do you guys think that Phil should expell posters who put
inflamitory links in their signature? Scott did just that. I bet
if some poster had a link to a KKK site in his signature, you guys
would think he should be banished. What's the difference...they're
both lifestyle choices that some people find threatening and
offensive.
Expressing racists views and manifesting the physiological roots of
what is considered "homosexuality" in the form of homosexual acts
are completely different things. One thing (kkk racist views) is
based completely on scientifically disproven assersions based on
personal bias and bigotry. The other is based on a factual physical
condition in the individuals (weather it be mostly a factor of
physiological or environmental stimulus is irrelevant) that finds
itself expressed in behavior. The difference between the two is
that the majority of the world is not privy to the long established
science that disproves the roots of racists views(supposed
distinctive and consistent differences between the "races") nor is
the majority of the world privy to the large body of evidence that
currently suggests that homosexuality is a valid sexual orientation
owing to a base physiological state where same sex attraction is
highly probable in an individuals expressed sexual behavior. (Just
as heterosexual sexual expression is a
most likely outcome of
base physiological states that are conducive to it's occurance in
the indivual.) Environment and social constructs define the "taboo"
of particular sexual expressions but genetics (physiological
states) define the individuals sexual 'preference' outside of
established local social constructs.
Some links providing more views:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm
http://www.lesbian.org/amy/essays/queer-choice.html
Scott has posted for months on the Canon forum and no
one has commented on his signature...until he told someone he was
full of BS. It was only after that that the name-calling begun.
The fellow you are defending partially brought it upon himself.
So if I were to declare on my site that I was african american then
that would open me up to be called "******" by an angry respondent?
Your logic fails you here, the problem is in the mindset that would
attack someone using a stated fact. This type of response hints at
a bias against the statement made despite it's being irrevocable
and indisputable, had we queried Roc's statements further we would
have found root for his first assersion:
[snip] ..let me just say you are living a perverse life of sin and will > > probably contract aids if you have anal sex with men all the time.
"perverse life of sin" according to what body of scientific
evidence? This hints at a religious source for his disagreement
with the
fact that scott is a homosexual. (Note: Scott doesn't
say he's practicing or not...people commonly think that having
homosexual tendancies and
practicing homosexuality are mutually
exclusive, they can coexist..just as heterosexuality and celibacy
can ask any catholic priest.) This in fact is one of two portions
of Roc's response that I considered offensive and abusive, the
first being his use of the word "faggot" which holds hatred akin to
the words "cracker", "******", "chink" and "spic". It's abusive
because there is currently no way to establish that having
homosexual tendancies or God forbid acting on them is in any way
immoral or "perverse" in a global framework (in fact the scientific
evidence contradicts this belief). The arbitrary nature of the
generation of religious thought is such, that I can start a cult or
sect or religious order tomorrow, that celebrates homosexuality as
the key to immortality (and would attract many furvent followers)
and it would be a valid religion just like any of the large
monothiestic or smaller animist and polythiestic religions of the
world.
Here's a post later in the same thread. Tolerance is needed here,
not expultion.
I agree that tolerance is needed, but anyone anywhere in the world
should be free to express statements of fact like "I am a
homosexual" and have that fact
respected and tolerated anywhere
else on the world. Scott didn't state anything that was inaccurate,
he should not be punished by anyone for stating the facts. It's the
rest of the world that needs to educate itself to how things work.
Idealism
Abuse of the sort levied by Roc should not be tolerated at all and
is expressly forbidden according to Phil's forum rules. If he says
roc must go then so be it, he is "the man".
Regards,
--
In the great cosmic scope of things ... does this post really matter? 