Why fight a battle that cannot be won?

[Mr.Conley]

For centuries human beings have killed, enslaved, persecuted, and discriminatied against one another. To this day the tradition continues, for example the Rwanda genocide, the Holocaust, the Balkin crisis have witnessed some of histories greatest atrocities. However despite continued persecution and discrimination, minority groups have continued to exist, resist, and revoult against their oppressors. African-Americans fought racism and prejudice in the South during the Civil Rights movement. The emerging Protestants fought the Catholics during the past centuries. Even the Jews resisted Roman efforts to enslave, convert, and conform Judaea after its conquest. With this historical fact of minority survival despite incredible obstacles, I question the reasons for the continued fight to restrict the rights and freedoms of our nation's gay and lesbian members. This particular minority is argueably the most established and oldest group in human history (consisting of a minumum of 4% of the population
[see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120902,00.html ]

and existing since at least ancient Rome and China
[see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Gay_Community ].

This information clearly shows that despite continued subjugation, discrimination and isolation from society during the past several centuries, the gay community continues to thrive. As such, I question all those who fight to restrict the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of our fellow citizens.
(see the 14th amendment concerning said rights
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
)
I ask why, despite the historical facts stated above concerning the resiliance of the gay community, do you continue to tive toward the the destruction of this futile goal?

Note, what I am asking in this thread is not whether homosexuality is moral or immoral; rather, I question why those who dislike homosexuality continue to fight against it. Expeically in this day and age of the continued expansions of freedom.

Thank you

 

[archangel]

For centuries human beings have killed, enslaved, persecuted, and discriminatied against one another. To this day the tradition continues, for example the Rwanda genocide, the Holocaust, the Balkin crisis have witnessed some of histories greatest atrocities. However despite continued persecution and discrimination, minority groups have continued to exist, resist, and revoult against their oppressors. African-Americans fought racism and prejudice in the South during the Civil Rights movement. The emerging Protestants fought the Catholics during the past centuries. Even the Jews resisted Roman efforts to enslave, convert, and conform Judaea after its conquest. With this historical fact of minority survival despite incredible obstacles, I question the reasons for the continued fight to restrict the rights and freedoms of our nation's gay and lesbian members. This particular minority is argueably the most established and oldest group in human history (consisting of a minumum of 4% of the population
[see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120902,00.html ]

and existing since at least ancient Rome and China
[see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Gay_Community ].

This information clearly shows that despite continued subjugation, discrimination and isolation from society during the past several centuries, the gay community continues to thrive. As such, I question all those who fight to restrict the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of our fellow citizens.
(see the 14th amendment concerning said rights
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
)
I ask why, despite the historical facts stated above concerning the resiliance of the gay community, do you continue to tive toward the the destruction of this futile goal?

Note, what I am asking in this thread is not whether homosexuality is moral or immoral; rather, I question why those who dislike homosexuality continue to fight against it. Expeically in this day and age of the continued expansions of freedom.

Thank you

It appears as if you may be a teacher or professor since you merged history into your diatribe of supporting "Gay" and "Lesbian" rights.

First and foremost homosexuality was tried and failed during both the Greek and Roman Empires taking both empires down in the process.

Second: The Ottoman Empire did not cease to exist in the 1920's it just morphed into what we now label "Terrorism" ie: al Qaeda, Hamas etc...This is in reference to your Balkin comment...the Balkins are under seige from the morphed "Ottoman Empire" that really did not cease to exist but became a shadow nation! If you do a little research the burning of Christian churches continue in the Balkins as well as African nations!

 

[Mr.Conley]

It appears as if you may be a teacher or professor since you merged history into your diatribe of supporting "Gay" and "Lesbian" rights.

As my profile says, I am a student.

First and foremost homosexuality was tried and failed during both the Greek and Roman Empires taking both empires down in the process.

Two points
a. I would argue the fall of Greece had to do more with the fact that a group of independent city-states that had been in a near ceaseless, resource-depleting war for 50 years would stand little chance against a better organized enemy with superior number, armament, tactics, resources, a larger population, and massive influence in every Greek city-state (a little known fact, Philip uses his wealth and influence to establish a "Macedonian party" in every Greek city This "party" swayed Greek policy and acted as spies for the Macedonians.). These factors I believed contributed more to the fall of Greece than homosexuality.
Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ancient_Greece#The_rise_of_Macedon
www.ancientgreece.com
But this debate is really irrelevent to the question at hand. My question is not about the few known instances when homosexuality was accepted by a society.
b. What I am trying to ask is how, given the general historical plight of homosexuality throughout history, specifically its resiliancy, people can really hope to crush it now.

 

[Hobbit]

First off, any student worth his salt should know not to EVER consider Wikipedia a reliable source. Anybody with enough spare time and half a brain can make a Wikipedia entry. Some are good, but the work, as a whole, is unreliable.

Second, no gays are being denied any rights. Gay people can do anything straight people can. What they want is special rights, as has been discussed many times on this board, if you're care to use the 'search' function.

Third, as a fellow student, I recognize your type. You've taken a few classes. You have a few professors you look up to. You also have a canned opinion you probably picked up from a professor or two. As a person of this type, of which I know many, you think you are smarter than anyone who doesn't share your opinion, and you are attempting to prove it with a simplistic, asinine argument that doesn't really have a lot of merit. If you follow the pattern, you will next dismiss our arguments and intolerant, bigoted, irrelevant, or just plain incorrect.

That attitude won't get you far here. In order to get respect, you'll need to think for yourself and post some articles that are more reliable than Wikipedia.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

First off, any student worth his salt should know not to EVER consider Wikipedia a reliable source. Anybody with enough spare time and half a brain can make a Wikipedia entry. Some are good, but the work, as a whole, is unreliable.

I think you exagerate about the lack of accuracy of wikipedia. http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Still, many critics have tried to downplay its role as a source of valid information and have often pointed to the Encyclopedia Britannica as an example of an accurate reference.

For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.

In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.

That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.

It's not infallible, but I would say it's generally reliable.

And give the guy a break on the whole elitist thing. He's yet to disparage anyone, and you're already pigeonholing him. Wait untill he actually starts calling you bigoted before you attack him for it.

 

[Mr.Conley]

First off, any student worth his salt should know not to EVER consider Wikipedia a reliable source. Anybody with enough spare time and half a brain can make a Wikipedia entry. Some are good, but the work, as a whole, is unreliable.

History of the Classical Greek World, 478-323 Bc: 478-323 B.c (Blackwell History of the Ancient World)
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106267?query=ancient greek history&ct=
www.ancientgreece.com

a. You can use the things above; however, they all cost money. I provided the wikipedia link as a reliable link that did not cost money to view.
b. What I was stating is nothing more than accepted Greek history anyway, I really shouldn't have to provide a link.
c. Do you think I did not look over the article and make sure it was correct.
d. This has nothing to do with the topic anyway and I do not know why you are bothering

Second, no gays are being denied any rights. Gay people can do anything straight people can. What they want is special rights, as has been discussed many times on this board, if you're care to use the 'search' function

You are correct that gay people are allowed almost every right that other citizens are, but I would put forth marriage, especially the benefits and responsibilities the law gives to married couples, adoption is iffy at best, as well as the stigmatism they face from many members of society. You may not be a homophobe, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. Again this is off topic.

Third, as a fellow student, I recognize your type. You've taken a few classes. You have a few professors you look up to. You also have a canned opinion you probably picked up from a professor or two. As a person of this type, of which I know many, you think you are smarter than anyone who doesn't share your opinion, and you are attempting to prove it with a simplistic, asinine argument that doesn't really have a lot of merit.

a. Wow, you sure seem to know a lot about me from two posts. Maybe you would consider actually getting to know me before passing judgement.
b. I am not posting an arguement here; however, I am asking a question, and so far no one has bothered to answer that question.
c. I don't know about where your school, but I've been taught to think for myself, examine the facts, and infer what I can from the sources. And, unlike you, I've provided a resource for others to do the same.

 

[Stephanie]

Good Golly! Mr.Conely, must you write a book just to ask one little ole question. shhheeeessssshhh

 

[Hobbit]

I just call 'em as I see 'em. I've seen people time and time again come in and start similar threads, and they all have the same attitude. The tone of your post, and in fact, even the tone of the title, is cocky, and it's also nothing we haven't heard before. I suggest you use the search function to look up the two dozen other threads where every point you've brought up has been debated and redebated, and I'm getting sick of rehashing the exact same argument to EVERY new member to the board.

Now, I've seen people like you evolve into more constructive members of the board, such as Clay here, but please, for the love of all things holy, go look at the plentiful other gay marriage threads before starting a new one that implies that all we ignorant, bigoted conservatives can't possibly deny people such fundamental rights as the ability to alter a several millenia old institution to accomadate a lifestyle considered sinful by EVERY relgion that had a hand in founding it solely because they don't want to have to fill out wills and power of attorney paperwork...oh yeah, it has one other purpose, to shove their perversion in everybody else's faces and force government sanctioned acceptance.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I just call 'em as I see 'em. I've seen people time and time again come in and start similar threads, and they all have the same attitude. The tone of your post, and in fact, even the tone of the title, is cocky, and it's also nothing we haven't heard before. I suggest you use the search function to look up the two dozen other threads where every point you've brought up has been debated and redebated, and I'm getting sick of rehashing the exact same argument to EVERY new member to the board.

Now, I've seen people like you evolve into more constructive members of the board, such as Clay here, but please, for the love of all things holy, go look at the plentiful other gay marriage threads before starting a new one that implies that all we ignorant, bigoted conservatives can't possibly deny people such fundamental rights as the ability to alter a several millenia old institution to accomadate a lifestyle considered sinful by EVERY relgion that had a hand in founding it solely because they don't want to have to fill out wills and power of attorney paperwork...oh yeah, it has one other purpose, to shove their perversion in everybody else's faces and force government sanctioned acceptance.

If you're sick of re-hashing it, why bother responding at all then? I really think you're jumping all over this guy needlessly. He's presented an opinion, and asked a question, and that's it. He hasn't called anyone bigoted yet, he hasn't gone off the deep end. But just because others before him have, you're dumping on him. This is precisely what people complain about when they first get to the board.

It's not: hey, welcome to the board; this topic's been covered before, try searching the archives for it.

It's: Jesus, you sure are one elitist collegiate prick. I bet you're going to call me a bigot now, right? RIGHT? You asshole, you'll never make it on this board.

I think GOP Jeff would agree with me on this subject; this guy has (so far) been completely respectful in his posts. If he goes off on some elitist asshole bend calling everyone a homophobe, then slaughter him. Until then, let him at least warm up to the place a little

 

[Stephanie]

I just call 'em as I see 'em. I've seen people time and time again come in and start similar threads, and they all have the same attitude. The tone of your post, and in fact, even the tone of the title, is cocky, and it's also nothing we haven't heard before. I suggest you use the search function to look up the two dozen other threads where every point you've brought up has been debated and redebated, and I'm getting sick of rehashing the exact same argument to EVERY new member to the board.

Now, I've seen people like you evolve into more constructive members of the board, such as Clay here, but please, for the love of all things holy, go look at the plentiful other gay marriage threads before starting a new one that implies that all we ignorant, bigoted conservatives can't possibly deny people such fundamental rights as the ability to alter a several millenia old institution to accomadate a lifestyle considered sinful by EVERY relgion that had a hand in founding it solely because they don't want to have to fill out wills and power of attorney paperwork...oh yeah, it has one other purpose, to shove their perversion in everybody else's faces and force government sanctioned acceptance.

I have to side with Hobbit on this. I got the same high and mighty attitude from your post. It was rather boring to read. And for me if this is how all your post are going to be, I'll not be reading to many more :scratch:

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Welcome, Mr. Conley.

As for your question, the simple answer is, people continue to fight against normalization of the homosexual lifestyle because they are not resigned to fate. Your opinion may be one of inevitibility, but your opinion clearly isn't shared by all.

Also, many would argue that all the parallels you have drawn between homosexuals and factions of religions or race are not, in reality very parallel.

So just as it is logical in your mind that we should stop trying to fight the flow, because it's inevitible historically, so too is it logical in other's minds to continue the fight, because there is no similar historical precedent.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Welcome, Mr. Conley.

As for your question, the simple answer is, people continue to fight against normalization of the homosexual lifestyle because they are not resigned to fate. Your opinion may be one of inevitibility, but your opinion clearly isn't shared by all.

Also, many would argue that all the parallels you have drawn between homosexuals and factions of religions or race are not, in reality very parallel.

So just as it is logical in your mind that we should stop trying to fight the flow, because it's inevitible historically, so too is it logical in other's minds to continue the fight, because there is no similar historical precedent.

Welcome mr. conley, though you're obivously dense, here's clay the wannabe lib, too afraid to make a case, to kiss your hiney and give you the support you need. Clay's in touch with his feminine side.

 

[Nienna]

I ask why, despite the historical facts stated above concerning the resiliance of the gay community, do you continue to tive toward the the destruction of this futile goal?

It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.
Besides, I don't think that most Americans are trying to "crush" all homosexuals. They just believe that traditional relationships are best for society, and therefore deserving of more protection.

Note, what I am asking in this thread is not whether homosexuality is moral or immoral; rather, I question why those who dislike homosexuality continue to fight against it. Expeically in this day and age of the continued expansions of freedom.
Thank you

I would venture to guess that most people continue to fight against homosexuality BECAUSE they believe it is immoral.

 

[Nienna]

It's: Jesus, you sure are one elitist collegiate prick. I bet you're going to call me a bigot now, right? RIGHT? You asshole, you'll never make it on this board.

I have to admit, I think we should wait a LITTLE while before we start bashing the newcomers. I remember my own noobie days...
Certain people were very scary :cough: Kathianne :cough:

 

[Said1]

I have to admit, I think we should wait a LITTLE while before we start bashing the newcomers. I remember my own noobie days...
Certain people were very scary :cough: Kathianne :cough:

Phew. I thought you were going to say me. I could never imagine why though.

 

[Nienna]

Phew. I thought you were going to say me. I could never imagine why though.

Oh, Said, you don't scare me! :fifty:


(Just Kidding )

 

[Nienna]

I ought to clarify why I found Kathianne to be scary at first...
It's just bc I am rather shy, and Kathianne is not afraid to take you on if she disagrees with you.

Now, Said1, you seem to be pretty laid-back, and thus "safer" to a violet like me.

 

[dilloduck]

The criminal element has been around since the beginning of time to. Is this justification to just give up trying to change the situation?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Mr. Conley,
For purposes of discussion, can you tell us what we are doing to "restrict the rights and freedoms of our nation's gay and lesbian members" Put another way, what rights and freedoms do gays not have in the U.S.? Thanks.

(Btw, I noticed that you are a student located in Cambridge, and I think another of our newest members was a student in Cambridge, MA. Are you by chance roomies?)

 

[Hobbit]

Eh, I may have come off a bit harsh, and for that, I apologize. I was rather cranky last night. However, the general point of the post still stands.