tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post1213603931274437052..comments2023-12-05T07:50:19.855-05:00Comments on No Oil for Pacifists: QOTD@nooil4pacifistshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16688417615117569825noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-80351906917799184842009-01-09T22:56:00.000-05:002009-01-09T22:56:00.000-05:00GB:I think you accurately state the logic of some....GB:<BR/><BR/>I think you accurately state the logic of some. Yet, at root, <I>acceptance</I> is a matter of private, individual belief not mandated--or capable of being mandated--by the government. <BR/><BR/>I find myself in the odd posture of being accepting but opposing legal equivalence. So, to my view, their strategy is backwards.@nooil4pacifistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16688417615117569825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-81421784119899895042009-01-07T13:39:00.000-05:002009-01-07T13:39:00.000-05:00OBH,Of course neutrality is a bad idea. I simply c...OBH,<BR/><BR/>Of course neutrality is a bad idea. <BR/><BR/>I simply contend that they seek neutrality, to achieve acceptance.<BR/><BR/>And that to attain full acceptance <I>necessitates</I> the <I>complete equivalence</I> of homo and hetero sexuality.<BR/><BR/>But there you and I go again, confusing the issue with facts...;-)Geoffrey Britainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01663224962346593872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-9427188062042557272009-01-07T08:19:00.000-05:002009-01-07T08:19:00.000-05:00> That in every way, homosexual relationships a...> That in every way, homosexual relationships are no better and no worse than heterosexual relationships.<BR/><BR/>Right. So the government will magically wave its hand and suddenly male-male relationships will not involve more crime** (i.e., excluding "sex" crime where such may still apply) than male-female relationships? <BR/><BR/>That homosexual relationships tend to be far more likely to involve cheap and ephemeral contact than heterosexual ones?<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Deluded Idiots" is the term that comes to mind.<BR/><BR/>Homosexuality does not tend to be of benefit to society.<BR/><BR/>"Neutrality" is a bad deal, right on the surface. "Acceptance" is all they should be provided.<BR/><BR/><BR/>=================================<BR/>**(and yes, I'm aware that lesbian relationships tend to have still less than male-female ones)OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-9110687141066811262009-01-07T01:36:00.000-05:002009-01-07T01:36:00.000-05:00Carl and AVI, I fully agree that L&GR advocate...Carl and AVI, <BR/><BR/>I fully agree that L&GR advocates are seeking the imprimatur of the 'state'. <BR/><BR/>My perception is that they claim only the states imprimatur will render onto them neutrality. <BR/><BR/>That <I>in every way</I>, homosexual relationships are no better and no worse than heterosexual relationships.<BR/><BR/>That other than the arrangement of physical organs, a difference that they maintain to be inconsequential, essentially there's no difference. <BR/><BR/>Thus, that any 'discrimination', as in marriage, actively prevents them from attaining the neutrality/acceptance they seek and thus only the imprimatur of the state will counteract the discrimination endemic to society.Geoffrey Britainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01663224962346593872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-89026746577233468342009-01-06T21:02:00.000-05:002009-01-06T21:02:00.000-05:00Anonymous - you heard? Have you also heard of goo...Anonymous - you <I>heard?</I> Have you also <I>heard</I> of google?<BR/><BR/>I agree with Carl on this. While many gays do indeed seek neutrality and nothing more, those in the advocacy sector are seeking an imprimatur.Assistant Village Idiothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-84643651186427569362009-01-06T17:39:00.000-05:002009-01-06T17:39:00.000-05:00GB:Acceptance means more than neutrality--they're ...GB:<BR/><BR/>Acceptance means more than neutrality--they're seeking the state's imprimatur in the form of marriage.@nooil4pacifistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16688417615117569825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-6619574294293021682009-01-05T20:04:00.000-05:002009-01-05T20:04:00.000-05:00OBH,In the interests of clarity, I don't think...OBH,<BR/><BR/>In the interests of clarity, I don't think that the LG&R movement is demanding <I>encouragement</I>, per se.<BR/><BR/>My perception is that for them, acceptance means utter neutrality.<BR/><BR/>Neutrality defined as full and unfettered access to all means necessary for the championing of their lifestyle, such that and until it is viewed by <I>everyone</I> as, as valid an 'inclination' as heterosexuality. <BR/><BR/>That position of necessity means the unequivocal assertion that a heterosexual child does NOT <I>need</I> <B>either</B> a mother or a father but <I>only</I> an adult who loves them.<BR/><BR/>Anything less, invariably places homosexuality as 'inferior' to heterosexuality. <BR/><BR/>That of course is anathema to the movement because at base, they are at war with reality.Geoffrey Britainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01663224962346593872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-51194228072497815382009-01-05T16:45:00.000-05:002009-01-05T16:45:00.000-05:00> But I do ponder the origins of their smug mo...> But I do ponder the origins of their smug moral condescension.<BR/><BR/>Simple: A generation of being told they were victims of religious discrimination by idiotic believers of leftist moral relativism.<BR/><BR/>As I have commented before, the real problem here is that, in a tolerant society, homosexuality probably ought to be "accepted". There is a big, fat line between being <I>accepted</I> and being <I>encouraged</I> which is what the whole L&GR movement (what, Lesbians aren't Gay, now?) is all about -- getting society to encourage their lifestyle, rather than to merely accept it.OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427940.post-67992754426386731622009-01-05T13:44:00.000-05:002009-01-05T13:44:00.000-05:00I heard the Mormon religion was created as a joke ...I heard the Mormon religion was created as a joke and for dinner time conversation by an upstate New York man whose family had interesting dinner table discussions for which this gentleman wrote the Mormon stuff that, when found years later in a dresser being sold, was mistaken for a religious document, when it was just created for interesting dinner time discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com