Bigoted emails from Army recruiter outrage gay man

[sirs]

100% agree Professor.  I love my brother, who is gay.  That doesn't translate into my supporting or even respecting his lifestyle choice.  I tolerate it

How about your brother and CHOICE?

What about it?

Did he just act out and choose to suck cock, or did he one day look at a dick and swoon to the lymbic, just as you or I do when we see the apricot in the bush?

Apparently, though minus the graphic innuendo

Is your brother a well-adjusted homosexual.

Define "well-adjusted".  I get the impression from Crane, and like minds, that they're trying to piant a scenario where Homosexuals would be completely stupid to chose such a lifestyle, and since they can't all be stupid, it just can't be choice then.  It has to be something else.  Correct?  Wrong.  Very sane and smart people can chose to do immoral acts.  It happens ALL THE TIME.  Some get a high out of it, some do it as a rebellious thing, some do it as a challenge, a vast many of them do it because that's what turns them on sexually.  It's pretty much impossible to figure out why people do what are arguably immoral behaviors.  Look at congress, we have 99% of them acting completely unethical, when not immoral or illegal.  Yet they chose to act those ways as well. 

I want to be there when you and your brother are judged.   I will speak to God's translation.    

Sorry, you're not invited

if your argument is really that, even though the strong sexual feelings are present, one SHOULD  CHOOSE to not follow their sexual instinct at all, then that is another thing entirely, isn't it?

Their choice.  We all have choices, which is what ultimately decides our eternal direction, and only God knows what direction that'll be.  His judgement and his alone.  Not mine, not yours, not Dobson's, not Jackson's.  And unfortunately Crane will not be attending sirs or his brothers' judgement moment either.  Sorry to disappoint

[Plane]

100% agree Professor.  I love my brother, who is gay.  That doesn't translate into my supporting or even respecting his lifestyle choice.  I tolerate it

How about your brother and CHOICE?

Did he just act out and choose to suck cock, or did he one day look at a dick and swoon to the lymbic, just as you or I do when we see the apricot in the bush?

Is your brother a well-adjusted homosexual, and if he is, notice how his life is singing along while you writhe before the pulpit.

I want to be there when you and your brother are judged.   I will speak to God's translation.   I do this by virtue of the fact that I know God makes homosexuals, because no one chooses to munch on the organs of others unless there is a buzz in the blood, and homosexuals have a buzz in the blood, while nonhomosexuals do not have it for the same sex. 

But if your argument is really that, even though the strong sexual feelings are present, one SHOULD  CHOOSE to not follow their sexual instinct at all, then that is another thing entirely, isn't it?

In that case, we would be doing it for our sakes, not theirs

People who are helpless to controll their sexual urges are unqualified for Military service.

[yellow_crane]

100% agree Professor.  I love my brother, who is gay.  That doesn't translate into my supporting or even respecting his lifestyle choice.  I tolerate it

How about your brother and CHOICE?

Did he just act out and choose to suck cock, or did he one day look at a dick and swoon to the lymbic, just as you or I do when we see the apricot in the bush?

Is your brother a well-adjusted homosexual, and if he is, notice how his life is singing along while you writhe before the pulpit.

I want to be there when you and your brother are judged.   I will speak to God's translation.   I do this by virtue of the fact that I know God makes homosexuals, because no one chooses to munch on the organs of others unless there is a buzz in the blood, and homosexuals have a buzz in the blood, while nonhomosexuals do not have it for the same sex. 

But if your argument is really that, even though the strong sexual feelings are present, one SHOULD  CHOOSE to not follow their sexual instinct at all, then that is another thing entirely, isn't it?




People who are helpless to controll their sexual urges are unqualified for Military service.

Luckily, most of us live outside the military.

Controlling your sexual urges in the military hardly equates to telling homosexuals there is to be no sexual expression, ever.

If you told that to soldiers, you would need legislation for funds to handle the mass exodus.

The religious right wants homosexuals punished above and beyond the boundaries of the law, 

Does the fascist element in America find the homosexual to be their Jew or Gypsy? 

It is clear that the religious right wants homosexuals punished.  When you want that and can't employ the law to help you, it becomes systemitized persecution.  And that is what you have now from the religious right--systemitized persecution.

[sirs]

The religious right wants homosexuals punished above and beyond the boundaries of the law,....It is clear that the religious right wants homosexuals punished

As an apparent member of the "religious right", are you're out of your freakin skull?  You think having their feelings hurt because we (I) don't support their lifestyle choice, is some form of systematic punishment?? 

You in support of repealing the 1st amendment, while you're at it??      Oh wait, let's impliment the "Fairness Doctrine".  Yea, that's it.  That'll teach those RW fascists about freedom of speech and what's allowed to be said, and more importantly, by whom.

 

[domer]

As a point to note in support of Crane's general position, I note that the superseding law of the land, within whose embrace all of our life together unfolds, puts a premium on tolerance as a necessary if informal offshoot of the core, protectable interests that our civil society demands. Put in a more pedestrian way, the cat will get progressively more out of the bag (unless choked, which is prohibited) as its unimpeded procession in that direction jives too fundamentally with our core pieties, properly understood and expanded.

[BT]

As a counterpoint to Crane's hypothesis, I think he is just taking potshots at the religious right, conservatives and the fascists he likes to think of them as.
Fact is the law of the land is the law of the land, and that law was passed and maintained by mainstream america, represented by the collective wisdom of the elected representatives. Most movement in this area is being promulgated from the courts. He has no room to point fingers at others when he fails to point fingers at himself and his ilk, who have at many times over the decades had an iron grip on legilsatures in the various and several states. If democrats, if the religious left, if the liberals thought the current laws so abhorrent , why did they abdicate to the courts? Why not right the wrong themselves? Hmmm?

[Plane]

As a point to note in support of Crane's general position, I note that the superseding law of the land, within whose embrace all of our life together unfolds, puts a premium on tolerance as a necessary if informal offshoot of the core, protectable interests that our civil society demands. Put in a more pedestrian way, the cat will get progressively more out of the bag (unless choked, which is prohibited) as its unimpeded procession in that direction jives too fundamentally with our core pieties, properly understood and expanded.

It doesn't depend on how much it causes practical problems?

[Plane]

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996533

[kimba1]

I think there are alot of this going on
not joking here
I can`t tell how many times I faked liking a person just to not get bugged.
not saying I`m asexual,but I`m definately in that direction to understand it.
it will never be admitted socially we attack people who are not a couple.
now I`ll wait for the attacks begin here

[The_Professor]

I think there are alot of this going on
not joking here
I can`t tell how many times I faked liking a person just to not get bugged.
not saying I`m asexual,but I`m definately in that direction to understand it.
it will never be admitted socially we attack people who are not a couple.
now I`ll wait for the attacks begin here

Ok, I'll bite. I'll start the attacks, as you call it.

Sex drive varies widely in individuals, regardless whether you are attracted to males or females. It is therefore not impossible, I suppose, to locate someone who has very little sex drive. Could make a lot of things in life easier, I suppose. Then again, there would be certain joys not available to you.

As far as not being a couple, I cannot see why that might be an issue. Some are married, some are single, whatever...

[kimba1]

huh
not a attack
usually I get bugged about this
actually over70% when I say I`m not attracted to someone the response is I must be gay.
it`s really is next to impossible to say I`m not attracted to a someone .
the most common response is It`s ok to admit your gay.
At least people don`t get violent,but it really not easy.
To me it seems being asexual is even more harder to accept.
even though I`m not asexual ,my drive is lower than average.
I even thought I had no soul once.
strangely females have a harder time accepting male asexuals than the other way around,I learned
my ex was not exactly kind.

[sirs]

I don't see what there is to "attack" Kimba       

[kimba1]

I think the concept of a man actually thinking of not being with anyone is considered not impossible.
I got no problem being with a women,but the part that gets me being called gay is I would prefer to like her,but I don`t.
I went out with someone who virtually every single person who met her doesn`t like her
but when I dumped her.
people kept saying,I`m gonna die alone.
I observed several guys who go out on blind dates.
guys aint allowed much veto power in the matter.
bars are worst
I get insulted every single time I turndown drunk lady
even when they don`t find her attractive.

[sirs]

There's alot of morons & idiots out there Kimba.  Especially in bars.  Try not to let them drag you down.  There's nothing wrong with you.  You chose who you want to be with, & when you want to be with.  Simple as that

[Plane]

I think the concept of a man actually thinking of not being with anyone is considered not impossible.
I got no problem being with a women,but the part that gets me being called gay is I would prefer to like her,but I don`t.
I went out with someone who virtually every single person who met her doesn`t like her
but when I dumped her.
people kept saying,I`m gonna die alone.
I observed several guys who go out on blind dates.
guys aint allowed much veto power in the matter.
bars are worst
I get insulted every single time I turndown drunk lady
even when they don`t find her attractive.

  I don't see where you are causing them any probem.

    Should their self esteem depend on your attraction to them?

   Attractive people might be proud of their attractiveness , your immunity to this charm might dent this pride.

    But that is not really you causeing a problem , that problem was already there, latent ,in them.