If You Believe Homosexual Acts Are Immoral, Why Are You Labeled a "homophobe"?

Considering the arguments against interracial marriage are nearly identical to the arguments against same-sex marriage, it makes perfect sense.

 

There you go again. I'm of the belief that words mean things, especially words like "systemic" which to this point you've yet to demonstrate. Systemic means that all levels of government in colluded to a single purpose. It means that rampant abuse occurred with no recourse because the whole system is lent to the abuse. Leftists are fond of taking refuge in the past, thinking that nobody will question the frequency and severity they claim that racism and bigotry occurred. But closely examined, history shows a lot of kind and decent people outnumbering the cruel and savage by a sizeable majority. When asked to prove your claims, you are barely able to scrounge up isolated and very rare examples, and failing to establish your claims with those, retreat anew to making broad brushed statements that rely on ignorant axioms of opinion.

So when was there "systemic" (words have meaning) abuse of homosexuals and where did it occur and what people were involved in it?

 

a) Military- up until the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell- homosexuals were systematically discriminated against in the U.S. military.
file:///C:/Users/jmorse/Downloads/ADA456379.pdf
The pendulum began to swing the other way in 1948.
The provision for honorable discharge was deleted.
Homosexuals were to be tried by court-martial or
separated as unfit with an undesirable discharge. The
category of those "unfit" at this time included
criminals, pathological liars, homosexuals, drug
addicts, misconduct (sic), and sexual perverts. But,
in those cases where there had been a long period of
good service, a homosexual could be separated as
"unsuitable" (with a general discharge) rather than as
unfit.13
In 1949, the newly created Department of Defense
issued a directive outlining a harsher policy on
homosexuality for all branches of the service.13
1950 Army Regulation implementing this policy divided
homosexuals into three classes.
Class I homosexuals were those whose homosexual
offenses involved assault or coercion as characterized
by force, fraud, intimidation, or the seduction of a
minor (regardless of the minor's cooperation). A
general court-martial was mandatory for this category.
Class II homosexuals were those who either engaged in
or attempted to engage in homosexual acts. Preferral
of court-martial charges was mandatory, but a
resignation in lieu of court-martial could be accepted
from officers, or a statement accepting a dishonorable
discharge could be accepted from enlisted soldiers.
Class III homosexuals were personnel who exhibited,
professed, or admitted homosexual tendencies but had
not committed any provable acts or offenses. Class III
also included personnel who committed homosexual acts
outside military jurisdiction. Class III homosexuals
could receive either an honorable or a general
discharge. 137

2) Laws against exclusively homosexual Sodomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

Arkansas, Kentucky and 5 other states had Sodomy laws that criminalized sodomy only between homosexuals- these states institutionalized anti-homosexual legislation- systemically..

3) State Department purged homosexuals or suspected homosexuals from the State Department- the State Department systemically purged homosexuals from the State Department.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...te-Department-reveals-purge-of-91-homosexuals
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=9316
As Johnson observes, the Lavender Scare long outlived the Second Red Scare, and during the Eisenhower administration the purge of gays from government reached its peak and became institutionalized. In his memoirs, Eisenhower commented that he perceived gays as unintentional security risks. And at this point, another former FBI agent headed up the State Department's Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs to ferret out suspected homosexuals, employing, among other things, lie detectors. Moreover, the purge even expanded beyond the American government when State Department officials sought to extend it to the United Nations and even coordinated with British police officials.

http://www.nclrights.org/wp-content...04.-Historians-of-Anti-Gay-Discrim-Amicus.pdf

Over 1700 persons were denied employment due to being suspected homosexuals. Over 400 employees were fired or forced to resign.

4) Local Police Discrimination
http://www.nclrights.org/wp-content...04.-Historians-of-Anti-Gay-Discrim-Amicus.pdf
The policing of gay life sharply escalated across the country in the 1950s
and 1960s. Police departments from Seattle and Dallas to New Orleans and
Baltimore stepped up raids on bars and private parties attended by gay men and
lesbians, and police made thousands of arrests for “disorderly conduct.”
By 1950, Philadelphia had a six-man “morals squad” arresting some 200 gay men a month.


That is a good start I think.

 

I'm glad you're stepping up to the challenge and providing better material. Before getting to the rest, the military's policy on homosexuality cannot be lumped in with civil rights violations because people who join the military do so voluntarily and even those given notices of draft have the opportunity to disclose they are gay to prevent themselves from being impressed into service, and many did during drafts. What I'm looking for is abuse of gays simply for being gay in their own homes, jobs, and communities where they didn't voluntarily enlist themselves into an organization that prohibits homosexuality.

And you delivered. I'm aware of the effort to rid all levels of federal government service of homosexuals that happened concomitant with the campaign to purge communists. The communists I have no pity for because those who serve in government swear an oath to this country and it's constitution and to be a communist was to be in league with our enemies more than just as a philosophical simile. But the homosexuals were not forwarned as those joining the military that their personal lifestyle would disqualify them for service. It was sprung on them.

And looking into police campaigns having to do with homosexuals, I've found that they weren't raiding people's homes, they were raiding public places, brothels, bathhouses, and the like. It would be dishonest to gloss over the fact that police did the EXACT SAME THING to heterosexual whore houses. They responded to citizen's complaints about sexually perverted acts in public and they had every right to. It's all too flattering to pretend that homosexuals have conducted themselves with honor, dignity, and discretion today or at any point in the past. Even today, naturists (which included my family and I) have complained that popular nude beaches were taken over by homosexuals openly engaging in sex. Whenever this happens, the police are forced to shut it down for everyone. You may be a nice and considerate guy, but some of your gay friends are real (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s both today and in the past.

But even while all this was going on, gay men who kept quiet in public and used discretion were rarely bothered. This is what I'm talking about when the gay movement revises history to support a narrative that people were arrested and imprisoned just for being gay. They often leave out details that point to public acts of indecency and other violations of the law that hamper upon the public order. It should also be pointed out that these crimes were treated largely as infractions or misdemeanors and I doubt you're going to give me an example of anyone doing hard time for being gay.

So there it is. I admit it was wrong every time there was a "systemic" purging of people just for being gay in government service and also when police arrested homosexuals for acts that went no further than the privacy of their bedroom. My view is the same as most conservatives who don't care what people do in privacy but care a lot what's done in public or affects the public. There's never existed in this country a driving effort to censor what people do with their private lives. Most people really don't care and that's not only true today, but it's always been true. Americans respect privacy. But when it goes beyond that, police have the right to respond to it. Street prostitution, whore houses and brothels, or any other kind of public act of indecency, anyone who can't keep it in the bedroom deserves to be arrested.

Period.

 

Can you provide solid proof of the Heterosexual gene .. no rush I'll wait

 

Their reasoning behind the fact doesn't change the fact even if you don't agree with their reasoning as I don't either.

No problem.

It doesn't change the fact that Jews as a race are genetic as I proved and you admitted to.. No one denied that the religion is not genetic.

What did I make up? All I said was that your inability to back up your belief that homosexuality is genetic is evident by having no study to support your belief is accepted. Again, what did I make up?

 

What did I not address? Be specific.

No evidence. Theories which I deny are facts. Please read more carefully.

Exactly what I would say if I couldn't support my claim.

No some have theories to that effect. Not factual evidence.

No we don't because no study you cite could ever rule out environment making it a theory nothing more.

You just made my point for me. I accept your defeat.

Why would I support changing law based on a theory?

If I came to you with half baked theories saying there is a gene in some pedophiles that some scientists believe could mean pedophilia was genetic would you then support laws be changed based off that theory? Of course not so why should I indulge your faith based beliefs in homosexuality using the same argument?

 

Easily. 5th grade sex ed. All humans have the same biological sexual reaction to sexual stimuli. The body prepares for natural procreation which requires heterosexual sex. All humans, gay or straight.

Now what,

 

Well we disagree here. The U.S. Military from the 1940's onward was one of the largest employers in the U.S., and specifically, and systemically discriminated against homosexuals and suspected homosexuals.

Think if instead of homosexuals we were speaking of Jews- and the systemic exclusion of Jews from the Military based upon just being Jews.

You think it was wrong simply because they weren't 'forewarned'? Homosexuals were purged from State Department jobs simply because they were homosexuals.

Again- think if this was Jews- would you be okay with Jews being banned from the State Department- just so long as they were 'forewarned'? I wouldn't.

Homosexuals were specifically targeted systematically excluded and fired simply for being gay. No one would argue that was okay if it was done to Jews- well actually some people would.

I was speaking of police efforts to specifically target homosexuals for being homosexuals or appearing to be homsexuals.

Raiding known 'gay clubs' and arresting men who were dressed as women, and arresting women dressed as men. Arrests and reporting of the arrests to newspapers in order to publicize that the persons were homosexuals, and calling employers to notify them that they were arrested to out them as homosexuals.

Homosexuals were not being treated exactly like heterosexuals- they were specifically targeted by police departments.

Well some of your homophobic friends are real (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s both today and in the past. I am not sure what your point is- there are (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s of every persuasion. Personally the only people I have seen having sex in public in San Francisco were heterosexual couples.

So long as Gay folk weren't getting all uppity they were okay- right? That they should have stayed in the closet and not gone out to clubs like heterosexuals?
I am not going to look for examples of Gays getting hard time- I have established clearly there was systematic discrimination against homosexuals- there were laws specifically targetting homosexuals, there were federal actions to discriminate against homosexuals,

"there's never existed in this country a driving effort to censor what people do with their private lives."

I will point out again: the Military rules against homosexuals, the State Department purges, specific State laws that specifically targetted homosexuals- without any regard to whether or not such acts took place in public or in private.

 

Apples to oranges. Most people see a difference between one's religion and one's lifestyle choices. It's only rational to do so.

Again apples to oranges. I know the gay rights movement tries to tie itself to civil rights, but there are too many glaring differences. Furthermore, you're crying foul because gays were discriminated against in federal work, but sexual orientation has never been a category of discrimination, again, lifestyle choice. The problem is your movement started this idea that how people choose to live cannot be judged or be subject to adverse action. It goes against all common sense that what people do, not what race they are, religion, nationality, or gender, but what people DO they can be judged for and discriminated against. Homosexuality is not a race or a nationality, it's a choice of lifestyle. So no, the government, including the armed forces was NEVER wrong in excluding people based on how they choose to live. The only thing the government did which was infamous was to not disclose such qualifications to begin with, to fire people who had no reason to believe they were doing something worthy of being fired for.

Yes they were. Heterosexual brothels, prostitution rings, and other acts of public indecency were subject to the same treatment. Your persecution complex is blinding you from reality.

And you restrict your view of reality to your own personal experience?

And I applauded you for your research and work. I'm saying that the gays that faced the brunt of government action were those who made a spectacle of themselves, who couldn't keep it in the bedroom. People complained and the cops acted. Serves them right.

And I will point out again that lifestyle choice (emphasis on CHOICE) is not a criterion for unjust discrimination. People always have and always will be judged by their actions. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

Religion is a lifestyle choice.

There is no rational argument that can be made that being a homosexual is a 'lifestyle choice' and being a Jew, Christian or Muslim is not as much- if not more- of a lifestyle choice.

You gloss over institutionalized discrimination in the Military and State Department and in State laws by calling it a lifestyle choice.

I think discrimination is wrong. It is wrong to discriminate against a person because he is a Christian or a Jew and it is wrong to discriminate against a person because he is a homosexual.

 

Before I start, let me first offer you a challenge as well, since you brought up the case of the Idaho Senator. How many heterosexual men do you think would be arrested if under-cover female cops were used to solicit sex from men in public places like they do with gay men? They do sting operations for prostitution, of course, but I can’t find any case like this where a heterosexual male is propositioned by an under-cover female cop for sex without payment like is done with gay men. I’m not saying that this kind of behavior among gay men is ok, but since we're talking not just about what is and is not illegal but rather how it is enforced, I'm curious what you can find. I’m pretty sure if this was actually happening, our jail system would be flooded well beyond capacity, filled with deviant heterosexual men.

Anyway, moving on.

To answer your question, let me be blunt. Yes, I will give you some cases. That said, I’m not sure how much detail you’re after. I mean hell, go to Google News and search for the word “murder” on articles between the years of 1990 and 2007… you’ll get like no result back. Here’s the link to save you the trouble: https://www.google.com/search?q=mur...r:1,cd_min:1/1/1990,cd_max:12/31/2007&tbm=nws

In short, I’ll probably have to go to a library and dig through records to find details on old cases which, frankly, is more effort than I care to make . Absent that, knowledge of most such cases are relegated to summaries and sentiments, as well as several landmark cases.

Let me also be clear that I never said how common prosecution was or was not, nor was it my point. My point is that the law was part of a broader picture of social and legal ostracism, and it had effects that were well beyond the possibility of being arrested, prosecuted and punished. Rather, the broader effect was forcing the person to hide, and to provide legal justification for discrimination if they did not… If he or she admitted that they were in a homosexual relationship, they were admitting to being criminals, whether or not someone was prosecuting it. Being gay, and thus a criminal, would exclude you from many professional jobs (let alone non-professional ones). Or imagine losing custody of your child, because a judge would not want to place the child with a confessed criminal.

These laws were just part of a broader mix of legal and social ostracism, which I agree is MUCH better today than it used to be. You won’t find blatant cases like this any more, although you still see some social aspects. I pointed out earlier how LGBT represent between 20 and 40% of homeless youth, far out of proportion of the their share in the overall population. Abandonment and social ostracism were/are arguably just as devastating (if not more so) than legal prosecution.

Now if you’re looking for specific cases of arrests and prosecution, there is of course the obvious cases of Lawrence v Texas and Browers v Hardwick, who were both arrested in their homes, not some public location. You can also find countless examples of men arrested in raids on gay bars – please see the Stonewall riots and the police raids that lead up to it. Thankfully those should have mostly ended by the 1980's. For a more recent example:

http://theadvocate.com/home/6580728-125/gays-in-baton-rouge-arrested

As for some other forms of legal discrimination against someone’s sexuality, although not prosecuting against it directly:

This is a legal briefing from 2003, which was soon to be overturned by Lawrence v Texas (at least officially)

As I pointed out before, legal discrimination was justified even when the gay person was not prosecuted, “on the grounds that being in a same-sex relationship meant that one was presumptively violating state sodomy laws”… it was the PRESUMPTION of being a criminal.

Here’s a book on the topic if you care to pay for it, or find it in the library: https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=7c782929424b10b8665ae0379190c093

Here’s one of those cases which made it to a state supreme court:

Regarding visitation rights and guardianship, this was a fairly high profile case of the time:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/18/us/disabled-woman-s-care-given-to-lesbian-partner.html

Anyway, I guess I’ll leave it there for now.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=349566&page=10&p=1063780970#post1063780970

It's already been done, whether or not you acknowledge or understand it.

Ok, let me give you some more examples.

Virtually all children are born with the instinct to suckle, to feed, to swallow. Do we know the cause? No, we don't. We know it's in-born, but there is no known cause, i.e. genetic sequence or other biological mechanisms that we know causes the child to know how to and to want to suckle. Humans are born with many attributes that we know are inborn, but we have not pegged down to a specific and identifiable cause... the process of identifying the cause of each and everyone of our attributed is FILLED with theories, speculation. We can deduce from circumstantial evidence what the attribute is or is not linked to, whether it is "in born", genetic, epigenetic, environmental, or sometimes a complex relationship between them all. While you are free to require whatever criteria you want, your failure to either consider or understand the evidence given to you does not constitute a failure on our part to have it.

Strawman. Even if someone had solid, 100% proof that pedophilia is an inborn, genetic, that does not mean any law needs to change. Having a genetic attribute is not a license to violate the individual rights of others. And on the other side of that coin, just because an attribute is NOT genetic, that does not mean it's ok to legally discriminate or treat them differently according to that attribute. The question comes down to whether or not there is a legitimate state interest at stake. The government CAN discriminate based on immutable characteristics if they can prove that there is a legitimate state interest, and there have also been many protections against arbitrary laws that discriminated against people, even in cases where the law was not based on an immutable characteristic.

Long story short, if the State can prove that they have a legitimate state interest in preserving things like marriage as between a man and a woman, then the fact that homosexuality is "in-born" or not is irrelevant. The restriction can continue to remain, regardless. I do not see how the discussion of whether or not homosexuality is "in born" is relevant to the legal questions regarding the legitimate state interests at stake and equal protection of the law... it's an interesting debate, and may influence the way some people "feel" about the topic, but legal questions go well beyond that.

 

I apologise in advance, as I am aware that this adds little of value to the discussion - but I am amazed at the constant critical interest in homosexual orientation and homosexual activity exhibited by certain people. Homosexuality does not arise often (and then only in the most perfunctory manner) in my conversations with my friends or family.

I can understand the unquestioning and conventionally religious having a point of view vis a vis the Judeo/Christian Scriptures, but for the matter to attain moral dimensions to secular heterosexual individuals is beyond my comprehension. I am not here referring to the molestation of minors, or any acts which do not involve consenting adults, or indeed acts in breach of public decency ordinances, but to the private exercise of a particular sexual orientation.

What is it about homosexuality which so fascinates ostensibly heterosexual people (usually males) to that extent? I can understand puerile snig-gers (bloody stupid filter!) from 12 and 13 year olds about the forbidden subject of sex in general - but adults getting their knickers in a knot about someone else's private life? Que!!!

And what is there about the comparatively simple sentence "Mind your own business." which is so difficult for some to comprehend?

 

Seems you misunderstood the question, I asked for solid proof of a heterosexual gene, the above doesn't give that. The idea you are trying to promote above is that ALL acts of sexual stimuli lead to only a single goal .. if this were correct then no matter what the situation a man or woman giving another man or woman sexual stimuli would have no effect on the them.

 

I could not agree more on that point. We don't need to discuss with children in California which historic figures had gay sex

 

We are in agreement upon that point, but please don't misquote me like that again. I would never use gigantic text in an internet post - it is the equivalent of shouting and is very ill-mannered.

 

It is a moral belief, and an individual has the right to express their religious views, even in judgement of others, within a democracy when it pertains to the laws of the land.

 

nope

it's preferential to the selective editing done by many here. That way, your entire post remains intact, thus your claims of "misquoting" are incorrect and in fact, untruthful.

Your post remained whole, I enlarged the point I wished to address

thanks for your concern

 

The words remained intact, but both the sense and emphasis were changed by the ridiculously large typeface. I do not post in that ill-mannered style, and you have no right to quote my posts thus. All you need have done is post that sentence on its own. Be so kind as to not do it again!

 

I have reported him multiple times for this. It's extremely aggravating and he refuses to leave our text alone written as it is. Just have to keep hitting the report button on it.

 

Well there's your problem, since professing homosexuals insist on making a public issue of their sexuality, in many cases even to the extent of demanding codification of its acceptance as normal into law.

 

People like to say to me "if you disapprove of adulterers and fornicators just as much as homosexuals then why don't you condemn them?"

I point out that in general most adulterers and fornicators aren't marching down city streets or appearing on television demanding tolerance.

Though what they call tolerance is actually wanting a governmental and societal endorsement for their lifestyle choices.

 

very well put