[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Homosexuality Discussion
> > Hence, the reason that they don't like him as an individual is because of
> > his beliefs. The reason that certain people don't like gays is because of
> > their homosexuality. Homosexuality is no more a part of a person than
> > one's individual beliefs. There is no difference. Besides, you don't
> > know TD in the way that you're talking about above. Posts in the past do
> > not reveal the individual enough to discriminate against him.
> It is interesting how a discussion about homosexuals in the media has been
> reduced to homosexuality. Now what we have is some person claiming that
> homosexuality is a "personal belief." Is heterosexuality a personal
> belief? Can you chose not to express your heterosexuality the way you
> might an opinion. Who the hell are you to say that homosexuality is no
> more part of a person than their personal beliefs.
Yah, you didn't just totally twist what I said. I said that beliefs are
NO LESS a part of a person than homosexuality. There is a difference in
what I said and the words that you put in my mouth.
"um yah, my sexuality
> is just as important as my dislike of TDs politics." Go back to my
> original post. If you honestly think that homosexuality is merely a
> "personal belief," then test your theory. Try to not express your
> sexuality. Don't make reference to women, Don't speak of your wife or
> girlfriend in public (like you might discuss the deficiencies of a
> television show.), don't insinuate that you may like women, and for God's
> sake don't express any affection for your girlfriend (like you might a
> personal belief).
Come on. Everyone is so caught up on trying to put words in my mouth and
prove me wrong. I never said that sexual orientation was a personal
> It's very noble that you want to defend TD,
My purpose is not to defend or shelter, but rather, point out the double
and I in no way endorse ad hom
> arguments, but you don't have to construct some warped and perverted view
> of sexuality to defend someone.
I never did. I think that you did and then put those words in my mouth.
I have been consistent in my posts.
Just say that the arguments are bad or
> irrelevant or ad hom, like one would answer the argument "Drexler is a
> quack," But don't say Drexler is the victim of discrimination, and run a
> kritik in the 2NC. If someone answers nano by saying "Drexler is a
> gay," then we may have some issues to discuss.>
Yah because discrimination can ONLY be the EVIL attacking the GOOD and
> John's original argument was that TDs claims may be harmful to others.
> Yes people who think homosexuals are immoral may think it is harmful, but
> certainly not in the same sense. Arguments which are distorted, hurtful,
> and just false (homosexuality is a behavior, discrimination is alright for
> those that chose to be in a group, etc.)
Don't try to insinuate that I did this.
are harmful in a way that goes
> slightly beyond sexuality.
> Wow compelling, like I have said before homosexuality is not an "action"
> or a belief which can be expressed or not.
And that is not what I was implying. Sorry if you misunderstood.
It is not something that just
> creeps up at an unexpected moment. You speak as though homosxuals aren't
> really homosexuals until the point that they get down. There is a
> diference between homosexuality and murder, murder is an action, whereas
> homosexuality need not manifest itself in action. At some point I have to
> wonder why I am having this discussion comparing the act of murder to
> human sexuality.
So do I. I didn't make the comparison. John from Michigan State did.
If someone could explain to me how murder is inextricably
> linked to the human condition, then perhaps it would be a little clearer.
> When you speak of homosexuality as as action or a belief do you really
> understand how limiting and perverse it is. It makes the discussion so
> much easier if you say homosexuality, almost as if you are talking
> about a tendency rather than people. TD can choose not to express his
> beliefs, or he can regulate when he expresses them,
Yah, let's not support suppressing our beliefs. That has always worked
throughout history, hasn't it?
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page