Why Do We Need An Explicitly Gay Comic Hero?

[0roo0roo]

sorta ot, but either boones really old, or really sheltered. hummer?

 

[Dari]

Stop it!!! You guys are taking this thread towards the locking point by discussing lewdness.

To re-state my points: I don't abhor homosexuality, I recognize it for what it is: a natural errata
1.Homosexuality is good for nature because it keeps the population in check.
2.Homosexuality should not be equated with the advancement of human rights (such as those against racism) because it has been happily practiced and promoted in various societies such as ancient greece (and as Moonbeam has shot himself in the foot by admitting the chinses practiced it). Homosexuality, while an errata, is natural and good for the checks and balances of our globe.
3.Politically, it became a sticking point mainly when confronted with non-European traditions (such as Judaism/Islam and african culture).
4.Racism is a social ill (read: political) based on ignorance and competition. Homosexuality can be turned to a political issue but it is mainly natural.
To despise homosexuality should not be equated to bigotry.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Dari
Stop it!!! You guys are taking this thread towards the locking point by discussing lewdness.

To re-state my points: I don't abhor homosexuality, I recognize it for what it is: a natural errata
1.Homosexuality is good for nature because it keeps the population in check.
2.Homosexuality should not be equated with the advancement of human rights (such as those against racism) because it has been happily practiced and promoted in various societies such as ancient greece (and as Moonbeam has shot himself in the foot by admitting the chinses practiced it). Homosexuality, while an errata, is natural and good for the checks and balances of our globe.
3.Politically, it became a sticking point mainly when confronted with non-European traditions (such as Judaism/Islam and african culture).
4.Racism is a social ill (read: political) based on ignorance and competition. Homosexuality can be turned to a political issue but it is mainly natural.
To despise homosexuality should not be equated to bigotry.

What points?

You mean you had points?

Are you kidding?

Oh, and you are still a bigot...

 

[Moonbeam]

Darri, let me work with you here for a minute by looking at your post.

Dari:

To re-state my points: I don't abhor homosexuality, I recognize it for what it is: a natural errata(Lets come back to this one later)

1.Homosexuality is good for nature because it keeps the population in check. (Lets assume that as a benefit if we also wish to agree that overpopulation is a problem, which I do.

2.Homosexuality should not be equated with the advancement of human rights (such as those against racism) because it has been happily practiced and promoted in various societies such as ancient greece
(and as Moonbeam has shot himself in the foot by admitting the chinses practiced it). Homosexuality, while an errata, is natural and good for the checks and balances of our globe. (This ia an absurd argument, somewhat like making a coaim, maybe in a few hundred years that discrimination against blacks isn't bogotry because they ahve been accepted for generations. But lets pretend it makes sense

3.Politically, it became a sticking point mainly when confronted with non-European traditions (such as Judaism/Islam and african culture). (How my quote about China and your claim here that homosexuality bacase a sticking point from non western cultures makes no sense to me, but lets not quibble since the origin of bigotry has universal contenders.

4.Racism is a social ill (read: political) based on ignorance and competition. Homosexuality can be turned to a political issue but it is mainly natural. (Skin colour is natural too, but never mind, we come to the interesting part
To despise homosexuality should not be equated to bigotry. Now in the beginning you said you don't abhor homosexuality. So what aqre you saying or do you know? I have said over and over that the dislike of homosexuals is a mental disease based of irrational feeoings of abhorance that produce seemingly logical rationalizations which when examined impartially reveal therir irrational nature. You are either a bigot who abhors homosexuality for irrational reasons as none to the truths I agreed to, if only for arguments sake, lead to any feeling or need to abhore homosexuals. Your last comment that it's not bigotry to abhor them comes right out of thin air, ie is irrational. So which is it? Do you abhore gays and thus qualify as a bigot, or do you simply defent bigoted thinking toward them?

 

[BooneRebel]

I have said over and over that the dislike of homosexuals is a mental disease based of irrational feeoings of abhorance that produce seemingly logical rationalizations which when examined impartially reveal therir irrational nature.

That's where we disagree. Not liking something does not equate to having a mental disease. There are perfectly rational reasons to abhor homosexuality, reasons that have been repeated over and over through this thread. I think Moonie is being irrational. If anything, you could argue your position as saying that homosexuals have a mental disease. But to say that they are normal and that anyone who doesn't like them is mentally diseased is a jump that can't be made, at least by a rational thinker.

 

[Moonbeam]

Of course we disagree. I have told you over and over that you can't agree because your self image is at stake. You don't like the thought that you are irrational and have a mental disease often loosely refered to as prejudice or bigotry. That is why you go round in inane circles, homosexuality is dangerous homosexuality is bad, it's unnatural, it's bad. You have never examined the roots of good and evil, or thought about where we pick up the adversion to the latter. You are quite normal in that. Most5 people don't. You, therefore have a lot oc company. So for one thing normal can be quite ignorant. Ignorance is dangerous, far more dangerous, for example, than homosexuality. Ignorance is responsible for uncounted misery and suffering. You think you are free to have an opinion, to hold to a point of view. You are. So is any racist who thinks blacks are abhorent. Just think, though, what racists made and still make of this country. The kind of opinion you hold is a disease because of its effects when widely shared. Thinking that somebody is contemptable, or deserves a negative brush leads, and has alwaqys lead to those people being inslaved, put in ovens, subjected to mass genocides of every stripe. That is where your fine rational thinking leads because your self image thqat you are sane is more important to you than human life.

I have focused here on you and Dari and classy, but you have lots and lots of company. Convincing you isn't what really is important but it would be nice. What is important is that your illness if widespread, almost universal, but it can be seen, on occassion, by some people who don't have that particular brand of it who can then turn around and maybe just maybe see that they are just the same in other areas. Without self-knowledge we are all lost.

One other thing. I don't find you repulsive, disgusting, or deserving of being culled from the human race because you happen to be "mentally ill" That would make me a bigot against bigots. I knew you couldn't see even if I patiently explained all your mental errors to you. The trick is to uncover the emotion, the fear and loathing, that are attached, for you, to certain words, for just a few examples, like unnatural, diseased etc. It is the emotion you are unconscious of that drives you like a moth around a flame. You will always reason in a circle when the objective of your thought is toprove a prejudgment, a negative feeling about gays. The human mind can create elaborate ornately designed prisons for our minds, ones of such intricacy that they can facinate for a lifetime. If you seek truth you have to step off into space. You know the expression, you have to die to be reborn? It means you have to leave your cabbage on one side of the river to swim across. But don't give up. The mere fact you asked for a second opinion already tells us you already know I'm right. It's just a matter now of allowing your emotions to catch up.

Oh my Beloved, wherever I look it appears to be Thou.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel
There are perfectly rational reasons to abhor homosexuality, reasons that have been repeated over and over through this thread. I think Moonie is being irrational. If anything, you could argue your position as saying that homosexuals have a mental disease. But to say that they are normal and that anyone who doesn't like them is mentally diseased is a jump that can't be made, at least by a rational thinker.

There are perfectly rational reasons to abhor the thought of yourself participating in homosexual sex. If you are a heterosexual then this is natural. The problem is when you get so wrapped up in what other people do. You think less of them because they are not like you.

 

[BooneRebel]

The kind of opinion you hold is a disease because of its effects when widely shared. Thinking that somebody is contemptable, or deserves a negative brush leads, and has alwaqys lead to those people being inslaved, put in ovens, subjected to mass genocides of every stripe

There is a medical terminology to decribe what is wrong with you, Moonbeam. I believe it's "Wacky".

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: flavioare perfectly rational reasons to abhor the thought of yourself participating in homosexual sex. If you are a heterosexual then this is natural. The problem is when you get so wrapped up in what other people do. You think less of them because they are not like you.

So, again, I ask the question: Isn't it possible to not agree with someone without being called a bigot? I can think whatever I want to, as long as I am not intolerant. I'm not asking for a new hunting season on homosexuals. I've just stated my beliefs on the lifestyle. And I didn't say that homosexuals deserved to be culled out of the human race, only that by their actions this would be the end result. Again, I think you are confusing a biological issue with my 'emotional side', or whatever Moonbeam has issues with.

 

[flavio]

What does "not agree with someone" mean to you?

I guess the real question is how your feelings manifest themselves

1. Do you consider gays inferior to yourself?
2. Would you ridicule or otherwise slander them?
3. Would you have a problem sharing an office with a gay man?
4. If you had the choice between to business with a slightly more qualified gay man or a straight guy which would you choose?
5. Would you be mad if a gay man moved in next door to you?
6. If you had children would you consider putting them in a daycare where one of the workers was gay?

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: flavio
What does "not agree with someone" mean to you?

I guess the real question is how your feelings manifest themselves

1. Do you consider gays inferior to yourself?
2. Would you ridicule or otherwise slander them?
3. Would you have a problem sharing an office with a gay man?
4. If you had the choice between to business with a slightly more qualified gay man or a straight guy which would you choose?
5. Would you be mad if a gay man moved in next door to you?
6. If you had children would you consider putting them in a daycare where one of the workers was gay?

1. Depends on your definition of inferior.
2. Ridicule, no. Slander, no. Speak the truth of, yes.
3. Yes.
4. 50/50. But I don't ask someone about their sexual preference before doing business with them, anyway.
5. Yes. Would I burn a cross in his yard? No.
6. No.

Again, this goes against the definition of tolerate vs. like. I'm not invasive about it, but if you're homosexual and throw it in my face demanding recognition, I'm going to be taken aback. I don't like gays, so I don't go out of my way to associate with them. But it's not like you have to fill out an application with your sexual preference on it before I will shake your hand, either.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: flavio
What does "not agree with someone" mean to you?

I guess the real question is how your feelings manifest themselves

1. Do you consider gays inferior to yourself?
2. Would you ridicule or otherwise slander them?
3. Would you have a problem sharing an office with a gay man?
4. If you had the choice between to business with a slightly more qualified gay man or a straight guy which would you choose?
5. Would you be mad if a gay man moved in next door to you?
6. If you had children would you consider putting them in a daycare where one of the workers was gay?

1. Depends on your definition of inferior.
2. Ridicule, no. Slander, no. Speak the truth of, yes.
3. Yes.
4. 50/50. But I don't ask someone about their sexual preference before doing business with them, anyway.
5. Yes. Would I burn a cross in his yard? No.
6. No.

Again, this goes against the definition of tolerate vs. like. I'm not invasive about it, but if you're homosexual and throw it in my face demanding recognition, I'm going to be taken aback. I don't like gays, so I don't go out of my way to associate with them. But it's not like you have to fill out an application with your sexual preference on it before I will shake your hand, either.

Nobody really has to "throw it in your face". Gossip spreads, all they have to do is mention a story about their boyfriend once and many people will know they are gay.

I think your answers above clearly illustrate that you have crossed the line between "disagreement" into outright discriminization and bigotry a long time ago. Very similar to the way blacks were treated and in some instances still are if Classy is still reading.

You freely admit that you would treat them differently even in many areas that have absolutely nothing to do with sex.

 

[Corn]

"Round and round she goes......where she stops? Nobody knows........."

[Que circus music]

 

[skace]

So, again, I ask the question: Isn't it possible to not agree with someone without being called a bigot?

Yes... it is called tolerance. Basically such disagreement states like this: "I do not agree with homosexuality, therefor I do not practice it, but what other consenting adults do in their time is their business."

Your type of argument, in which you try to tell others how unhealthy homosexuality is, is not a welcomed viewpoint because you arn't just disagreeing with homosexuality. You are telling others it is not ok for them to practice it and that they are unhealthy and wrong for doing so.

To show more of your intolerant view:

In a strictly economic sense, yes. Supply and demand in a capitalist market. But the question isn't "Is there a demand". Obviously there is. But should that demand be answered? As we're bouncing back and forth through the threads, I ask again: Where do you draw the line?

From a strictly legal standpoint, homosexuality is still illegal in many states.

And 90% of what is depicted in comic books is either impossible to do in real life or illegal. When a hero runs in and guns down 12 people... do you think that is legal? Books and movies can also depict other illegal acts, such as robbing, terrorism, rape, etc. Why can't they depict a homosexual cowboy? What is the problem here?

To sit on your fricken high horse and say the line should be drawn a homosexual comic book hero is SO. DAMN. REDICULOUS. It makes me wonder just how homophobic or anti-homosexual you really are.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: skace
It makes me wonder just how homophobic or anti-homosexual you really are.

Go back three posts from yours.

 

[BooneRebel]

So, say I don't like *you*. I don't want to work with you or live by you. Does that make me a bigot?

I don't like big band music. Does that make me a bigot against someone carrying a brass instrument?

I may not like you. But I tolerate you. Therefore, I am not a bigot.

 

[BooneRebel]

Flavio, please answer the following: What does "not agree with someone" mean to you?

I guess the real question is how your feelings manifest themselves

1. Do you consider Boonerebel inferior to yourself?
2. Would you ridicule or otherwise slander me?
3. Would you have a problem sharing an office with me?
4. If you had the choice between to business with a slightly more qualified me or someone else which would you choose?
5. Would you be mad if a I moved in next door to you?
6. If you had children would you consider putting them in a daycare where one of the workers was me?

 

[flavio]

So, say I don't like *you*. I don't want to work with you or live by you. Does that make me a bigot?

Yes. A persons sexual oriention has nothing to do with their work or where they live. If you discriminate against them on these things then you do not "tolerate" and yes it makes you a bigot. How far do you think someone has to go to be a bigot?

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: flavio

So, say I don't like *you*. I don't want to work with you or live by you. Does that make me a bigot?

Yes. A persons sexual oriention has nothing to do with their work or where they live. If you discriminate against them on these things then you do not "tolerate" and yes it makes you a bigot. How far do you think someone has to go to be a bigot?

Again, you're jumping to conclusions. How am I discriminating? How I lead my life shouldn't bother you, isn't that the basis of your argument?

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel
So, say I don't like *you*. I don't want to work with you or live by you. Does that make me a bigot?

I may not like you. But I tolerate you. Therefore, I am not a bigot.

If you can't tell the difference between not liking a specific individual that you have interacted with in the past, and a hypothetical one that you know nothing about in terms of habits, personality, or behavior short of the information that "he's gay" (and I still haven't seen anyone object to lesbians), then I'm going to have to agree with Moonbeam.

As a final thought exercise, replace "gay" with "black" in each of the questions that flavio posed, then look at your answers, and see if that paints the tolerance you espouse in a different light. I've wasted way way way too much effort beating this dead horse, but thanks for pushing my postcount way up.

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGrawAs a final thought exercise, replace "gay" with "black" in each of the questions that flavio posed, then look at your answers, and see if that paints the tolerance you espouse in a different light. I've wasted way way way too much effort beating this dead horse, but thanks for pushing my postcount way up.

This is the same foolish argument that Moonbeam used earlier. Obviously when you start replacing words then you change the course of the argument. Replace "gay" with "serial killer" in each of the questions that flavio posted, then look at your answers, and see if that paints the tolerance you espouse in a different light.

Kind of like "Mad Libs". Here, let's make a list:

Pedophile
Republican
Mentally-handicapped
Actor
Democrat
Doctor
Asian
Serial Killer
Rock star

Obviously you'll have a different answer or opinion given the choice of words. Does that make *you* a bigot? Come on, people. We are entitled to our opinions. In you're politically-correct effort to please everyone, you will end up pleasing no one, including yourself.

We all have biases. When you buy a car, suddenly you notice the same model of car everywhere you drive. If you can't be un-biased about something as innocent as that, how can you profess to have no bias about something as serious as sexuality?

Again, bias does not equate to bigotry. Tolerance does not equate to hate. And dislike does not equate to mental illness.

 

[Moonbeam]

You've convinced me, BooneRebel, but not how you think. You have convinced me that bias is perfectly normal and OK. Heterosexuals are a dirty bunch. They bread like flies and there are already too many people. Also they die and carry sexually communicable diseases. Also I just plain don't like them.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

alot of people are idiots. idiots follow others. lots of people are homophobes. put it all together and you get -- america???

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You've convinced me, BooneRebel, but not how you think. You have convinced me that bias is perfectly normal and OK. Heterosexuals are a dirty bunch. They bread like flies and there are already too many people. Also they die and carry sexually communicable diseases. Also I just plain don't like them.

The earth is 98% full, please delete anyone you can...

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: flavio

So, say I don't like *you*. I don't want to work with you or live by you. Does that make me a bigot?

Yes. A persons sexual oriention has nothing to do with their work or where they live. If you discriminate against them on these things then you do not "tolerate" and yes it makes you a bigot. How far do you think someone has to go to be a bigot?

You know I take this one back, I seriously must have read it wrong. If you don't like *me* personally as in flavio it's totally different. If from some actions of mine you developed a dislike for me and did not want to work with me or live by me than that is perfectly reasonable.

But normally this comes with some personal experience with me. For example if I worked with you and showed up late all the time and then slacked off and you had to do more work because of it. Or if I lived next to you and had loud parties late at night on work nights preventing you from sleeping.

Your discrimination against gays is different because you dislike them simply because of their sexual orientation which has nothing to do with you and before you know anything about the individual.