Laughing City
Author Message
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


re: my subject (see above), credit to James Carville. In that one case a reductionist statement, though abrasively put, cuts to the quick.

On the topic of a general aversion to anything other than procreative sex in the pro-life movement: There are definitely a lot of vehement traditionalists, and even some non-religious naturalists, who take that view. I have some explicitly traditional Catholic friends who are all on board with that attitude. It's The Rhythm Method or bust as far as they are concerned.

It seems a lot of times in these discussions about Abortion the argument about the when life begins becomes an argument about the potential for creating life. Talking about potentialities is like talking about time travel, there is no end to the beginning, and every beginning leads to a divergent end. In saying that I mean that if we're talking potential, then every act that diverts people from "knowing" each other biblically to its fruition leading to conception is prophylactic. Adhering to that approach was the call of Abraham and his descendants in order to receive their inheritance. Some would argue that approach no longer applies because the faith was opened up in the new testament when gentiles were welcomed into the faith. In that way the "Spiritual descendants" of Abraham number as the stars, so there's no longer a need to breed like rabbits, or so that argument goes.

Most people I know who have some faith, and oppose abortion, in general look at fetuses as babies, humans in the uterus. I think that's fair. The gametes are one thing, a fertilized egg is another or embryo is another, at least as far as the achievement of potential is concerned. When you get to that stage, all this discussion of personal freedom has to be measured against personal responsibility in the case of consenting adults. Isn't it more responsible to do something before hand rather than after the fact? Isn't it more responsible to not put yourself in a position to not have to make such a choice (what do we do now that sperm and egg have fused into a new organism in someone's body) in the first place?

As far as general discomfort with sexuality, I think a good thing to consider is sexual education with kids. I think the elephant in the room is that the average age for the loss of virginity with children is around 14 years of age, well before the age of consent, well before most people feel people are ready to be parents emotionally or materially in this day and age. We can couch these apprehensions in religious rhetoric, but on a certain practical level, there are a wealth of people who just don't like the idea of making sexual activity a pedestrian thing where the consequences are diminished in the minds of young people who are out of touch with consequences in the first place. Teens and preteens are pretty much cognitively handicapped from making healthy decisions in the face of emotional stresses and social pressures. They are developmentally predisposed to confusion, which makes them impressionable and prone to manipulation. That's why there is so much materialist nihilism marketed at the youth. They get saddled with bunk notions of identity that push them into cultural practices that support a hollow market that relies on the emotional and physical dependence on products to fit in and cope with the high cost of living, be it staying fashionable, or keeping up on their valtrex prescription.

As easy as it is to chastise the "religious prude" who reacts negatively to two men holding hands in public, I won't let that back me in a corner where I shun them for believing there is something wrong with running KY His & Hers, and male potency pill commercials at all hours of the day. I know sex sells, but at some point we have to acknowledge a general shift towards exploitation that doesn't have the best of our humanity in mind. As someone who believes in the ideal of altruistic selfless love and innocence of intent I will always have issues with the promotion of human sexuality as the most prominent selling point of commercial culture and material products (by means of tapping into personal insecurity about one's sex appeal) and the idea that one's self-worth/ value as a human being, is measured first and foremost by how much they are sexually desired by someone. It's a casting agent's mentality, but life isn't the movies, and there should be more to us than that part of our humanity. It shouldn't even be in the top 3 as far as I'm concerned.

My attitude is informed by my own personal observations in life more than any specific religious instruction I've received, though it aligns with asceticism, which is found in a lot of world religions, particularly those with monastic societies. For me, it's about putting Mind over Matter. Our sentience makes us who we are, but that's not how things are portrayed culturally because our identities are reduced to market identifiers associated with behaviors that can be commodified.

To go off the sociological deep end: Think of the financial implications of unrestrained sexuality across the board on the Pharmaceutical industry. Do they prosper from more sex or less? Unprotected sex can be enhanced by pharmaceuticals, irresponsible sex is typically mitigated by pharmaceutical intervention first and foremost. Younger kids engaging in riskier behaviors simply means an opportunity to pull in funds from concerned parents or government institutions who step in to try minimize the impact of dysfunctional families being created by children having to raise children, and adults having to support multiple generations of children at points in their lives when in the past they would be saving in preparation for living on a fixed income. All of this pulls people into the economy/ marketplace, that in a more practical/ pragmatic world (one not being constantly persuaded to "get it on") would enter into (newborns) or exit from (retirees/ grand parents and great grand parents) life with better prospects.

That was a whole lot. But what I'm getting at is, Abortion isn't free, it's a service/ a product, as is contraception. This product is meant as a response to a human behavior which, though essential for survival, is also the centerpiece of a large sector of the cultural marketplace. Entire industries rely on our desire for it to make their profits. I know I'm not alone in my cynicism in regards to any matter of human interest that becomes a business interest for an opportunist.

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9637 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MacRVA
Sea Post King


wilsmith wrote:
Isn't it more responsible to do something before hand rather than after the fact? Isn't it more responsible to not put yourself in a position to not have to make such a choice (what do we do now that sperm and egg have fused into a new organism in someone's body) in the first place?

As far as general discomfort with sexuality, I think a good thing to consider is sexual education with kids. I think the elephant in the room is that the average age for the loss of virginity with children is around 14 years of age, well before the age of consent, well before most people feel people are ready to be parents emotionally or materially in this day and age. We can couch these apprehensions in religious rhetoric, but on a certain practical level, there are a wealth of people who just don't like the idea of making sexual activity a pedestrian thing where the consequences are diminished in the minds of young people who are out of touch with consequences in the first place. Teens and preteens are pretty much cognitively handicapped from making healthy decisions in the face of emotional stresses and social pressures. They are developmentally predisposed to confusion, which makes them impressionable and prone to manipulation.

That was a whole lot. But what I'm getting at is, Abortion isn't free, it's a service/ a product, as is contraception. This product is meant as a response to a human behavior which, though essential for survival, is also the centerpiece of a large sector of the cultural marketplace. Entire industries rely on our desire for it to make their profits. I know I'm not alone in my cynicism in regards to any matter of human interest that becomes a business interest for an opportunist.


I agree with you that it's more responsible to think about and prepare for sex beforehand. That's why I support sex education and accessible birth control.

However I think that the rest of the points that you made validate my argument that the pro-life movement is more concerned with restricting sex than with preventing abortions. This is why I have trouble taking the pro-life talking points seriously, because they inevitably stray away from talking about pregnancy and abortion and get into talking excessively about sexual purity. Although sex can lead to pregnancy which can then lead to abortion, but it would be hugely inaccurate to say that sex = abortion so why even talk about viagra or sexual marketing? If your (a rhetorical "your," not you specifically Wil) ultimate goal is to end abortion, then you should be looking at strategies that actually reduce abortions, even if those strategies -- like increased access to birth control, might offend your own sexual morals.

I also can't see what the pharmaceutical industry has to do with the topic at all. To say that we should avoid sex because drug companies make money off of birth control is like saying we shouldn't eat because agricultural companies make money off of food.
Joined: 23 Feb 2011 | Posts: 160 | 
View user's profile Send private message
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


I said a lot so I more than likely inferred some connections that I should spell out a little clearer:

The reason I think the discussion of abortion leads to a discussion of sexual activity and morality with many in the pro-life advocacy is because, even though all sex does not lead to pregnancy, all abortions stem from sex. The most common justification for abortions have to do with the ability of the would-be parent to care for the child, or the circumstances of the conceptions of the child (rape, incest). So the discussion opens up to "why do people who are ill-equipped to care for a child allow themselves to be in a situation where they conceive one?" "Why are some people so compelled to have sex that they would force themselves upon, or manipulate someone impressionable to have it?"

In that way, the discussion of abortion connects to a discussion of sex in general, since that's how babies are made, and ultimately people's motivation for making babies.

My point about commerce and pharmaceuticals was to point out that social problems prop up many of our contemporary industries, and feed into a culture that distorts the role and value of emotional and physical intimacy and dumbs sex down to a "rush" akin to a drug, that can be enhanced with other drugs, which they profit from. They use sex appeal to sell other things to convince us we need them to be permitted to have said physical and emotional intimacy. Then the consequences of sex, pregnancy or disease, are taken care of by the same industries, for their profit. Those industries are going to try and maximize profit, which means perpetuating those social ills while limiting their culpability by normalizing them in contemporary culture.

So, my point is, there are trillions of dollars vested in the continued irresponsible sexual activity of Americans, and humans in general, and that activity begets/ is used to justify abortion. The issue of Abortion in a clinical sense, when talking about the actual act, is restricted to the context of pregnancy, but the precipitating factors are all derivative of culture and societal pressures.

All of this presumes a belief in free will, and that we are not just animals, humping everything we can, every chance we get, with no self restraint, thus making sexual discretion impossible.

I'm not saying avoid sex, I'm saying the argument for abstinence and the general apprehension about the mainstreaming of sexuality as part of common public discourse interpersonally is rooted in a intrinsic impression that those who profit from these cultural changes do not have the best interest of humanity at heart, only profit, and the negative impact of the consequences doesn't matter to them.

See Also:

High Fructose Corn Syrup (tastes good)
Cigarettes (relaxes you, makes you sex, keeps you skinny)
Partially Hydrogenated Old aka Trans Fat (tastes delicious)
Carbon Emissions (more cars, more factories, freedom of the road, hooray commerce!)
Fracking (we need more fuel, see above, here's a way, hooray!)
etc.

I put the over-sexualization of contemporary culture on that list.

You know that person with low self-esteem that gets physical for approval, as a replacement for being accepted for who they really are, and gets used and abused as a result. That's humanity right now. Abortion is the symptom of a greater ill.

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9637 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MacRVA
Sea Post King


Slow day at work, so I'm responding on my phone. Forgive me if this message is somewhat terse and lacks my characteristic beautiful formatting haha.

I take issue with the idea that sex is something people are marketed into being interested in. Sex, like hunger is a natural human drive. No one needs to be told to be interested in sex. And I still think we're on the wrong track trying to moralize about what is "good responsible sex" and what isn't.

We really can't pretend that if we get rid of birth control and abortion access, ban porn from all media, that people will stop being interested in sex overnight.

Sex is not only natural, but it's awesome. Why are we so hung up on trying to punish people for enjoying it too much or enjoying it in the wrong ways?

The only definitive strategy we've found that reduces abortion is access to birth control. Even if that means more sex it still means less abortion. I can't take any pro-lifer seriously who wouldn't be willing to indulge more sex for the sake of fewer abortions because it shows where their priorities are. The pro-life movement is demonstrably more concerned with policing other peoples' sex lives than they are with ending abortion. Concern for the "innocent life" of a zygote is a red herring.
Joined: 23 Feb 2011 | Posts: 160 | 
View user's profile Send private message
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


MacRVA wrote:

I take issue with the idea that sex is something people are marketed into being interested in. Sex, like hunger is a natural human drive. No one needs to be told to be interested in sex. And I still think we're on the wrong track trying to moralize about what is "good responsible sex" and what isn't.

We really can't pretend that if we get rid of birth control and abortion access, ban porn from all media, that people will stop being interested in sex overnight.

Sex is not only natural, but it's awesome. Why are we so hung up on trying to punish people for enjoying it too much or enjoying it in the wrong ways?

The only definitive strategy we've found that reduces abortion is access to birth control. Even if that means more sex it still means less abortion. I can't take any pro-lifer seriously who wouldn't be willing to indulge more sex for the sake of fewer abortions because it shows where their priorities are. The pro-life movement is demonstrably more concerned with policing other peoples' sex lives than they are with ending abortion. Concern for the "innocent life" of a zygote is a red herring.


Just to be clear as a bell, I am not saying humans don't have libidos, or that sex is bad or wrong, I am saying the implicit issue for some people, particularly those predisposed to pro-life stances based on religious faith, is that sex appeal, and sexual gratification are promoted as defining characteristics of people in the marketplace, to increasingly younger and more impressionable audiences, for the sake of profit. To get away with this obvious moral violation, sex is over-hyped across the board as a way to pardon the phrasing, get the deepest possible market penetration so the message reaches as many people as possible, regardless of age.

The problem isn't sex, the problem is Children having sex. The problem is people ill-equipped to deal with the consequences of having sex having sex and then having to deal with the consequences. The only way to appeal to those people to promote sexual/ better said Reproductive Responsibility, is to appeal through them with rhetoric. That's what bridges the issue of sexual morality and abortion.

If the argument is:

This child/ young adult/ adult needs an abortion because they can't handle the responsibility of having and caring for a child.

Then I think it's fair to say:

That child/ young adult needs to refrain from having unprotected sex, and if they can't, from having sex because they can't handle the responsibility of caring for themselves.

That is the same logic I use for those who spread STDs.

People I know who say get rid of birth control and abortion that aren't hardcore traditionalists tend to be reactionaries who feel that the only way to get people to change behavior is by imposing the consequences of those people's actions directly, and not padding the blow (aka tough love). It's sadly, a spin on social darwinism. They basically want to see people suffer for their mistakes. I don't think that's right either. But the goal to get people to recognize the consequences of their actions and act accordingly does make sense to me.

You mention porn, but to be truthful, that's off the beaten path of what I am getting at about the over sexualization (notice I have qualified it when I mention it, I never said sexualization is the problem, but Over or Hyper).

We could be talking about Axe Deodorant commercials, Redbull Commercials, most hair products and make-up, Levis, American Eagle Outfitters, Abercrombie & Fitch, Fiat Cars, Alcohol in its various forms, Most TV and reality TV blah blah blah. Sex is a part of life, but if you watch TV long enough the use of sexual insecurity to sell ego boosters is ridiculous.

As far as reduction of abortion, it correlates with fertility. As pregnancy rates go down, so does abortion. Other than ecological catastrophe, pregnancy rates decrease largely do to changes in sexual behavior. Sexual behavior is largely influenced by culture, just like marriage rates, and gender equity.

Even in the case of the most heated stereotypical arguments about abortion from the opposite extremes, people are largely just responding to each other rather than the real issues.


We can look at Star Trek even, there was an episode of Next Generation* where radiation rendered the population infertile. Abortion was a non issue for them. Now imagine, in the context of our world, infertility ran rampant so that an unwanted pregnancy became a rarity. There would be no abortion argument as we know it. So the rhetoric of reproductive freedom would evaporate. But the argument about sexual responsibility wouldn't evaporate, because STDs would still exist.

What's my point? Well, that the argument about sexual responsibility has validity, and though it is inclusive of Abortion, it goes beyond an argument of what constitutes life and enters into the realm of what is appropriate respect for the lives of others when you have intimate contact with them that leaves them in a vulnerable position. And how should you judge those who profit from furthering those conditions which leave some people more vulnerable than others? I think it's fair to roll that back and then consider that a fetus is a potential life, and a vulnerable one. What measure of respect should it merit?

All of this is measured, in my book, by the Golden Mean or Categorical Imperative as a moral compass. Simple mutual respect. It's the crux of most moral theology, including Christianity, but is not limited to Theological interpretation.

* http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/When_The_Bough_Breaks_(episode)

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9637 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
Last edited by wilsmith on Mon Jul 29, 2013 1:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Adam the Human
Sea Post King


MacRVA wrote:
You simply cannot call yourself as liberal as they get and then make an absurd, reductionist statement like "abortion = homicide" and then qualify that statement with the accusation that anyone who disagrees with you is suffering from a mental illness.

You cannot reduce an issue this complex into that simple of an explanation. Although I am vehemently pro-choice -- both politically and morally -- I don't claim that my viewpoint is without flaws, simply that it has fewer and smaller flaws than the pro-life viewpoint.

Before you can claim to have all the answers on the abortion debate, you'd have to have all the answers on the debate over what constitutes life itself, consciousness, sentience, biological independence, &c. These simply aren't questions that we have solid, quantifiable answers for. Our definition of life is evolving as the technological and scientific rubrics for measuring it are advancing.

I've struggled to find a diplomatic way to say this because the last people in the world I want to alienate with my inflammatory rhetoric are fellow Eisley fans, but I don't think it is a coincidence that the pro-life movement has so many prominent mouthpieces who are so blatantly misogynistic, anti-science, religiously fanatical, and openly opposed to any sexual expression other than monogamous sex between a married man and a married woman. Although I fully acknowledge the existence of people who are pro-life because they have scientific or moral misgivings about drawing an arbitrary point on a timeline at which a human life actually "begins," I think that the vast, vast majority of pro-life activists are people who are very uncomfortable with the idea of non-procreative sex or with women having any control over their sex lives.


Dude, if you actually took the time to read my entire comment and not jump on the one thing that you share a personal and visceral bias for, you would know that I am talking about CONCEPTS, not moral value judgments. I am pro-choice. But being pro-choice and equating abortion with homicide are not mutually exclusive. Homicide is not murder. And I was very careful in choosing my words. Homicide is a legal term with no moral connotation assigned to it. It simply means one human killing another human.

I am also a rabid atheist, and I subscribe to New Scientist, Discover and Scientific American magazines for years so I am nothing short of a science freak. I am a huge liberal, as I stated. I'm probably more active fighting for gay rights than most gay people. I think you're the one being closed-minded in this. You're internalizing and personalizing these philosophical discussions, instead of treating them as simple conceptual exercises.

Of course the vast majority of people who are pro-life are, as you put it, "very uncomfortable with the idea of non-procreative sex or with women having any control over their sex lives" but I don't speak for them, and you shouldn't let their ignorance cloud a philosophical debate like this, because their "arguments" would fall apart and be revealed for what they are very quickly.

You have to learn that just because you disagree with something on a macro level doesn't mean that there aren't valid arguments which don't conform to your viewpoint. For instance, I assume that you would consider yourself an environmentalist and are against huge multi-national conglomerates leaving even huger carbon footprints. But I saw an article in last month's New Scientist magazine which stated that while more CO2 in the atmosphere will certainly raise the temperature of the planet, and lead to ecological changes and perhaps even cause some species to become extinct (which I think we can all agree is a bad thing), it will actually be beneficial for plant life and cause more lush forest areas to thrive. Now if you just read a headline that said "Bigger carbon footprints isn't as harmful to the planet as scientists say", you would probably jump all over it and assume that whoever made that claim was a republican neo-con who was working for the coal lobby. But that's where you have to stop internalizing sound bytes and forget about labels, and actually look into these issues with an open mind and not assume that every statement has a moral value judgment attached to it. (By the way, if you had any doubt, I am absolutely not a climate-change denier and do not think that a few happy plants would replace a happy global ecosystem. Just didn't want to you to cherry-pick another quote or jump on another sound byte.)

That's why it's almost impossible to talk about racism in this country. If you say ANYTHING that could be even perceived as offensive to another race, you will be labelled as a racist, even if you have no agenda and are simply stating a statistic.

But since some people seem to only understand small sound bytes and labels, let me sum it up for them:

I like: Eisley, gay people, bunnies, minorities, atheists
I dislike: people who don't like Eisley, bunny-killers, racists, religious funamentalists

And that is the truth, albeit dumbed down for the masses.
Joined: 20 Aug 2004 | Posts: 62 | Location: New York
Last edited by Adam the Human on Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:15 am; edited 5 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
Adam the Human
Sea Post King


By the way, MacRVA, I just noticed your sig and I'm trying to remember which episode it's from...I want to say the one where Wesley and his cadet team were trying to execute a dangerous maneuver resulting in the death of their fellow recruit and lied about it...but it might also be the episode "The Drumhead" where a Starfleet investigator was basically conducting a witchhunt on the Enterprise while looking for a supposed spy...

Please enlighten me.
Joined: 20 Aug 2004 | Posts: 62 | Location: New York
View user's profile Send private message
mr pine
Vintage Newbie


Adam the Human wrote:
I hate: religious funamentalists


Those religious fundamentalitst...always ruining everyone else's fun. Laughing


still it's cool to know someone hates me

_________________
Wil's excellent description of me.

wilsmith wrote:
You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing...

Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4836 | Location: illinois
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
tungsten
Sea Post King


MacRVA wrote:
Respecting people's choices means respecting their right to choose things that may in fact be harmful and restrictive to them.

That's really the central issue though isn't it?
Pro-lifers view abortion as harmful and restrictive to another life, a separate life. You either believe the baby is an individual life distinct from the mothers or you don't.

Remember the phrase, "I'm eating for two"? You either agree with that or you don't. And if you do believe the baby is a separate, individual life distinct from the mother and you think the mother has the right to kill that baby, then your mind is a harsh place. And, if you are glad to be alive, you should be thankful that your mother didn't think like you do.

"A person is a person, no matter how small." Dr. Seuss
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 | Posts: 258 | 
View user's profile Send private message
The Man In The Moon
Lost at Forum


random thought brought up by adam's post. not being heterosexual, it kinda annoys me when straight people try to fight harder for gay rights. the support is great, don't get me wrong, but this isn't a war for you to fight necessarily. i don't necessarily go out to many rally's because i don't want to potentially make myself a target (and i kinda think a lot of pride parades, events, ect. are counterproductive as i feel they reinforce negative stereotypes of the lgbt community. especially gay men, in my experience). there's a lot more i could go into, but i don't feel like it at the moment. i will say though, a lot of heterosexuals fighting for lgbt rights seem to be confronting bigotry with more bigotry amongst one another, and i just don't think that's the answer and it makes everyone involved look bad.

oh, i also consider myself a philosophical-non-denominational-scientific-polytheistic-omnist-christ ian, so take that however you want...

-edit-

i also don't like how people are quick to hate on each other nowadays based solely on interests (the internet might have something to do with that). some of my best friends are the most conservative people in the world and some are very liberal. i definitely don't agree with a lot of them, but i'm not going to cut ties, or not get to know them simply on a few interests. i think people not taking the time to get to know others with different views and perspectives end up breeding misunderstanding and hostility.

_________________
Oneironaut

http://www.facebook.com/ChengBand
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 | Posts: 1156 | Location: Nashville
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mr pine
Vintage Newbie


i think the main point is that it is ok to disagree.

I don't get why people always try to sway others to their side. and if they end up disagreeing they get angry.

I mean is that what you really want, a world full of people who agree with everything you feel?

Doesn't sound exciting to me.

And for some reason, on certain topics, people think there is no allowance for differences of opinion.

And that to me is upsetting most of all.

_________________
Wil's excellent description of me.

wilsmith wrote:
You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing...

Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4836 | Location: illinois
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
The Man In The Moon
Lost at Forum


mr pine wrote:

And for some reason, on certain topics, people think there is no allowance for differences of opinion.

And that to me is upsetting most of all.


THIS.

of course, it's natural to retaliate when people question your passions and truths. true maturity, i think, is being able to listen and see another's perspective. you're not going to be able to change someone's mind by being hateful towards them.

_________________
Oneironaut

http://www.facebook.com/ChengBand
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 | Posts: 1156 | Location: Nashville
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Adam the Human
Sea Post King


The Man In The Moon wrote:
not being heterosexual, it kinda annoys me when straight people try to fight harder for gay rights.


And this is a problem.

Gay rights, rights for African Americans, rights for immigrants, women's rights, whatever rights you want to talk about--they are all HUMAN rights. And we are all human. I am against double standards anywhere. I just mentioned gay rights because I thought I might strike a chord with the guy I was responding to.

Using your logic, only black people should fight for their rights, only chinese people should fight for chinese rights, only paraplegics should fight for paraplegic rights, and so on. I don't fight for anything because it makes me feel like I'm cool or useful for helping a cause--I fight because of what I believe in.

We are all humans and face the same issues, no matter how much others may try to label us or divide us. When you get down to the crux of gay rights, you will realize that the issues are identical to those of most other civil rights--people do not choose their race, gender, sexual preference, place of birth, etc...and we all just want to have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else.
Joined: 20 Aug 2004 | Posts: 62 | Location: New York
View user's profile Send private message
mr pine
Vintage Newbie


Adam the Human wrote:
We are all humans and face the same issues, no matter how much others may try to label us or divide us. And we all just want to have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else.


Adam the Human wrote:
I like: minorities, atheists
I dislike: racists, religious funamentalists


i guess certain groups aren't included in everyone?

_________________
Wil's excellent description of me.

wilsmith wrote:
You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing...

Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4836 | Location: illinois
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
The Man In The Moon
Lost at Forum


Adam the Human wrote:
The Man In The Moon wrote:
not being heterosexual, it kinda annoys me when straight people try to fight harder for gay rights.


And this is a problem.

Gay rights, rights for African Americans, rights for immigrants, women's rights, whatever rights you want to talk about--they are all HUMAN rights. And we are all human. I am against double standards anywhere. I just mentioned gay rights because I thought I might strike a chord with the guy I was responding to.

Using your logic, only black people should fight for their rights, only chinese people should fight for chinese rights, only paraplegics should fight for paraplegic rights, and so on. I don't fight for anything because it makes me feel like I'm cool or useful for helping a cause--I fight because of what I believe in.

We are all humans and face the same issues, no matter how much others may try to label us or divide us. When you get down to the crux of gay rights, you will realize that the issues are identical to those of most other civil rights--people do not choose their race, gender, sexual preference, place of birth, etc...and we all just want to have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else.


and if you read the rest of my post, you'll see that i say i appreciate the support, but it's not a war for you to fight necessarily. you mention racial minority groups fighting for their rights, and yes they have support from other groups, but the ones that usually make the greatest amount of change belong to the minority group in question. figures to make to make the biggest amount of change and awareness to civil rights issues for african americans are of course MLK and malcom x. better known figures to bring awareness to chinese americans are writers such such as frank chin and maxine hong kingston. being a nonheterosexual racial minority, i find it kinda offensive when people of the majority are more offended for me and commit self martyrdom. this is due to the fact it does seem like a ton of people want to be part of a revolution that sucks for people within it, but looks cool and over glorified from the observes (i know you said you believe in the cause, but you should ask the people within what they actually want you to do. as you said, you fight harder for gay rights then a lot of gay people. that may not necessarily sit well with some of the lgbt community. it may end up being misrepresentative of the community and cause). basically, i think it's more powerful and more effective for someone within the minority to make a stand, but that's just me.

an example is when pete wentz claimed he was bisexual, but made all these exceptions to what he would actually do. from what i got out of it, he was just a straight man comfortable with his sexuality. then, if i remember properly, he goes on and makes comments on how he always wanted to be part of a minority group fighting for something. after reading that, i just wanted to stick a middle finger at him.

Now i don't necessarily go to this extreme, but here's another good example of how i somewhat feel on the issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpUsH4HGGSw

i should note, i'm in the group of people who don't believe the claim that lady gaga is bisexual. for one thing, it's popular and a selling point for women to say they're bi, and there's a major double standard as well. in high school, it was cool for a girl to be bi, but not a guy. a lot of straight girls would say they were bi, just because.

hahaha, i just got a thought. imagine the feminist movement being predominately pushed more by men (and more extreme), than women. i don't think many women would be too pleased about it.

_________________
Oneironaut

http://www.facebook.com/ChengBand
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 | Posts: 1156 | Location: Nashville
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Display posts from previous:   



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB, coffee, and Eisley fans worldwide.
phpBB is © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group