Friday, March 16, 2007

He can't be serious

Now Senator Brownback is jumping on the gay-bashing bandwagon:

"I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well-served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

Hmmm.

OK to be immoral in any way.

Well, play along with me for a second here, Sammy.

You're a good Christian, right? Remember that part of the Bible where Jesus says that all the law and the prophets can be boiled down into two commandments: love God and love your neighbor? Remember? Let me help you out: it's right here.

I mean, I could be real nitpicky and point out that he doesn't say anything about who has sex with whom right there. But, hell. For shits and giggles let's pretend that Matthew was secretly gay so he left that part out (thank goodness our good buddy Saul/Paul came along, huh? You know, the one who was super good at just plain loving everyone).

Let's just focus on the horrible things our country is doing, hmm? I mean. America is so messed up. We've got these crazy laws like The First Amendment that let you do things like not love God and not love your neighbor.

Dude. We can't let this go on any longer. We need to defend morality in this Godless wasteland of a country!! Down with the First Amendment!!! Hell, down with all of them!!! We need to get this country back on track! No more of this personal space bullshit! The theocratic commune has to take hold, NOW. TODAY. We cannot tolerate immorality in our country any longer!

If we do, the terrorists have already won.

Labels: , , ,

45 Comments:

At March 16, 2007 at 11:44 AM, Blogger DarthImmortal said...

There are two documentaries you need to watch; Blockbuster has them too. Terrorstorm and America: From Freedom to Fascism. They both focus on these issues and will scare the living shit out of you. I already posted a blog on the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Well, now there is another conspiracy theory regarding what happened in England (7/7). The two are linked!! Must see TV.

 
At March 16, 2007 at 5:12 PM, Blogger Gino said...

well, can we at least keep the 2nd ammendment?i kinda like that one.

 
At March 17, 2007 at 12:19 AM, Blogger heartinsanfrancisco said...

It's just stupid to give a shit about other peoples' sex lives when we have much bigger problems that nobody is doing anything about.

I am a lot more worried about annihilation than moral values. If we all die, it isn't going to matter a lot who slept with whom, is it?

 
At March 17, 2007 at 9:13 AM, Blogger odderie said...

Godless commie bastards!

Random observation: Am I the only one who finds it a mite funny that his name is Senator Brownback

 
At March 17, 2007 at 10:55 AM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

Darth, eegh. I may have to pass on that for now. The world is depressing enough as it is...

Gino, nope. They've all gotta go. You might be able to use your gun to not love your neighbor. Impermissible. Take it up with the senator.

Heart, don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows Teh Gayz are responsible for Global Warming and terrorism.

Odderie, it's like you're reading my freakin' mind. I almost made a joke but couldn't think of a very clever way to do it.

 
At March 17, 2007 at 6:01 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

LF, global warming is caused by a heat source adding more heat and is related to the materials heat capacity until a more constant temperature is reached.

Being gay is just not natural and I am not a big fan of gays. You know from the comments I made at that feministing site. lol

Gino, always keep your gun. In the present state of affairs; your beloved wife will let you down 50% of the time and your gun a lot less than that. :)

 
At March 17, 2007 at 6:33 PM, Blogger Andy said...

I think this is exactly why Paul said (1 Corinthians 14:34) that women should be silent in church.

Oh, how I wish we could get rid of the 2nd Amendment...alas.

I tried to come up with a more insightful comment. I just don't understand why these people are that scared of gay folk. I am not a very frightening person.

 
At March 17, 2007 at 7:00 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

knights, you did get that I was being a million percent sarcastic, right? Um. I don't actually think gay people caused global warming...

And, frankly, I don't understand why you feel compelled to write about how being gay isn't "natural" or somesuch bullshit. How do you know and how is that relevant? You can't make yourself gay any more than a gay person can make him or herself straight. I mean, surely you don't claim to know everything in the universe. If so, then where's Bin Laden?

And if women/wives are such let-downs, then maybe the gays are really onto something.

Andy, hmmm.... Good luck trying to keep me quiet! Mwahahaha!

 
At March 18, 2007 at 12:34 AM, Blogger John-Michael said...

Preach it my friend!

 
At March 18, 2007 at 5:36 AM, Blogger Gino said...

andy:
seen. not heard. everywhere.
not just in church.

worry not bout the 2nd. when the fagbeaters come around, you'll wish i was near.

and because gays have coodies. unless they are female. in that case, they just whack to the videos.

 
At March 18, 2007 at 11:22 AM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

LF, I wasn't referring to gays causing global warming. I commented on that as a separate issue.

I do see gay as being a choice. We always make a choice when we move in relevance to other objects. We could say we are drawn into certain things easily. As soon as we move we make a choice to do something. If I saw a hot looking girl and she was very receptive to me then I would make a choice to sleep with her easily. If I was married then I would make the choice of not showing interest in her offer. This is all looking at the brain wired and controlling the body through a brain that is capable of self programming itself.

Why do I say being gay is not natural? From my perspective; by recognizing our surroundings we see what drives life. By being gay you are braking the cycle of life. We have this natural tendency of trying to survive and without reproducing; it is hypocritical to say we made the choice to survive because we know what our end is on an individual basis. God does not interfere in our realm and if the higher power did then we wouldn't have a choice.


On your wives being a let down and gays being on to something; yes they are both on a path of misery.

Bin laden is on earth. I know I'm correct on this answer. :) Did you want a more specific one?

 
At March 18, 2007 at 11:46 AM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"I think this is exactly why Paul said (1 Corinthians 14:34) that women should be silent in church."

Hellz no Andy. Personally, I like a woman that yaps a lot and is intelligent while doing it.

 
At March 18, 2007 at 2:39 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

John-Michael, have I told you lately how awesome you are? Because you just are. Miss you!

Gino, you do know not all lesbians are hot, right?

I love how on my blog I'm heard but not seen :D

knights, I don't understand your reasoning. Having sex is a choice, obviously. But sexual orientation is not a choice. If it's a choice for gay people, how is it any less a choice for us hets?

As for the cycle of life, you must think I'm as bad as a gay person then. Since I'm, you know, sitting around on all these ripe, fertile eggs and doing jackshit with them as I age and age and age. It's an atrocity that women are allowed to waste their most fertile years on trivial pursuits like careers and self-fulfillment. And those of us who plan not to get around to it... quite possibly ever? Guess you can toss me in that handbasket with the gays. (And don't come crawling to me to request admission to the awesome party we have in there, when you see how much cooler autonomy is than making people breed because it's "natural.")

Also, don't anyone come begging for my money and property when the world is overpopulated and the breeders have no place to store their spawn.

And I'm pretty sure Andy was joking. Pretty sure.

 
At March 18, 2007 at 4:12 PM, Blogger Gino said...

LawFairy: seems i just cant get that avitar outta my head. i come here to see you. (hehe)

actually, the lesbian vid comment: i dont do porn. but i cant seem to notice how watching two hot gals 'do it' is erotic to a large segment of the straight guy population, but these same guys cringe at the idea of sitting next to a gay man on the bus.
it must be the cootie-fear factor.

you really should reconsider wasting all those eggs. parenthood is the awesomest thing i ever done.

 
At March 18, 2007 at 4:16 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"If it's a choice for gay people, how is it any less a choice for us hets?"

It's a choice for heterosexuals too. You could choose not to have sex at all (if you are strong enough to brake your built in program and the natural tendency to survive). Which begs the question; why not blow your brains out that easily? Same thing applies. Make your choice.

"As for the cycle of life, you must think I'm as bad as a gay person then."

Yes.

"And don't come crawling to me to request admission to the awesome party we have in there,"

I will only crawl down to God when the time comes. The only other thing that would make me crawl down through her reseption and love would be my wife that has gone through giving birth.

"And I'm pretty sure Andy was joking. Pretty sure. "

Nah, he was taking a cheap shot at christians. I'm pretty sure. I'm sure of it.

 
At March 18, 2007 at 6:47 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

Gino, funny enough, my first ever crush was Teddy Ruxpin. True story. So I guess I can't judge you for having a crush on my avatar. I'm glad we're in agreement re the hypocrisy of lesbian porn for straight men.

As for parenting, I will probably adopt someday.

Knights, now I'm really confused. Since you've noted, correctly, that being gay is only as much of a "choice" as being straight, then what's the point of saying that being gay is a choice? It's along the lines of saying "gay people breathe oxygen and nitrogen." I don't imagine you were being intentionally inane but I don't see your point at all.

I don't understand your comment about crawling down somewhere after your wife gives birth, but I don't think I want to ask. I think we've been through the offensiveness of thinking a biological link to kids makes the relationship inherently stronger, so if that's all you're saying we'll just leave it at, you're not yet convinced of the clear superiority of my view ;)

Andy and I are both Christians.

 
At March 18, 2007 at 9:05 PM, Blogger Gino said...

i think he meant to say he is humbled by God, and next... his wife, who is greater than he for her willingness to bring forth new life.

i feel the same for my ex in that regard.
no matter how bad she is, or has been, she has already been better than me at least twice.

adoption: just as good as spawning, in my eyes.
can i be an uncle?

 
At March 18, 2007 at 9:17 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

Gino, interesting... I don't know how I feel about calling women "better" for going through childbirth. It's certainly a huge sacrifice, from what I understand, but women who want to be biological mothers make that choice. Living with a biological fact doesn't make one super special I think. There are lots of great things about many women, but in my mind there's nothing inherent about giving birth that would make women "better." I think PARENTING may indicate a high level of selflessness/laudability. But I don't think giving birth is the same thing.

Uncle, hmm? I'll think about it...

 
At March 19, 2007 at 1:08 AM, Blogger Gino said...

i guess by 'better' i mean 'serving a higher purpose', the bringing forth of new life,etc...

the uterus is the holy of holies, where God makes his presence as creator of life known to us.

sure, its merely biology, but from a spiritual perspective, my thoughts run much deeper than that.

 
At March 19, 2007 at 5:45 AM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

Gino, please bear in mind I'm truly not trying to mock.

But when you called the uterus the "holy of holies" I couldn't help but laugh.

Ain't nothing holy about my damn uterus. Thing's brought me more trouble than it's worth.

Seriously, though, God reveals himself to us through everyday life. There's nothing more magical about conception than about any other part of being alive. Staying alive any particular day is just as much a gift as the day before. I worry that focusing too much on conception causes us to devalue the multitude of gifts God gives us each day as we actually LIVE our lives.

 
At March 19, 2007 at 7:48 AM, Blogger Michele said...

I am totally late on this, as usual. But, I want to at least say that I truly wish that politicians - and some of the public - would worry about things that truly matter. Gay? Straight? Bi? I am a Christian and I am an American (and a Republican - defintely on the liberal end) and I say as long as you are a truly nice human being, then I don't care WHO you are sleeping with.

 
At March 19, 2007 at 9:36 AM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"Since you've noted, correctly, that being gay is only as much of a "choice" as being straight, then what's the point of saying that being gay is a choice? It's along the lines of saying "gay people breathe oxygen and nitrogen." "

The point is that you have a choice when motion is present in relevance to objects. Although, I pointed out the struggle to not easily blow our brains out. We can see there are all sorts of defense mechanisms in our brain keeping us from doing that. Sort of like giving you an extended period of time to rethink your choice to killing yourself or others. So, what I'm saying is that since we try to survive so hard (this is built in our brain, but we can still make the choice not to), then it is consistent with being heterosexual. Being homosexual is not consistent with survival (gays try to survive just as much as straights). Hence, we go back to my comment about the gay choice not being natural. There is something taken away from the brain to complete the loop.

Oxygen and Nitrogen are present at all times. We both breathe oxygen in our drive to survive. We can still choose to stop breathing it.

I didn't mean literally crawling down right after birth. I would have an easy time crawling on the feet of my wife. You won't get me to crawl down of some girl for other reasons. I don't care how nice or good looking she is. That's what I was saying.

 
At March 19, 2007 at 9:38 AM, Blogger Gino said...

LawFairy: what you say is true.

but, in the context of procreation, some view the uterus as a sacred place.

"Seriously, though, God reveals himself to us through everyday life"
so true, but life begins where?

i'm not trying to defend the 'holy uterus theory'. i'm just trying to explain it.

remember: i come from a religious tradition as old as abraham that is vehemently prolife and theologically opposes contraception in all forms.

"I worry that focusing too much on conception causes us to devalue the multitude of gifts God gives us each day as we actually LIVE our lives."
this is a great outlook, as long as conception isnt left devalued in the process.

i've been mocked before. but mocking isnt discussion, and is usually a tactic used to avoid the intellectual point. thanks for not enagaging in it here.

if you mock the procreative role of women,(and i'm NOT saying YOU do, but many in feminism trade in that) you degrade them sexually.
the early feminist pioneers would agree with me on this.

 
At March 19, 2007 at 11:55 AM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

Michele, really not so late, as you can see the discussion is ongoing :) Thanks for adding your thoughts -- they make perfect sense to me!

Knights, your survival pardigm is deficient in some important respects. I don't have to have children to survive -- indeed, given the physical risks of childbirth for women, I'm in fact MORE likely, statistically speaking, to survive if I DON'T procreate.

Survival of the human race and individual survival are two different things. The instinct you're talking about is the individual one. Doubt this? Ask any random person in the street their gut reaction to a choice between dying, themselves, or having one thousand random Americans die. Where the eventual response is to sacrifice oneself, it will be the result of a belief in some higher calling or purpose, NOT the result of a gut survival instinct. If people's reactions to death are affected at a gut level by anything other than sheer numbers, then your theory fails.

And I truly don't understand how wanting to survive is "consistent with being heterosexual" and not with being homosexual, unless you're referring to the misery our society inflicts upon people who commit the horrific sin (sarcasm) of being attracted to persons of the same sex. But, still, there are plenty of clinically depressed and suicidal heterosexuals.

Gino, my background is also highly religious and SUPER pro-life. (I'm not quite sure what you mean by "as old as Abraham" -- unless you simply mean that yours -- like mine -- is an Abrahamic religion?). I personally don't think that personhood begins at conception. I don't know exactly where it happens, but a sperm plus an egg aren't a human being. I have trouble with valuing the "life" of a few gestational cells over the autonomy of an individual, living, breathing person. I don't know where we should draw the line, but I can't be comfortable drawing it there.

I think you're being a little unfair toward feminists with your characterization... there are not many feminists who mock women's procreative role. Rather, many of us will sometimes refer sarcastically to patriarchal structures which view us as breeding machines and nothing more, but this is importantly different from devaluing the highly valid and often laudable choice of many women (including lots of feminists) to have children. Feminists don't generally devalue motherhood itself. They DO often question the cult of motherhood we have in society as well as the attendant gender role heirarchy that underlies it. But these are two very different things.

 
At March 19, 2007 at 12:33 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

Knights, your survival pardigm is deficient in some important respects. I don't have to have children to survive -- indeed, given the physical risks of childbirth for women, I'm in fact MORE likely, statistically speaking, to survive if I DON'T procreate.

You don’t have to have children to survive. So, why do you try to live at all? Life is over if we had people thinking like you. Remember you seem to judge folk like me of being selfish. God, how stupid of those ignorant bigoted conservative parents of yours? Statistically, we would have a better chance at the life cycle if we went with the birth method rather than your method of survival in the short term. Very short sided view and destructive.


Survival of the human race and individual survival are two different things.

Nope, my point above just seems to tell you different.

The instinct you're talking about is the individual one. Doubt this?

Yes very much. I’ll prove it wrong on your next contradicting line. Watch this:

Ask any random person in the street their gut reaction to a choice between dying, themselves, or having one thousand random Americans die. Where the eventual response is to sacrifice oneself, it will be the result of a belief in some higher calling or purpose, NOT the result of a gut survival instinct.

It is still the gut survival instinct because the brain says if I die and a thousand live the chances of my species of moving on are far grater. So, if I go back to procreating; that is exactly what the instinct is doing. Increasing the odds of human survival. Your method is decreasing them.

If people's reactions to death are affected at a gut level by anything other than sheer numbers, then your theory fails.

See how it didn’t fail?

And I truly don't understand how wanting to survive is "consistent with being heterosexual" and not with being homosexual, unless you're referring to the misery our society inflicts upon people who commit the horrific sin (sarcasm) of being attracted to persons of the same sex. But, still, there are plenty of clinically depressed and suicidal heterosexuals.

I'll retype what I wrote. I don't know how to explain it any clearer. You either don't see it or just don't want to see it based on your strong belief.

here:

The point is that you have a choice when motion is present in relevance to objects. Although, I pointed out the struggle to not easily blow our brains out. We can see there are all sorts of defense mechanisms in our brain keeping us from doing that. Sort of like giving you an extended period of time to rethink your choice to killing yourself or others. So, what I'm saying is that since we try to survive so hard (this is built in our brain, but we can still make the choice not to), then it is consistent with being heterosexual. Being homosexual is not consistent with survival (gays try to survive just as much as straights). Hence, we go back to my comment about the gay choice not being natural. There is something taken away from the brain to complete the loop.

 
At March 19, 2007 at 12:35 PM, Blogger Gino said...

"I think you're being a little unfair toward feminists with your characterization..."

i didnt say all, i said many.

"there are not many feminists who mock women's procreative role."

i've seen it. and i've debated these women, and their 'tudes, throughout my life. though not as much in the latter yrs.

its only been the last 20yrs that modern feminists have been granting grudging approval to those woman who choose to view breeding in high regard.

 
At March 19, 2007 at 1:21 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

You don’t have to have children to survive. So, why do you try to live at all? Life is over if we had people thinking like you.

Uh... wha-.. huh???

knights, do you understand how just plain BIZARRE you sound?

And talk about rude and ignorant. "Life" is "over" if people think like me??? Guess what knights, LOTS of people think like me, and life isn't over.

WRONG AGAIN.

God. This is just getting annoying. Go ahead and be the heartless bastard who thinks life is only worth living if you spawn more people for our overburdened planet. I think I get it now: adoptive parents are evil. Teh Gays are evil. Women who choose lives other than full-time mom are evil. Infertile people are evil. Everyone's evil except people like knights who "selflessly" inflict their semen on the female baby machines, who we all know aren't real people in their own right.

Fuck, but I'm glad I don't live in your twisted little world.

For what it's worth, knights, you're making all kinds of philosophical leaps without any backing whatsoever. I feel sorry for your logic professors. My head hurts trying to make sense of the nonsense you're spewing.

If you make your own head hurt as much as you make mine hurt, no wonder you have to struggle not to blow your own brains out. I, for one, have NO desire to kill myself, so there's nothing to fight off. Really, I don't even see WHAT you're trying to get at there, but I'm done with this non-conversation.

Gino, I can't speak with much firsthand insight into historical feminism. I only know what it means to me, and it doesn't mean denigration of women's choices.

 
At March 19, 2007 at 1:59 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

Alright, fine, I'm not making any sense.

"Really, I don't even see WHAT you're trying to get at there, but I'm done with this non-conversation."

Gee LF, wanna dance?

 
At March 19, 2007 at 4:44 PM, Blogger heartinsanfrancisco said...

I noticed his name, too. You couldn't have made up a better one.

Does anybody else think it just a tad odd that we are beginning our 5th year of an immoral war but the good Senator is worried about homosexuality?

What's wrong with this picture?

 
At March 19, 2007 at 5:38 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

heart, precisely.

Not that I would ever accuse the good senator of having selective ethics. Never ever.

I mean, really, if he and his peeps were consistent, they'd be ALL ABOUT gays in the military. Who better to send to die on foreign soil?*

*Obviously this is brimming with ironic sarcasm. I think the war is wrong, I think killing is wrong, I think hating gay people is wrong. I just think it's strange that someone so dead-set against homosexuality would rather have all the fabulously moral straight guys out there dying on the front lines. Even the South Park racists figured out a way to use bigotry to their advantage in war.

 
At March 19, 2007 at 7:42 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"Does anybody else think it just a tad odd that we are beginning our 5th year of an immoral war but the good Senator is worried about homosexuality?

What's wrong with this picture? "

History has shown that things tend to decay from the inside. Nothing wrong with that picture. It just shows that we are not isolationist and built from a solid foundation anymore. We have a short memory.

 
At March 19, 2007 at 7:56 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

I don't think the US has been isolationist for about a century now. We've tried to hold up the veneer, but the fact of the matter is, we've consciously and decidedly chosen sides in every major conflict for the past hundred years, and more often than not we've backed it up with military might.

But, still, there's a difference between being non-isolationist, and being imperialist. One would hope we'd have learned those lessons from our European forebears. But I suppose all children have to make their own mistakes.

It'd just be nice if our mistakes weren't leading to world domination by China.

 
At March 20, 2007 at 2:44 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"It'd just be nice if our mistakes weren't leading to world domination by China. "

The chinese are having their own problems. Plus, we have a lot of illogical thinkers here that will make sure china doesn't come on top. Wether it's economics or military.

God doesn't interfere but in God we trust.

 
At March 21, 2007 at 11:24 AM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

I was going to ask you LF: How can you be accepting of gay behaviour when you are not gay yourslef?

 
At March 21, 2007 at 12:25 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

knights, you've just really, really, REALLY lost me here.

I don't see what you're getting at. At ALL. What does *my* sexual orientation have to do with *anyone* else's? What about my being straight could have *anything* to do with how I treat gay people? Everyone I'm friends with is different from me in one way or another. So I just plain don't understand your question.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "accepting ... gay behaviour." I don't personally scuba dive but I accept that other people do. As long as they don't hurt anyone, why on earth would I care? I mean, how is the end of this discussion *anything* other than that gay people are human beings, and as such they are entitled to basic dignity and respect, just like any other human being?

 
At March 21, 2007 at 1:09 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

I agree with you that gay people are human beings and yes a lot of them are nice people.

Just on their behaviour I differ. When I say accepting gay behaviour then I am hypocritical of my own actions. I can't say I accept gay behaviour because my actions are the opposite. I do not accept gay behaviour and I get called a bigot for telling the truth.

 
At March 21, 2007 at 1:18 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

I can't say I accept gay behaviour because my actions are the opposite.

knights, this makes no sense to me. Why would what you personally do in your free time have anything to do with what you "accept" others doing? I mean -- I assume you're not a surgeon, right? So your behavior, assuming you obey the law, is never to perform surgery on another person. By your reasoning then, you cannot accept anyone performing surgery on another.

As for me, I'm more than happy to accept that there are others who perform surgery. Hell, I'm GLAD they exist. If everyone in the world had the same behavior as me, it would be pretty boring. Also, I wouldn't be special. And, as an attention whore, I'm really not cool with that.

 
At March 21, 2007 at 2:21 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"knights, this makes no sense to me. Why would what you personally do in your free time have anything to do with what you "accept" others doing? "

Again, you are missing the point. You are solidified in your view of if you don't accept it personally there is nothing wrong with that if someone else is doing it. I'm not concerned if it's wrong or not. I'm just not accepting it. I don't smoke weed and I don't accept smoking weed. I don't care if you smoke weed or not.

What I'm saying is that I don't accept smoking weed because I don't have this urge to smoke it and I find the smell disgusting.

Now, if I don't accept it on a personal level then how am I accepting it for myself? I simply am refusing it through my lens. That still doesn't change my acceptance of smoking weed just because you smoke weed.

"So your behavior, assuming you obey the law, is never to perform surgery on another person. By your reasoning then, you cannot accept anyone performing surgery on another."

Yes, IF I accepted not to perform surgery on another person then I would not perform surgery on another person.

a) You would have to force me in the physical form which would lead to an unpleasant surgery.

b) You can convince me to accept to do surgery.

Otherwise, I'm not performing surgery.

 
At March 21, 2007 at 2:59 PM, Blogger sattvicwarrior said...

wonderful post. keep up the good work

 
At March 21, 2007 at 3:08 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

knights... um. What's your definition of "accept"?

Seriously, not being ornery, but there was zero sense in your last comment. Absolutely zero. You seriously might as well be speaking Sanskrit. I literally do not understand what on earth it is you are saying, and I think that, in a very real sense, you are speaking a completely different language.

(Anyone else still reading this post? I'm not being hardheaded, but there is a SERIOUS disconnect between me and knights, so if someone else could try to shed light I'd appreciate it)

sattvic, thanks, and thanks for visiting!

 
At March 21, 2007 at 3:28 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"What's your definition of "accept"?"

The ability of a conscience to make a choice whether to receive or reject an object that is within the visual spectrum or not within it.

"I literally do not understand what on earth it is you are saying, and I think that, in a very real sense, you are speaking a completely different language."

I told you we come from two different worlds. :)

 
At March 21, 2007 at 3:45 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

The ability of a conscience to make a choice whether to receive or reject an object that is within the visual spectrum or not within it.

This is a strange definition of "accept," which I've always thought of as a verb rather than a noun. Here's Merriam-Webster's:

1 a : to receive willingly [accept a gift] b : to be able or designed to take or hold (something applied or added) [a surface that will not accept ink]
2 : to give admittance or approval to [accept her as one of the group]
3 a : to endure without protest or reaction [accept poor living conditions] b : to regard as proper, normal, or inevitable [the idea is widely accepted] c : to recognize as true : BELIEVE [refused to accept the explanation]
4 a : to make a favorable response to [accept an offer] b : to agree to undertake (a responsibility) [accept a job]
5 : to assume an obligation to pay; also : to take in payment [we don't accept personal checks]
6 : to receive (a legislative report) officially


What I get at when I say I "accept" gay people or gay behavior is more along the lines of 2 or 3b from that group.

I don't see how the definition you propose works in American English common vernacular. Your definition sounds to me like free will, and further it doesn't fit with the things you've said. For instance, you seem to think that if someone is straight, he or she cannot "accept gay behavior." Assuming we transform your definition to make it into a verb rather than a noun, to "accept gay behavior" would mean, it seems to me, to allow your conscience to receive gay behavior as an object? Uhm... I don't see how we can accept any behavior, gay or straight, under that definition, because it simply doesn't make sense in English. It doesn't mean anything.

Anyway, I'm getting bogged down in semantics. Your original question to me, how as a straight person I could "accept gay behavior," seemed to me to be getting at the fact that I think being gay is perfectly fine and noraml. Correct? If so, then I don't see how noting that a conscience has an ability to "receive or reject an object" has anything to do with moral or scientific views of the "normalcy" of homosexuality.

I'm getting tongue-tied again. I guess my point is that I still don't understand what you're saying.

 
At March 21, 2007 at 4:23 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

The definition covers all the ones that were supplied and beyond. You just don't want to see what I'm saying. But that is OK because that is your choice.

" Your original question to me, how as a straight person I could "accept gay behavior," seemed to me to be getting at the fact that I think being gay is perfectly fine and noraml. Correct? "

No, I wasn't talking about normalcy and how we define normalcy could just get ugly and we would be yapping at eachother for months. I'm getting tired of the discussion just like you.

 
At March 21, 2007 at 4:31 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

The definition covers all the ones that were supplied and beyond. You just don't want to see what I'm saying. But that is OK because that is your choice.

????

In WHICH language?

As I noted, your definition wasn't even a verb.

Whatever. Yes, knights, my choice is to speak English with established rules of grammar and construction. Flighty, I know.

 
At March 21, 2007 at 5:00 PM, Anonymous knights13_ghost said...

"Whatever. Yes, knights, my choice is to speak English with established rules of grammar and construction. Flighty, I know. "

Yeah, thanks for the personal attacks.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home