Posted on 08/08/2012 9:06:30 AM PDT by scottjewell
Why men gag at men kissing and don’t at women is a classic gay nonsequitor..
Men are revolted at the thought of 2 men kissing because its something they want no part of... they don’t mind 2 ATTRACTIVE women kissing, because frankly they just want to join in. That’s not a proof of anything.
However, if you’ve ever actually been to a Lesbian bar, you’ll soon realize the myth of the lipstick lesbian is by and far more myth than reality. I sometimes go to a Lesbian bar just to boost my ego, because as a slightly overweight 40 year old guy with a bald spot I can walk into most lesbian bars and be one of the most attractive people in the room.
There are fundamental differences between male homosexuality and female homosexuality as well, which I think is at the forefront of why women are more accepting of the behavoir than men. But that’s a whole other conversation.
Yes, that’s their logic. Of course they need the “born that way” argument to uphold their protected class status, too.
So discriminating on the basis of religion - a freely chosen behavior - is OK? I think the author may have proved too much.
Yes, that’s their logic.
That's whose logic? The text I quoted was the article author's argument against homosexuality as a protected class - an argument that also rules out religion as a protected class.
To quote from the piece:
“The complaint reveals the problem of establishing a protected class that is constituted by subjective desire and volitional sexual acts. Protected classes should be constituted by morally neutral, immutable, objective characteristics. That is to say, protected classes, like race, biological sex, or national origin, are wholly objective conditions, in all cases immutable, and are not in any way constituted by freely chosen behaviors.
Homosexuality is in some cases mutable (even “queer” theorists argue that “sexual orientation” is fluid) and is constituted solely by subjective feelings of attraction and volitional sexual acts that are perfectly legitimate to assess morally.
This raises the question that will surely soon emerge on the cultural landscape: Why should homosexuality and “gender identity,” which are constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts, be included as protected classes in anti-discrimination laws but not other conditions similarly constituted? For example, why shouldn’t polyamory be included in anti-discrimination laws?”
___________________________________________________________
Yes, that is an argument against homosexuality as a protected class, but we all know the born that way argument is how they get around it. This is fact: How else would they have gained status as a protected class? And to their logic, religion is chosen so is not a protected class.
So yes, that is gay advocacy’s logic.
Do not understand your question.
Top democrats running PR firms feed top editors news stories - they know this doesn't 'work for' democrats. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and LA Times sell out to the highest bidder... (where the coin of the realm is information...)
What else could we expect?
“There are fundamental differences between male homosexuality and female homosexuality as well”
Sin is sin and I refuse to ‘accept’ homosexuality in any degree.
[I suppose that answers your question about whether I’ve ever been in a gay bar]
No one accused you of, or encouraged you to accept anything... No sure where all this defensiveness is coming from. Nor did I ask or even intend to ask you if you had ever been in a gay establishment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.