back and read Epstein's piece that Dave cited.
Interesting.
No doubt assessing the factual status of homosexuality-as-mental-illness is a political issue as well as a scientific one. No doubt one that will remain so. Remember what I said earlier about psychologists holding on to their theories because their theories "tell" them what it means to be a human being. This is part of it.
If a gay person wishes to attempt some sort of conversion therapy, that's fine. That in and of itself does not constitute evidence that homosexuality is a mental illness.
Sitting here, in my own head, I do feel that I am mentally ill. I just feel that I feel things differently that str8s do.
Whatever happened to the plurality of America?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
I would seek therapy for your undying loyalty to Pete Townsend though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Good God. You guys are just amazing, your obsession with smothering any dissent of your views.
While I may not be a psychologist or part of the association of professional psychologists, I said earlier in the topic that I once wrote what I thought was a very balanced and neutral article on gays in the military. Our magazines were stolen from the news-stands by gay activists, to prevent my article from being read, quickly accompanied by an anonymous phone message to our editorial office, explaining the theft of our magazines from the vendor stands: "You published a story, now you're going to pay the price". A message I'll never forget, that I replayed a hundred times, as did my editor and publisher.
In the two year history of my column, where I'd written about politics, racial issues, the 1992 riots in L.A., and other controversial issues, this was the first and only time that I was threatened and my editor and publisher were threatened (phone messages as well as letters), and our magazines were stolen from their retail stands by activists to prevent their being read.
Up until that time, my opinion of gays was much more favorable and accepting. It was at precisely this point I became aware of gays as an intolerant and downright militant political force, who intimidate their critics into silence.
Similarly, the New York State school system's Superintendant who was fired in 1992, after angry parents demanded removal of the "multicultural program" he introduced, a program utilizing children's books with snappy titles like Heather Has Two Mommies, and Daddy's Room-mate, to introduce elementary school kids (!!!!!) to the notion of gay couples and gay parents.
This didn't go over well with conservative parents, and the program, along with the superintendaant who introduced it, were finally removed, after much PTA infighting. Again, threats were made by gay activists, and there were actually two car-bombings. No one was hurt, but needless to say, this was done for intimidation of those removing the program. So teachers as well know about intimidation.
So while I'm not a professional psychologist, I'm familiar with the tactics of gay activists, toward whatever source criticizes the gay perspective.
I've answered all the questions you raise at length in prior posts, in this very long now-26-page topic. If you choose not to read the topic, i don't feel obligated to repeat myself.
You've tried every slanderous tactic in the book to discredit me.
And gays as a whole have done the same to any professional who has put forth any opposition to gay rights. There are very few who are willing to put up with that kind of harassment, and most will just back off.
Call me strange, but I just feel any group who utilizes that kind of intimidation and harassment can't be up to anything good.
Matter Eater Man, I wasn't surprised by what you posted about NARTH or the PSYCHOLOGY TODAY editor.
I didn't expect you to compliment them on what a great job they're doing.
That letter looks like it was produced by the gay equivalent of the Anti-Defamation League. ( For anyone unfamiliar with the ADL, it is a Jewish counter-propaganda organization that bites back hard at anything critical of Jews or Israel. Needless to say from my prior comments, I'm pro-Israel, but that is an absolute fact that ADL serves this function. )
And that's exactly what that letter (attacking the psychologists who treat homosexuality as a disease) is. I can just see the foam pouring out his mouth as the guy (Wayne Besen) wrote that piece of bitter propaganda bashing NARTH and PSYCHOLOGY TODAY editor Epstein.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
Dave, you've got the ladies in an uproar !
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Jackson:
Dave TWB said: "Ha !
Don't I, though."
It's so nice to see that you don't resort to name-calling.
Of course, you probably forgot that you referred to klinton as "your kind"...
JJ
All I did was laugh at britney's humorous way of saying I got you guys all flustered by posting my opinion. I fail to see how that's insulting. All I did was laugh at what he said, and baically say: Yeah, you got that right. Only with your spin does that somehow become insulting.
And also your claim that I'm being insulting (!), is in ironic contrast to how bitterly insulting you've been to me for several pages, as I quoted and pointed out in my posts over the last two topic pages.
When I made my comment to Klinton about "your kind", I think I clearly meant "you gays", but I could have just as easily said "you guys", "your side of the aisle", "people arguing your perspective", or other equivalent words to express that we're debating with opposing viewpoints.
I love how you hold me up to a standard of behavior that you feel no obligation to adhere to yourself.
I'm certainly trying to be as polite as you'll allow me to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
quote:
Good God. You guys are just amazing, your obsession with smothering any dissent of your views.
How come when people argue with you, you so often go of on one about them trying to do this. This is a debate thread, and you are argueing your side of the arguement, so is everyone else. What did you expect?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Good point Steve T. My link & posted letter from Wayne Besen was dismissed as propaganda. Considering it's composed of mostly quotes from Narth people or connects them to less benevolent antigay movements I'm puzzled how this is only propaganda. It's also reads as a very polite letter, any frothing of the mouth by Besen would have to be left to Dave the Wonder Boy's imagination because it sure doesn't show in the letter. As for bad experiences with gay activists, here is a link with over 60,000 entries into a google search for homosexuals and death threats. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=homosexuality+article+death+threats&btnG=Google+Search As you can see, gays get death threats (lots & lots of death threats) & unlike the straight ones, sometimes they actually make those threats a reality. If you can make allowances for the whackos on your side who pull crap you disagree with,(like bombing abortion clinics or the GodHatesFags.com people) why then not make the same concession for the other side's?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
If you can make allowances for the whackos on your side who pull crap you disagree with,(like bombing abortion clinics or the GodHatesFags.com people) why then not make the same concession for the other side's?
I never claimed any of those characters as being on my 'side'. I'm trying to politely disagree in a generally positive and groovy way. And I'm sure most of you on either side are the same way - at least in intent, if nothing else. I bailed from this thread because it was getting dragged out into debating the legitimacy of homosexual lifestyles - which is not the original intent of this thread, at least not the way I saw it. Plus, I realized that I was also taking cheap shots at people I didn't agree with, and the way we're doing this now, it's almost impossible for any of us to discuss this issue in a fair, reasonable, level-headed fashion.
I personally think that posters on both sides of this issue are taking the whole thing way out of proportion. Regardless of who is complaining about the other's lack of pluralism or fairness, very few of you have been objective and understanding to the point where you're justified in crying foul on others.
For me, it's not about who's right or wrong in this thread anymore. Sometimes, the outcome of a battle ![[yuh huh]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif) is less important than how it was fought. And almost all of us have been fighting dirty at one point or another.
So please don't play the victim in this, any of you. Put down the cheap shots and personal attacks, and follow the lead of those on this thread who are engaged in constructive activities. And yes, disagreement can be constructive.
Just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
|
|
|
|
|
