PDA

View Full Version : The LGBT Community - Why We Should Embrace Them




AlexMerced
07-02-2010, 08:45 AM
http://libertyisnow.blogspot.com/2010/07/lgbt-community-why-we-should-embrace.html


Everyone here in the movement call ourselves by many names such as Paleo-Conservatives, Calssical Liberals, Libertarians, and Anarcho-Capitalists but we all have some major things in common. Primarily, we believe that each person should be valued based on their own unique individual charachteristics, and no single charachteristic alone defines a person such as race, creed, gender, etc. This is why believe in free markets, because a free market is where individuals are free to be individuals and judged as such which gives us so many advantages in prosperity, but I don't write today about free markets or economics.

While we champion individualism and detest collectivism whether it manifests itself in divisive forms such as racism and homophobia or in the supposedly uniting forms in the forms such as different group movements we feel it still promotes the same collective thinking that ignores the individual and complexity of the individual. The only way to fix this is to get people to embrace individuality, and to understand this we must educate on how collectivism causes the very things these collectivist movements are fighting against.

So for example, an individualist would have problem with "Hate" crimes laws cause it implies that one murder is worse than another murder cause of intention, a murder in itself is a horrible offense on anyones individualism since it destroys the individual no matter what the motivation. So an individualist will criticize those who lobby government for laws to promote "equality" among groups. This institutionlizes the idea of different groups or collectives in one of the most dominant institutions in existance, Law, when most of the time much of intergroup hostility comes from collectivist thought and other Laws.

My question is... do these critiques and judgements prove counter productive?

I am proud to think of myself as one of the anarcho-capitalist who is doing as much as possible to reach out the LGBT community to show them how individualism leads to the tolerance and acceptance that any social movement strives for. I have even created the facebook page for The Martini Party, a group for LGBT people and advocates to coalesce around Liberty and Individualism.

I find that lot of people in the movement choose not to reach out to the LGBT community cause they feel like other social movements they intrinisically want to go to government for every problem, but the reason they do this is quite understandable if you take a moment, let's pose a quick analogy to set the stage:

Imagine a bunch of kids playing on the playground having a great time, the last thing they would want is mother to come in to supervise and direct playtime. A child comes and wants to play with the other kids, but whatever reason the kids will not let them play so the kid goes to mother to tell the kids to let them play. All the kid wanted was to play with everyone else, but because they didn't mothers restrictive nature was conjured.

If we don't want the Feminist, Civil Rights, and the LGBT community to embrace government and to instead embrace individualism we need to embrace them in return. If we don't make conscious effort that we want them to come play, then mother will be continued to be asked to fix the problem. Like socialism only would work with the creation of this "new socialist man", individualism and a state-less society can only work if we build a "new individualist man" that is tolerant, creative, and adaptive without no central power. If we create this coalition by embracing these communities in an individualist way by being good friends, co-workers, and overall caring; then we can see our movement advance fowards.

Another thing that seperates the LGBT community is that they have legitimatley been outcasted from society, especially trangendered people which has led the prostitution and drug use among the community, that wouldn't have to be the case if we just all embraced one another. Women and Racial Minorities have already got over the largest walls in the path tolerance and now only need to shed away the construct of race and gender to move foward, but the LGBT community still has many preliminary walls to get over before they can truly shed the collectivist contructs of sexuality and just be themselves, and embrace their unique and beautiful individualism. Meaning, if we want any community to shed collectivism we need to break the outer cultural collectivism that forces them into these groups and let them be individuals and part of society.


For those who don't understand the altruistic motivations here's some political ones:

- The LGBT community due to the level hostility they get have really built a tightly wound parallel culture, media, and world that dwarfs the kind of grassroots infrastructure our movement has, having that on our side definetley has it's merits.

- This would be a blow to the heart of the Collectivist coalition, and be a big triumph for liberty and individualism, and a step towards world free of coercion and violence.


I have lot more to say on this, but I think I got the main point across, in order to build our ranks we need embrace individuals, and not just passivly but activly to show them love, tolerance, and cooperation that exists in an individualist world.

RCA
07-02-2010, 08:49 AM
If only most of them weren't liberals.

Elwar
07-02-2010, 08:53 AM
The last time I embraced the LGBT community someone grabbed my ass.

FrankRep
07-02-2010, 08:54 AM
The TRICK is how to keep the support of the (non-Neocon) Conservatives (bigger voting group) while trying to embrace the LGBT (minority) without having the Conservatives boycotting the Liberty Movement.

The LGBT Community is a huge liability and can destroy our chances of getting people elected.

Something to think about.

Brooklyn Red Leg
07-02-2010, 08:55 AM
If only most of them weren't liberals.

Statist, not Liberal.

t0rnado
07-02-2010, 08:56 AM
Just convince them that marriage isn't even an issue for the government to handle or regulate instead of the concepts of collective rights in the form of gay rights and straight rights.

bobbyw24
07-02-2010, 08:58 AM
I sell Ron Paul to my gay friends by saying:

Ron Paul wants the Goverment out of your bedrooom and out of your wallet.

AlexMerced
07-02-2010, 09:09 AM
If only most of them weren't liberals.

I think I explained why there liberal in the article, or at least alluded to it, cause they feel they are the only people who understand.

As far as keeping the conservative vote, I'm not saying the people organizing and rallying the conservatives shouldn't continue doing so, but some of us need to expand the coalition.

I'm not saying that the Campaign for Liberty itself should be pursuing this endeavor, thus why I created the martini party a seperate banner to target the left leaning people who might be sypathetic to what we got to say.

AlexMerced
07-02-2010, 09:10 AM
The TRICK is how to keep the support of the (non-Neocon) Conservatives (bigger voting group) while trying to embrace the LGBT (minority) without having the Conservatives boycotting the Liberty Movement.

The LGBT Community is a huge liability and can destroy our chances of getting people elected.

Something to think about.

depends on the state, it could win us elections in CA, New York, and Connecticut and such

and winning states like that would give us a lot of mementum

ChaosControl
07-02-2010, 09:13 AM
Don't use terms like "homophobia" if you really want me to consider your idea.

Krugerrand
07-02-2010, 09:13 AM
So for example, an individualist would have problem with "Hate" crimes laws cause it implies that one murder is worse than another murder cause of intention, a murder in itself is a horrible offense on anyones individualism since it destroys the individual no matter what the motivation. So an individualist will criticize those who lobby government for laws to promote "equality" among groups. This institutionlizes the idea of different groups or collectives in one of the most dominant institutions in existance, Law, when most of the time much of intergroup hostility comes from collectivist thought and other Laws.

I have a problem with "hate" crimes because I should be allowed to hate anybody I want and anybody should be allowed to hate me.


Imagine a bunch of kids playing on the playground having a great time, the last thing they would want is mother to come in to supervise and direct playtime. A child comes and wants to play with the other kids, but whatever reason the kids will not let them play so the kid goes to mother to tell the kids to let them play. All the kid wanted was to play with everyone else, but because they didn't mothers restrictive nature was conjured.

If we don't want the Feminist, Civil Rights, and the LGBT community to embrace government and to instead embrace individualism we need to embrace them in return. If we don't make conscious effort that we want them to come play, then mother will be continued to be asked to fix the problem.

I have no problem with the existence of social mores. Yes, liberty is the champion of the individual. However, the human is a social animal. Social mores should not be legally codified - but that does not mean that they should not exist. In your example of the nanny mom, I have no problem with kids forming and enforcing the social clicks. The nanny mom is wrong to interfere. The nanny state is wrong to interfere. The kids are not wrong to exert social pressures. Life is not Sesame Street. I think Barney is a bad influence on our country. We do not need to accept people as they are. The individual has the choice to change and fit in or to not change and stand apart.

bobbyw24
07-02-2010, 09:15 AM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=108242&highlight=gaywired

AlexMerced
07-02-2010, 09:18 AM
I have a problem with "hate" crimes because I should be allowed to hate anybody I want and anybody should be allowed to hate me.



I have no problem with the existence of social mores. Yes, liberty is the champion of the individual. However, the human is a social animal. Social mores should not be legally codified - but that does not mean that they should not exist. In your example of the nanny mom, I have no problem with kids forming and enforcing the social clicks. The nanny mom is wrong to interfere. The nanny state is wrong to interfere. The kids are not wrong to exert social pressures. Life is not Sesame Street. I think Barney is a bad influence on our country. We do not need to accept people as they are. The individual has the choice to change and fit in or to not change and stand apart.

That's not the point I'm trying to make, the point I'm trying to make is that if you don't want people clamoring for government action, methods such tolerance would actually prevent government intervention.

The kids were in their right to reject the kid, but the kid now has used the power of central authority.

Also, I make the statement that these group operate in collectivist means cause the society outside of them judges them by collectivist means. We can condemn both, but we can't rid of either until you get rid of the other side forcing the other to be where they are in a sense.

Until you get people to be more tolerant of gays, the less gays will ever embrace individualism cause, cause why would they if they are pidgeonhold into a group.


I'm just saying this is more complex, and if we're going to break the cycle we need to look at this more critically that just saying "tough shit"

AlexMerced
07-02-2010, 09:19 AM
I have a problem with "hate" crimes because I should be allowed to hate anybody I want and anybody should be allowed to hate me.



I have no problem with the existence of social mores. Yes, liberty is the champion of the individual. However, the human is a social animal. Social mores should not be legally codified - but that does not mean that they should not exist. In your example of the nanny mom, I have no problem with kids forming and enforcing the social clicks. The nanny mom is wrong to interfere. The nanny state is wrong to interfere. The kids are not wrong to exert social pressures. Life is not Sesame Street. I think Barney is a bad influence on our country. We do not need to accept people as they are. The individual has the choice to change and fit in or to not change and stand apart.

I agree we shouldn't have to like or tolerate other individuals, but soon as we ackowledge groups by judging them... we have become the collectivist we're fighting against.

FrankRep
07-02-2010, 09:23 AM
depends on the state, it could win us elections in CA, New York, and Connecticut and such

and winning states like that would give us a lot of mementum

There needs to be two factions of the Libertarian Party:
The Liberal Libertarians and the Conservative Libertarians.

AlexMerced
07-02-2010, 09:24 AM
There needs to be two factions of the Libertarian Party:
The Liberal Libertarians and the Conservative Libertarians.

I agree with that

Krugerrand
07-02-2010, 09:36 AM
That's not the point I'm trying to make, the point I'm trying to make is that if you don't want people clamoring for government action, methods such tolerance would actually prevent government intervention.

The kids were in their right to reject the kid, but the kid now has used the power of central authority.

Also, I make the statement that these group operate in collectivist means cause the society outside of them judges them by collectivist means. We can condemn both, but we can't rid of either until you get rid of the other side forcing the other to be where they are in a sense.

Until you get people to be more tolerant of gays, the less gays will ever embrace individualism cause, cause why would they if they are pidgeonhold into a group.


I'm just saying this is more complex, and if we're going to break the cycle we need to look at this more critically that just saying "tough shit"

This strikes me as Group A wants Group B to make Change C. If Group B does not comply then Group A will use Force D. So, the way to prevent Force D is for Group B to make Change C.

But, what if Group B does not want to make Change C? Your way of looking at this more critically is to say "tough s..." to Group B.

silentshout
07-02-2010, 09:43 AM
There needs to be two factions of the Libertarian Party:
The Liberal Libertarians and the Conservative Libertarians.


Perhaps...but I'd wager that there's quite a bit of overlap between the two.

OP, i agree with you. Then again, i never understood hating people based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, or what food they like or dislike...it seems so pointless. The government can't force people to accept others, but when you have a group that feels continually marginalized, that's what will happen.

AlexMerced
07-02-2010, 09:44 AM
well this scenario is inevitable as long as there is a government for somebody to use coerce the unyielding party, which is why I advocate anarcho-capitalism.

I'm just talking about how to expand our coalition so we can win 2012

libertybrewcity
07-02-2010, 09:44 AM
it really does depend on the state. for example, i know that it would work in san francisco, but not in texas. i think that the one message of unity includes everyone, not just whites and conservatives. everyone including hispanics, blacks, whites, asians, and lgbt are included.

people should be more tolerant but i don't think it should be an issue that one would run on for the presidential election. it is more a district to district issue.

idirtify
07-02-2010, 09:45 AM
I have a problem with "hate" crimes because I should be allowed to hate anybody I want and anybody should be allowed to hate me.



I have no problem with the existence of social mores. Yes, liberty is the champion of the individual. However, the human is a social animal. Social mores should not be legally codified - but that does not mean that they should not exist. In your example of the nanny mom, I have no problem with kids forming and enforcing the social clicks. The nanny mom is wrong to interfere. The nanny state is wrong to interfere. The kids are not wrong to exert social pressures. Life is not Sesame Street. I think Barney is a bad influence on our country. We do not need to accept people as they are. The individual has the choice to change and fit in or to not change and stand apart.

While I think you have some good perspectives, I think you may be confusing value judgments with rights. IOW just because choosing something is a right does not mean that the choice will necessarily be “not wrong”. IOW claiming something should not be illegal is one thing; saying it’s “not wrong” is another.

ChaosControl
07-02-2010, 09:48 AM
Perhaps...but I'd wager that there's quite a bit of overlap between the two.

OP, i agree with you. Then again, i never understood hating people based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, or what food they like or dislike...it seems so pointless. The government can't force people to accept others, but when you have a group that feels continually marginalized, that's what will happen.

You don't have to hate someone to oppose their decisions and as a result prefer not to be around them. We should all tolerate, but we shouldn't accept what we don't agree with.

Krugerrand
07-02-2010, 09:50 AM
While I think you have some good perspectives, I think you may be confusing value judgments with rights. IOW just because choosing something is a right does not mean that the choice will necessarily be “not wrong”. IOW claiming something should not be illegal is one thing; saying it’s “not wrong” is another.

valid point. I'd only clarify to "may not be wrong" instead of "are not wrong."

Matt Collins
07-02-2010, 09:50 AM
I think they did that here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=251506



.

AlexMerced
07-02-2010, 09:55 AM
it really does depend on the state. for example, i know that it would work in san francisco, but not in texas. i think that the one message of unity includes everyone, not just whites and conservatives. everyone including hispanics, blacks, whites, asians, and lgbt are included.

people should be more tolerant but i don't think it should be an issue that one would run on for the presidential election. it is more a district to district issue.

Yeah, I'm not saying be tolerant as a campaign issue, I'm just saying if we're more tolerant in our daily lives, people will feel less need to run to government for everything.

silentshout
07-02-2010, 09:59 AM
Yeah, I'm not saying be tolerant as a campaign issue, I'm just saying if we're more tolerant in our daily lives, people will feel less need to run to government for everything.

It would make things easier, that's for sure.

AlexMerced
07-02-2010, 10:02 AM
Yep, there simple things we can to reduce government intervention by being more conscious of the things we do that might inflame the calls for government action, for us to preserve liberty we need to take responsibility over our own actions.

idirtify
07-02-2010, 10:15 AM
Yep, there simple things we can to reduce government intervention by being more conscious of the things we do that might inflame the calls for government action, for us to preserve liberty we need to take responsibility over our own actions.

Good point. It reveals what may end up becoming the primary “morality”; in which the main incentive for “doing the right thing” (or not doing the wrong thing) is not for love or charity or karma or religion or ethics, but for fear of government involvement.

payme_rick
07-02-2010, 11:58 AM
I don't know if we should necessarily "embrace" the community, but we should for sure "speak" to the community... same with the pro-ganja community, speak to them as well, but maybe not "embrace" them...

I don't like labeling groups etc..., but speaking and teaching our message to gay pot smokers could be very beneficial because, and I may be wrong, it doesn't seem to me that the two work together trying to get their issues solved... embedding our message in a, no pun intended, bi-issue community could help the message more easily be spread to both of these groups, which I see as big "in the pocket" votes for progressives...

The more "freedom" and "liberty" based issues we make these two groups aware of, the more likely they are to see that the politicians they traditionally vote for are the problem, not the solution...

MelissaWV
07-02-2010, 12:02 PM
The TRICK is how to keep the support of the (non-Neocon) Conservatives (bigger voting group) while trying to embrace the LGBT (minority) without having the Conservatives boycotting the Liberty Movement.

The LGBT Community is a huge liability and can destroy our chances of getting people elected.

Something to think about.

Just keep the message alive, and everyone speak to those you know. I never understood the pandering thing; it's what the other folks do, and that's why their "message" is really just pointless, empty sloganeering.

idirtify
07-02-2010, 06:34 PM
Yes a lot of “them” (sorry, I mean “gays”/”LGBT”) are probably liberals, but maybe just as many are already here (already “libertarian” or “liberty-minded”). That’s mainly because of our tolerance for different lifestyles that don’t harm anyone else. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, it is a good thing. But… there is a definite “faction” of that subculture (at least that’s how the faction prefers to be viewed; as a part of the LGBT subculture) that may present a reason AGAINST the proposed invitation contained in the OP: male bisexual pedophiles. We DON’T want pedophiles because they DO harm others (especially males) and can not be rehabilitated. (Do not misunderstand me. I am not confusing “gay” with “pedophile”. I am only saying that most pedophiles will intentionally mislabel themselves as “gay” solely to feign legitimacy; in effect, soiling the term “gay”.) I know this has been problematic for this movement in the past. (A few years ago, the owner of a major libertarian forum once argued that adults having sex with children was not necessarily a non-consensual act. I am not joking. The posts are still there [but the owner has since passed away].) These devious types exploit our tolerance, and given the opportunity, will attempt to stretch it to include their predatory behaviors. The first time I ran into it was as I listened to a “libertarian” go on about the “sexual rights of children”. I was amazed at the skilful spin used to make such a tragic crime sound consensual. Watch out for it and don’t let it fool you; it’s FAR more prevalent than those who aren’t in the know could ever imagine.

freshjiva
07-02-2010, 08:10 PM
Just keep the message alive, and everyone speak to those you know. I never understood the pandering thing; it's what the other folks do, and that's why their "message" is really just pointless, empty sloganeering.

Agreed. If Ron Paul runs for President again in 2012, I'd be willing to hit up some local LGBT groups and explain to them why Ron Paul is the man they'd want to vote for.

This way, Ron wouldn't hurt his perception from conservatives by openly declaring support for gays, but would make it simple and easy to digest for both LGBTs and conservatives:

"I want to get government out of running our personal lives, running the economy, and policing the world."

AlexMerced
07-02-2010, 08:11 PM
Yes a lot of “them” (sorry, I mean “gays”/”LGBT”) are probably liberals, but maybe just as many are already here (already “libertarian” or “liberty-minded”). That’s mainly because of our tolerance for different lifestyles that don’t harm anyone else. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, it is a good thing. But… there is a definite “faction” of that subculture (at least that’s how the faction prefers to be viewed; as a part of the LGBT subculture) that may present a reason AGAINST the proposed invitation contained in the OP: male bisexual pedophiles. We DON’T want pedophiles because they DO harm others (especially males) and can not be rehabilitated. (Do not misunderstand me. I am not confusing “gay” with “pedophile”. I am only saying that most pedophiles will intentionally mislabel themselves as “gay” solely to feign legitimacy; in effect, soiling the term “gay”.) I know this has been problematic for this movement in the past. (A few years ago, the owner of a major libertarian forum once argued that adults having sex with children was not necessarily a non-consensual act. I am not joking. The posts are still there [but the owner has since passed away].) These devious types exploit our tolerance, and given the opportunity, will attempt to stretch it to include their predatory behaviors. The first time I ran into it was as I listened to a “libertarian” go on about the “sexual rights of children”. I was amazed at the skilful spin used to make such a tragic crime sound consensual. Watch out for it and don’t let it fool you; it’s FAR more prevalent than those who aren’t in the know could ever imagine.




I never said anything about embracing pedophiles, I understand what your saying, but being a pedophile is separate distinction than being gay, they arn't really at all associated or have anything to do with my original post.

That's like me saying we should embrace Men in the movement, but stipulating we shouldn't tolerate Men Rapist... well of course

idirtify
07-03-2010, 11:34 AM
I never said anything about embracing pedophiles, I understand what your saying, but being a pedophile is separate distinction than being gay, they arn't really at all associated or have anything to do with my original post.

That's like me saying we should embrace Men in the movement, but stipulating we shouldn't tolerate Men Rapist... well of course

Of course you didn’t “embrace pedophiles” (ewww!). And you are basically correct. But there is a difference between confusing men with men-rapists and confusing members of LGBTs with pedophiles. Men-rapists make no attempt to insert themselves (no pun intended) into any legitimate respectable minority, whereas pedophiles notoriously include themselves into the LGBT grouping. This is the only reason I pointed it out. Even though it virtually never goes mentioned without contention, I thought it was worth noting.

Brooklyn Red Leg
07-03-2010, 11:55 AM
I never said anything about embracing pedophiles, I understand what your saying, but being a pedophile is separate distinction than being gay

Not to derail, but I think the biggest issue is the fact that the government has mangled the definition of pedophile (which is someone who is sexually attracted to a pre-pubescent) with the evolutionarily normal ephebophile (someone who is sexually attracted to a young/small pubescent adult). Its this mangling of pedophilia that has caused severe problems and leads many people to the erroneous and stupid conclusions about gay males being largely predisposed to pedophilia.

BlackTerrel
07-03-2010, 02:12 PM
Also the Liberty movement needs to reach out to those with a fury fetish, people who enjoy golden showers and siblings who have sex with each other :rolleyes:

I understand that in a free society people have a right to live their life how they choose as long as they do not hurt others. I accept and agree with that.

But I want no part in what you are suggesting.

0zzy
07-03-2010, 03:05 PM
Also the Liberty movement needs to reach out to those with a fury fetish, people who enjoy golden showers and siblings who have sex with each other :rolleyes:

I understand that in a free society people have a right to live their life how they choose as long as they do not hurt others. I accept and agree with that.

But I want no part in what you are suggesting.

I see watchya did there.

NYgs23
07-03-2010, 03:13 PM
Also the Liberty movement needs to reach out to those with a fury fetish, people who enjoy golden showers and siblings who have sex with each other :rolleyes:

And what about heterosexuals? Surely the liberty movement shouldn't scandalize itself by associating with those disgusting heterosexuals.

james1906
07-03-2010, 03:16 PM
with a fury fetish, people who enjoy golden showers and siblings who have sex with each other

Just another regular Saturday night for Terrel.

idirtify
07-03-2010, 03:51 PM
Not to derail, but I think the biggest issue is the fact that the government has mangled the definition of pedophile (which is someone who is sexually attracted to a pre-pubescent) with the evolutionarily normal ephebophile (someone who is sexually attracted to a young/small pubescent adult). Its this mangling of pedophilia that has caused severe problems and leads many people to the erroneous and stupid conclusions about gay males being largely predisposed to pedophilia.

For now let’s delay the subject of exactly how the government mangles the definition of “pedophilia”, regarding all the types and degrees and nuances of the behavior, and get to the core of the matter. Once again, it all comes down to non-consensual aggression. Is an adult male who coaxes a 14-yo heterosexual boy into having a sex act initiating an act of aggression? Now before you answer whether this is truly “consensual” sex, understand that most of the time the long-term effects of this contact will be devastating for the otherwise-heterosexual boy who will acquire a permanent homosexual-pedophile preference that is similar to the adult’s.

So again, before you answer whether the scenario suggests non-consensual coercion, consider these two facts:
1) The adult uses his intimidating influence on the unsuspecting ignorance of the early adolescent to get sex.
2) The cause and effect of the sex are typically both rooted in the cycle-of-abuse, and show all the elements of victimization.

someperson
07-03-2010, 03:59 PM
How about we just drop all of the primitive labels and embrace individuals. It matters not what any given individual believes or does, as long as they do not aggress upon any other. Stop focusing on all of these media-manufactured micro-tribes and reach out to all individuals with ideas. Let the power of ideas connect us together, not labels, parties, or personalities.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-03-2010, 04:04 PM
For now let’s delay the subject of exactly how the government mangles the definition of “pedophilia”, regarding all the types and degrees and nuances of the behavior, and get to the core of the matter. Once again, it all comes down to non-consensual aggression. Is an adult male who coaxes a 14-yo heterosexual boy into having a sex act initiating an act of aggression? Now before you answer whether this is truly “consensual” sex, understand that most of the time the long-term effects of this contact will be devastating for the otherwise-heterosexual boy who will acquire a permanent homosexual-pedophile preference that is similar to the adult’s.

So again, before you answer whether the scenario suggests non-consensual coercion, consider these two facts:
1) The adult uses his intimidating influence on the unsuspecting ignorance of the early adolescent to get sex.
2) The cause and effect of the sex are typically both rooted in the cycle-of-abuse, and show all the elements of victimization.

I like how you frame the question, "who coaxes". It's so obvious you have rendered judgment by the entire framing of your hypothetical scenario.

Is it coaxing if I dangle a candy bar in front of a 10 year old and tell him for 89 cents he can have it? Is a 10 year old, old enough to consent to purchase a candy bar?

Are interactions between human beings anything other than persuasion and negotiation?

What happens to an individual between 14 and 16 or 18 (depending on where you live) that makes sex consensual?

What does it mean to consent and what is the evidence to demonstrate an individual has the ability to consent?

NYgs23
07-03-2010, 04:14 PM
How about we just drop all of the primitive labels and embrace individuals. It matters not what any given individual believes or does, as long as they do not aggress upon any other. Stop focusing on all of these media-manufactured micro-tribes and reach out to all individuals with ideas. Let the power of ideas connect us together, not labels, parties, or personalities.

I agree with you. I'm very traditionalistic in my personal sexual values, but I'm surprised at the level of ignorance and bigotry about sexual matters even on this very forum. Sexuality isn't something you can comfortably label; it's a unimaginably multi-dimensional matrix of psychological tendencies that vary from individual to individual. We don't try to divide people and stick them into cubbyholes based on their tastes in food ("the sweet-lovers are over here while the savory-lovers are over here"), so why do so with sexuality?

MelissaWV
07-03-2010, 04:52 PM
Also the Liberty movement needs to reach out to those with a fury fetish, people who enjoy golden showers and siblings who have sex with each other :rolleyes:

I understand that in a free society people have a right to live their life how they choose as long as they do not hurt others. I accept and agree with that.

But I want no part in what you are suggesting.

No, the movement needs to continue to project the message that people should be able to do what they want so long as it's all consensual. Perhaps someone wants no part in speaking to someone who engages in sodomy, but that's just defined as "abnormal sexual activity" for the purpose of many laws. This includes kinky things like oral sex, or having sex with the lights on, or pretty much anything but missionary-position vaginal intercourse. The people in this movement would be silly to start placing limitations along those lines on its participants.

I haven't asked you what you like to do in bed, and it's always so curious to me the number of people who care what I do in mine.

No one is trying to recruit you to become gay, or like pee-sex, or touch your sister, or whatever else. If you were weak enough to be swayed by some person on the internet telling you to do something, I doubt you'd be very helpful in spreading the message of freedom anyhow.

heavenlyboy34
07-03-2010, 06:08 PM
How about we just drop all of the primitive labels and embrace individuals. It matters not what any given individual believes or does, as long as they do not aggress upon any other. Stop focusing on all of these media-manufactured micro-tribes and reach out to all individuals with ideas. Let the power of ideas connect us together, not labels, parties, or personalities.

I'm all for that! Too bad the Constitutionalists and partisans don't agree. :(

Akus
07-03-2010, 07:43 PM
I sell Ron Paul to my gay friends by saying:

Ron Paul wants the Goverment out of your bedrooom and out of your wallet.

You can also tell your gay friends the new slogan for Ron Paul campaign:



RON PAUL

our doors are open for you (except for the back door)

idirtify
07-03-2010, 10:33 PM
I like how you frame the question, "who coaxes". It's so obvious you have rendered judgment by the entire framing of your hypothetical scenario.

Is it coaxing if I dangle a candy bar in front of a 10 year old and tell him for 89 cents he can have it? Is a 10 year old, old enough to consent to purchase a candy bar?

Are interactions between human beings anything other than persuasion and negotiation?

What happens to an individual between 14 and 16 or 18 (depending on where you live) that makes sex consensual?

What does it mean to consent and what is the evidence to demonstrate an individual has the ability to consent?

How is my scenario framed wrong? Are you saying that it’s too hypothetical (implying “unlikely”)? If you think I have misrepresented the situation, please specify how. What kind of unfair judgment do you think I have rendered?

Your comments/questions about persuasion and negotiation and consent really only present the issues which I previously addressed; they don’t really support your disagreement. But just to be thorough, let’s answer them:

“Are interactions between human beings anything other than persuasion and negotiation?”
Sadly, YES. Too many interactions consist of intimidation/fear, force, and aggression.

"What happens to an individual between 14 and 16 or 18 (depending on where you live) that makes sex consensual?"
It’s called many things, but the most common terms would be “development” / “growth” / “maturation”.

“What does it mean to consent and what is the evidence to demonstrate an individual has the ability to consent?”
Yes, that is certainly a large part of the issue. But since you disagree with my comments which directly address it, you apparently reject the standard criteria. So please explain and/or provide yours. OR if you are saying that no age is too young to “consent” (implying “legal consent for adult matters”), then please explain THAT.

And speaking of misrepresentation, let’s have a look at your scenario. How does dangling a candy bar in front of a 10 year old for 89 cents represent the average situation between him and a pedophile? If anything, it’s backwards. The pedophile is not trying to sell him something near as much as he is trying to get something from him. And what he is trying to get is worth just a bit more than 89 cents.

Allow me some liberty to amend your scenario: “Is it coaxing if I intimidate a 10-year old into GIVING me his most priceless personal possession? Is a 10 year old enough to consent to give away that which he knows virtually nothing about?”

Of course the obvious answer is: YES it is “coaxing”, and far worse. It is “coercion”, “intimidation”, and “aggression”.

BlackTerrel
07-04-2010, 01:43 AM
No, the movement needs to continue to project the message that people should be able to do what they want so long as it's all consensual. Perhaps someone wants no part in speaking to someone who engages in sodomy, but that's just defined as "abnormal sexual activity" for the purpose of many laws. This includes kinky things like oral sex, or having sex with the lights on, or pretty much anything but missionary-position vaginal intercourse. The people in this movement would be silly to start placing limitations along those lines on its participants.

I agree. We have more important things to worry about.


I haven't asked you what you like to do in bed, and it's always so curious to me the number of people who care what I do in mine.

I don't. I question why we would specifically seek to embrace gay people anymore than we should embrace people with a furry fetish.

payme_rick
07-04-2010, 08:34 AM
How about we just drop all of the primitive labels and embrace individuals. It matters not what any given individual believes or does, as long as they do not aggress upon any other. Stop focusing on all of these media-manufactured micro-tribes and reach out to all individuals with ideas. Let the power of ideas connect us together, not labels, parties, or personalities.

I agree for the most part, but the gay-rights movement etc... has tunnel vision... they're not worried about anything else, they're worried about themselves...

I'm not saying we need to put on "Gay is the Libertarian Way" seminars etc..., i'm just saying when we talk taxes, civil liberties, foreign policy etc... we need to speak to these guys too... anything from mentioning gay-marriage to just saying "government shouldn't be involved in marriage, I shouldn't need' a marriage license"... maybe a bulb will go off in some of their heads and think "hmmm, if the government isn't involved in marriage, than we win...

so far we're not catching their ear, they just keep helping to elect democrats and I'd rather them help to elect libertarians/TRUconservatives...

osan
07-04-2010, 09:20 AM
[/URL][URL]http://libertyisnow.blogspot.com/2010/07/lgbt-community-why-we-should-embrace.html (http://libertyisnow.blogspot.com/2010/07/lgbt-community-why-we-should-embrace.html)

Libertarians, (vis-a-vis LINOs) do embrace the ***** as well as all other weirdos and misfits and everyone else. That is part and parcel of our definition. The problem is that they generally fail to embrace us because they have fallen for the age old trick of toeing the evil line that promises them the things in which they hold an interest. As long as they get their special privileges, the *****s don't really give a shit about liberty or what anybody else wants. The problem is THEIRS, not ours - so you are really posing the wrong question. In the end and in this sense, most *****s are parasites just like all the other professional, full-time victims and will gleefully hand over their freedoms, and ours as well, if they can get a little payback upon those they perceive as being their vicitmizers. They can, therefore, go straight to hell as far as I am concerned.

catdd
07-04-2010, 09:24 AM
Don't use terms like "homophobia" if you really want me to consider your idea.

+1

osan
07-04-2010, 09:34 AM
The TRICK is how to keep the support of the (non-Neocon) Conservatives (bigger voting group) while trying to embrace the LGBT (minority) without having the Conservatives boycotting the Liberty Movement.

The LGBT Community is a huge liability and can destroy our chances of getting people elected.

Something to think about.

From the standpoint of pure pragmatic strategy, you are right one the money.

Consider what you are buying there. It isn't much.

I also believe that the libertarian cause is best served through attraction rather than promotion. The promotion mentality is flawed in its very fabric and should be abandoned in-toto. Attraction is the far better path and th eonly viable one, in fact. Attempting to convince those who are not on board presents the various temptations that inevitably derail every political movement - each temptation representing a form and degree of corruption. Pandering to the *****s (or anyone else) is one of them because it will inevitably drive someone to make the sorts of compromises that will be necessary to get buy-in from the group in question, which gets them only partly aboard in the very best case. That is the guarantee of death for any movement and history demonstrates this unequivocally.

Stay true to your principles of freedom and serve as examples to others without strident maneuvering. Either "they" will get it or they will not. We are not responsible for that part. If we attempt to take up that responsibility we will be committing suicide.

osan
07-04-2010, 09:35 AM
There needs to be two factions of the Libertarian Party:
The Liberal Libertarians and the Conservative Libertarians.

Why?

catdd
07-04-2010, 09:38 AM
I don't believe we should pander to the status quo in order to be accepted by them. They are never going to like us anyway.

osan
07-04-2010, 09:45 AM
The last time I embraced the LGBT community someone grabbed my ass.

OK, that one made me laugh.

Very nice.

osan
07-04-2010, 09:54 AM
I think I explained why there liberal in the article, or at least alluded to it, cause they feel they are the only people who understand.

In some cases this is no doubt true, but in most I would say it is not.

I've had lots of ***** friends and acquaintances over the past 40 years and while most of those have been good folks, I hold no illusions about where they stood politically. Most are of the "liberal" bent because that particular position says anything they do is OK, but the deeper issue is that of special privilege and of payback. Most of the ***** with whom I have been acquainted have expressed feelings of being a victim. Again, in some cases this is so, but they sought to paint all non-***** with the same brush and that is where their credibility washes away. Getting over and getting even is the oft unstated goal - the typical ghetto mindset, and I simply refuse to accept it as anything but unvarnished bullshit.

By and large they want something for nothing and they want payback to the heterosexuals, whom many ***** see as their tormentors. This is, of course, nothing different than that which many of them claim to have victimized them. It's all so very amateurishly transparent and boring, really. When and where the individuals of that ilk pop their heads out of their anuses, then I will consider there to be some basis from which we may talk. Until then, they can further wallow out said anuses by pounding salt up their asses.

MelissaWV
07-04-2010, 10:02 AM
In some cases this is no doubt true, but in most I would say it is not.

I've had lots of ***** friends and acquaintances over the past 40 years and while most of those have been good folks, I hold no illusions about where they stood politically. Most are of the "liberal" bent because that particular position says anything they do is OK, but the deeper issue is that of special privilege and of payback. Most of the ***** with whom I have been acquainted have expressed feelings of being a victim. Again, in some cases this is so, but they sought to paint all non-***** with the same brush and that is where their credibility washes away. Getting over and getting even is the oft unstated goal - the typical ghetto mindset, and I simply refuse to accept it as anything but unvarnished bullshit.

By and large they want something for nothing and they want payback to the heterosexuals, whom many ***** see as their tormentors. This is, of course, nothing different than that which many of them claim to have victimized them. It's all so very amateurishly transparent and boring, really. When and where the individuals of that ilk pop their heads out of their anuses, then I will consider there to be some basis from which we may talk. Until then, they can further wallow out said anuses by pounding salt up their asses.

As you hinted, though, this is far from unique to the LGBT community. The majority of Americans are scared to lose Government. The mention of losing benefits and "programs" and all that lovely stuff tends to send them spinning. To the right, the idea of a scaled-back military and the loss of all these market-manipulating regulations is scary. To the left, the lack of funding for social programs and the legislation of inclusion is terrifying.

This is why merely getting out the message should be enough to attract people, and we shouldn't worry about our demographics as a movement, or target a specific group. We should each target the people we know and can reach on a daily basis. If we are to start pandering, and we're going to depend upon (for example) osan to recruit "blacks" out of WV, BlackTerrel to recruit LGBTs, and SelfTaught to recruit women, we are going to be here a long time waiting for new recruits. That is time and effort that could have been spent merely getting ANYONE to listen to the real problems this country faces, and the potential solutions.

osan
07-04-2010, 10:07 AM
That's not the point I'm trying to make, the point I'm trying to make is that if you don't want people clamoring for government action, methods such tolerance would actually prevent government intervention.

Methinks you may have misread his words. He said "acceptance", not "tolerance".

If my neighbor is an asshole by my judgment, I should tolerate him because that is the right thing to do, all else equal. But should I accept what he does? No, for then I would be dictating to myself to act as an asshole, by whatever standard is being applied.

We must tolerate each others' ways - to a point. We need not accept any of it, however. I tolerate the ***** lifestyle because it is the right of the ***** to be that way so long as they do not interfere with the lives of others, uninvited. If a ***** started in on my 14 year old son, I would have something to say about that because my boy should be able to choose according to his nature and not the biasing influences of another. IOW, I would not accept that lifestyle as an imposition on an impressionable child - ANYBODY'S child.

osan
07-04-2010, 10:16 AM
I don't believe we should pander to the status quo in order to be accepted by them. They are never going to like us anyway.

Well put.

AlexMerced
07-04-2010, 10:59 AM
I agree it's not unique to homosexuals, in the article I point out similar trends in feminism and civil rights, and I'm not saying anything about exception.

To those who do not care for homosexuals can keep fighting the fight in other communities, but the thing is I feel by focusing so much on right wing media and venues we're preaching to crowd we've already exausted.

Also, from personal experience there's a lot of people who'd easily be open to libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism but have been left cause of the false dichotomy presented by the media

that your either on the left or pro-war
that you are either left or anti-equality

and battling this false dichotomy seems to be the most important battle to me in hitting the next step of the game.

osan
07-04-2010, 03:27 PM
As you hinted, though, this is far from unique to the LGBT community.

Sadly, this is all too true. Many people (most?) know a "good" thing when they see it. Free this... free that... I'll take some! Sure - who cares when someone else is paying?


The majority of Americans are scared to lose Government.

Shit -scared, in fact. "What will we do?!!"


The mention of losing benefits and "programs" and all that lovely stuff tends to send them spinning.

something for nothing (or apparently nothing) is a hard act to beat with the voters. Just look at the Russians - Five years after the collapse of the Soviet Onion, people were ready to go back to Stalin so they could have their free, if moldy, bread.


To the right, the idea of a scaled-back military and the loss of all these market-manipulating regulations is scary. To the left, the lack of funding for social programs and the legislation of inclusion is terrifying.

Thus demonstrating how equally full of shit the "right" is with the "left".


If we are to start pandering, and we're going to depend upon (for example) osan to recruit "blacks" out of WV, BlackTerrel to recruit LGBTs, and SelfTaught to recruit women, we are going to be here a long time waiting for new recruits. That is time and effort that could have been spent merely getting ANYONE to listen to the real problems this country faces, and the potential solutions.

That is why I say forget the promotion aspect.

I was listening to someone on talk radio yesterday... Joe something or other... and he was speaking with the governor of TX about how the federal government is trying to "punish" Texas because it is successful - they apparently take significantly less federal money than other states and the feds have their undies in a bunch over it. I can believe it, because TX is showing the rest of the nation that the feds are not needed, a lesson the central government cannot tolerate. One of the best methods for showing people the virtue of our way is to have even ONE state shine where all the rest are in "austerity" mode. That is why I support the Freestaters and am in fact one myself, even though I cannot afford to move to NH... yet. TX seems to be telling the feds to pound salt - a great thing, but one can only wonder what the feds will cook up to thwart them. Fortunately, Texas is plenty large enough to be a nation of its own, both in size, population, and resources. If they chose to secede, which I would only consider reasonable as a last resort, I wonder what the feds would do in response? Could you imagine Texas "nationalizing" all federal holdings? And remember that Pantex is located there as well, so they can make all the hydrogen bombs they want. :)

osan
07-04-2010, 03:34 PM
No, the movement needs to continue to project the message that people should be able to do what they want so long as it's all consensual.

Including playing Russian roulette.


Perhaps someone wants no part in speaking to someone who engages in sodomy, but that's just defined as "abnormal sexual activity" for the purpose of many laws. This includes kinky things like oral sex, or having sex with the lights on, or pretty much anything but missionary-position vaginal intercourse. The people in this movement would be silly to start placing limitations along those lines on its participants.

Dear GOD - not seX with the LIGHTS ON!! You'll see something DIRTY!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHH...


I haven't asked you what you like to do in bed, and it's always so curious to me the number of people who care what I do in mine.Oh, please do... I'll be happy to tell. ;)


If you were weak enough to be swayed by some person on the internet telling you to do something, I doubt you'd be very helpful in spreading the message of freedom anyhow.Good point, though I hold some reserve on this for children as they are often incapable of making such choices wisely for themselves. Granted there is a very gray area in terms of age-ability, but it does seem a prudent thing... but it's all a parent's choice in the end... though seX with 2 year olds seems wrong no matter how you slice that pie.

osan
07-04-2010, 03:41 PM
I agree with you. I'm very traditionalistic in my personal sexual values, but I'm surprised at the level of ignorance and bigotry about sexual matters even on this very forum. Sexuality isn't something you can comfortably label; it's a unimaginably multi-dimensional matrix of psychological tendencies that vary from individual to individual. We don't try to divide people and stick them into cubbyholes based on their tastes in food ("the sweet-lovers are over here while the savory-lovers are over here"), so why do so with sexuality?


I'm all for that! Too bad the Constitutionalists and partisans don't agree. :(

It's not just them. Consider all the religious nuts out there - and I'm not speaking of religious people, but of the parochial hypocrites who want liberty defined pursuant to their religious philosophy while denying the same for everyone else. Nothing leaves me slack-jawed more than someone such as many of the Christians I see yapping a mile a minute about "liberty" from one side of their mouth while espousing the jailing and execution of *****s, non-Christians, etc. I just cannot wrap my head around their ability to be THAT blindly and mindlessly STOOPID. I cannot imagine how their heads do not explode.

osan
07-04-2010, 03:49 PM
To those who do not care for homosexuals can keep fighting the fight in other communities, but the thing is I feel by focusing so much on right wing media and venues we're preaching to crowd we've already exausted[sic].

Figthing the fight? What fight? To get ***** to stop being what they are? Beyond talk, what can they do that will not violate the human rights of homosexuals?

osan
07-04-2010, 07:01 PM
Don't use terms like "homophobia" if you really want me to consider your idea.

Yeah, it is such PC schlock. Besides, it really means nothing, IMO.

MelissaWV
07-05-2010, 08:15 AM
Yeah, it is such PC schlock. Besides, it really means nothing, IMO.

Nah, there are real homophobes out there. Of course, it's a "thought crime" situation just like how there are real racists, and real misogynists. Once these people act, they are breaking other laws, and the forethought only enters into the matter of premeditation.

KurtBoyer25L
07-05-2010, 06:58 PM
It's very bad manners to introduce oneself with a flurry, but I am very happy about this thread even existing! and want to comment on a couple great ideas elucidated here by you guys.

I happen to be a sex-positive activist as well as a Ron Paul supporter, and my girlfriend is bisexual and a Ron Paul revolutionist as well. She also served in the Marines with others of alternative sexuality. So, we have had a lot of personal experience with these issues.

All I can say about Live Free or Die's comments & questions is BRAVO SIR. You are challenging the culture of hateful fear-mongering and non-reason that surrounds the issue of sexual rights of teenagers, especially teens in sexual minorities. It is really sad sometimes to read online remarks (from posters who otherwise seem like decent folks) about legal sex cases involving very gray areas, say the statutory "rape" of a (consenting) 16 year old by a person in their 20s. Of course, this usually just means two people fell in love & were arrested for it. But the comments from the public are so vicious and inhuman -- "they should be sent to prison and raped every day for 40 years and then killed" and so on. This is considered a normal, natural sensibility and moral-ethical view. If you try to stand up against the mob you are labeled a "sick pedophile" or "perverted Sodomite" (why do fascist bible-thumpers capitalize all of their insults?) and it is really very disheartening, especially considering that Elvis Presley, Alexander and Plato are all guilty of the same sexual crimes (or "worse") -- and under the Perfect Capitalized Moral State of John Q. America in current times, these men would be sentenced to a lifetime of torture & rape in a prison somewhere. I also give props to the poster you were debating with -- I disagree with his stances but appreciate his calm reasoning and willingness to actually think; in a typical public discussion your questions about sex, and people, are thought-crimes, and are responded to with libelous, violent hatred. It is always awesome to find an oasis of reason and benevolence among peers -- such as this forum, and your posts.

Melissa, kudos to your comments as well.

Now, to make a few less personal remarks --

We can observe a lot of Ron Paul supporters and lowercase-L libertarians engaging in classic double-talk about gay rights. "I have no problem with *****s, they can go about their *****in' ways as long as they don't get around my son and brainwash him into their *****ness." Are you kidding? How are gay people supposed to believe we respect them if you a) substitute demonizing slurs for value-neutral words at every chance, and b) throw in a good dose of "the evil others" paranoia and superstition about our helpless youths being possessed and corrupted? How does it feel when people say things about Ron Paulites, like..."I don't mind them though they're all crazy anyway, they're nice enough folks but I don't want my kids influenced by their batty conspiracy theories." Same church, different pew.

There are damn good reasons for the LGBT community to vote Ron Paul in 2012. Look at our stances on censorship, on social and civil liberties, on drugs, on freedom of association. Our support from the counterculture will take off like wildfire if we can clarify, and pacify, our message. Ron Paul is a greater friend to the counterculture than all pseudoliberal corporate Democrats put together -- those who use sexual and social "tolerance" as a political tool and a means of expanding the government. Listen to the good doctor. The freedom message does, indeed, bring people together. If we can deliver a message of *true* respect and benevolence to our liberal-activist and alternatively sexual citizens, rather than "you *****s are okay by us, we'll wall you up on whatever island you wanna live on," we can get a LOT of new people on our side in 2012. And if you don't think we need everyone we can get to vote for Ron Paul, I think maybe the Ash trees are blocking your view of the forest fire.

Sorry for the length. I'll make my next post a Haiku, or something.

speciallyblend
07-05-2010, 07:08 PM
welcome kurtboyer. I totally agree with you! I have always been amazed at the folks that say being gay is a choice?? My argument for them is if being gay is a choice ? Then they(straight folks) are bi-sexual really and choose to be straight! makes sense in my head;) I have never truly figured out why people even care if someone is gay or not. really no ones business who a person likes or dislikes male or female!!! the big hurdle is getting the gop to practice what they say they preach!!

KurtBoyer25L
07-05-2010, 07:29 PM
Aw, thanks SB, for the welcome and for the good word.:-) I am absolutely with you!!

Also, about the "being gay is a choice" bromide, would you agree that crap is based on a false premise anyway? If being gay is a choice...and it definitely can be...how exactly does this make it bad? Is the premise that sex is good if it's just blindly following instinct, but bad if you choose, for reasons, the person/s you're having it with?

Vessol
07-05-2010, 07:34 PM
My only issue with the LBGT community is that they are taking the same path as the Civil Rights community in the 60's. They don't want to end government's role in our private lives, they just want to change it to their favor.

KurtBoyer25L
07-05-2010, 07:46 PM
Cheers V. I think the thing to consider is that the "LGBT community" is made up of all individuals. There is no one type of sexual-minority individual who feels only one type of way about all politics. The LGBT kids I mentioned that I know from the Marines, for instance (none of them are transgender but "LBG" seemed a bit silly) are mostly historians and civil libertarians who love the Pauls. Another example, there are many, many lesbians in NORML who tend to understand a lot about having one's civil liberties violated, and who might be willing to fight hard to elect a President who would stop it. Just a few more thoughts. It's time for me to read and learn from you guys.

someperson
07-05-2010, 07:58 PM
Welcome to the forum, Kurt :)

speciallyblend
07-05-2010, 09:41 PM
Aw, thanks SB, for the welcome and for the good word.:-) I am absolutely with you!!

Also, about the "being gay is a choice" bromide, would you agree that crap is based on a false premise anyway? If being gay is a choice...and it definitely can be...how exactly does this make it bad? Is the premise that sex is good if it's just blindly following instinct, but bad if you choose, for reasons, the person/s you're having it with?

agree!

MelissaWV
07-06-2010, 07:08 AM
My only issue with the LBGT community is that they are taking the same path as the Civil Rights community in the 60's. They don't want to end government's role in our private lives, they just want to change it to their favor.

This is where things get murky, and I think it's a deliberate murkiness.

In a way, your parallel is very spot on; it's your terminology which stinks a bit. :p

It's not the community itself taking any path (the community is merely a loose collection of people defined by the community's name). There are, within communities, "Rights" groups that go crazy fighting for "rights." They are seldom battling for human rights that would impact everyone, and that's a very human reaction. Who wants to simultaneously fight for their own rights, AND the rights of their enemies? Some of us do, but most people don't like that idea.

These "Rights" groups have existed all over the place, but they inevitably succeed at their biggest goals... and are left looking for smaller and smaller ones that they must make seem bigger, and they recruit Government into the equation at every turn.

Look at something like "Women's Rights" as a prime example. Once upon a time, women could not vote, were nearly always in a bad position in a divorce, seldom had any money of their own (even inheretence was often given to a couple rather than just the daughter), and were generally glorified baby factories while simultaneously boosting the status of their husbands. Well, at some point, choices were attained. That should have been enough, but it isn't! Now we are at "equal pay for equal work" and still mired in Affirmative Action. If there aren't precisely the right number of women to make something proportional, someone will cry discrimination. Housewives are frowned upon by those same "Womens Rights" champions. There are clauses and proposals in legislation that force businesses to work around women and whatever they wish to do, even up to and including breastfeeding at work.

Do all women feel this way? Of course not. The "Female Community" isn't behind this. It's a select group of people who make a living at complaining and drawing attention to themselves. The NAACP froths at the mouth when a crime might be racially-motivated, but then covers it up and says it's such a shame that we haven't moved past this as a nation. Right. If we move past it, they won't have jobs, and they'd be bored :p La Raza? There could be blanket amnesty tomorrow and reparations for any Mexican who's ever suffered even being looked at wrong by someone... and La Raza would still want more.

These "Rights" groups are just "Pro-Government" groups, but let's not confuse these very vocal segments of the communities with the communities at large :)

osan
07-06-2010, 08:14 AM
...I think the thing to consider is that the "LGBT community" is made up of all individuals. There is no one type of sexual-minority individual who feels only one type of way about all politics.

HELLO.

Well stated. It is a strong cognitive reflex in humans to classify broadly. It is part of our survival toolkit. Unfortunately, it gets in the way at times.

idirtify
07-06-2010, 12:08 PM
It is really sad sometimes to read online remarks (from posters who otherwise seem like decent folks) about legal sex cases involving very gray areas, say the statutory "rape" of a (consenting) 16 year old by a person in their 20s. Of course, this usually just means two people fell in love & were arrested for it. But the comments from the public are so vicious and inhuman -- "they should be sent to prison and raped every day for 40 years and then killed" and so on. This is considered a normal, natural sensibility and moral-ethical view. If you try to stand up against the mob you are labeled a "sick pedophile"

Since I was obviously not talking about that, surely you were not alluding to my posts. But in case you were:

Since you specified an age-range (16/20) that is acceptable to you, please continue by specifying an unacceptable “age-of-consent”.

What about a 14-yo male and a 25-yo male?
What about a 13-yo male and a 25-yo male?
What about a 12-yo male and a 25-yo male?
What about a 11-yo male and a 25-yo male?
What about a 10-yo male and a 25-yo male?
What about a 14-yo male and a 26-yo male?
What about a 14-yo male and a 27-yo male?
What about a 14-yo male and a 28-yo male?
What about a 14-yo male and a 29-yo male?
What about a 14-yo male and a 30-yo male?
What about a 10-yo male and a 30-yo male?

KurtBoyer25L
07-06-2010, 02:41 PM
Hello Osan! Thanks kindly.

Dirt, firstly I didn't mean to make this the "age of consent" or "youth rights" thread, I'm sure its poster prefers that it be about our gay, lesbian & bisexual friends, as intended. And I wasn't referring to your post specifically, but rather making a point about our culture's bloodthirsty mob mentality when faced with knowledge of certain relationships that fall out of the mainstream traditions. Let's not forget that a hundred years ago, even fifty years ago, a black guy could be arrested for seeing a white chick. Youth sexual rights now are in about the same place Afro-American sexual rights were when Jack Johnson was lynched out of his career on a Mann act.

To answer your question, I honestly don't know. You are referring to numbers and not to people. People have relationships. Also, questions like this place an imposition on the person answering, because we're presuming that the individual (or community) has the right to regulate/persecute the sex lives of others. So I don't think I can make choices for other people, but if I'm going to play God here for a moment I guess my rule of thumb would be that relationships are always okay, but sex is sometimes not so. The adolescent has to suggest the relationship, should have other experience w/ attractions and being homosexually oriented, and he should be physically ready/easily able to have sex or do whatever fooling around that occurs. So, we can see by these guidelines that MOST 14 yr. olds should not be doing it, but there are surely a significant # of exceptions. Certainly any 10 yr. old, no, but then he shouldn't be taught that his feelings are bad if he has homosexual or any romantic attractions. I know a guy who did the 25/13 one (with a girl) and they are still happily involved 7 years later.

I do think the slippery-slope model is very useful, though, in a discussion of our cultural war vs. nontraditional sex and companionship. Why is it that a guy can have a relationship with a teenager & be publicly disgraced, jailed, raped, while throngs cheer and throw stones at him -- yet have the same exact relationship with a slightly older teenager and only cause small whispers of disapproval? More egregiously, the first relationship can be the GOOD one, with good feelings involved, and the guy still gets it...while it's reasonably okay to be disgustingly physical with an 18/19/20 yr. old stripper, prostitute, etc (if they catch you, just apologize on the Tonight Show). So it's very important to show these hypothetical age/race/gender models around to the people who defend the "logic" behind our fascist sex laws.

YumYum
07-06-2010, 02:54 PM
There needs to be two factions of the Libertarian Party:
The Liberal Libertarians and the Conservative Libertarians.

I like "Leftest Libertarians" rather than "Liberal libertarians". Liberals are hypocrites and flip-flop on issues, just like Hillary did on abortion. "Leftists" are also "activists", they practice what they preach, and they would die before selling out their principles. I love leftists; can't stand liberals.

idirtify
07-08-2010, 10:50 PM
Hello Osan! Thanks kindly.

Dirt, firstly I didn't mean to make this the "age of consent" or "youth rights" thread, I'm sure its poster prefers that it be about our gay, lesbian & bisexual friends, as intended. And I wasn't referring to your post specifically, but rather making a point about our culture's bloodthirsty mob mentality when faced with knowledge of certain relationships that fall out of the mainstream traditions. Let's not forget that a hundred years ago, even fifty years ago, a black guy could be arrested for seeing a white chick. Youth sexual rights now are in about the same place Afro-American sexual rights were when Jack Johnson was lynched out of his career on a Mann act.

To answer your question, I honestly don't know. You are referring to numbers and not to people. People have relationships. Also, questions like this place an imposition on the person answering, because we're presuming that the individual (or community) has the right to regulate/persecute the sex lives of others. So I don't think I can make choices for other people, but if I'm going to play God here for a moment I guess my rule of thumb would be that relationships are always okay, but sex is sometimes not so. The adolescent has to suggest the relationship, should have other experience w/ attractions and being homosexually oriented, and he should be physically ready/easily able to have sex or do whatever fooling around that occurs. So, we can see by these guidelines that MOST 14 yr. olds should not be doing it, but there are surely a significant # of exceptions. Certainly any 10 yr. old, no, but then he shouldn't be taught that his feelings are bad if he has homosexual or any romantic attractions. I know a guy who did the 25/13 one (with a girl) and they are still happily involved 7 years later.

I do think the slippery-slope model is very useful, though, in a discussion of our cultural war vs. nontraditional sex and companionship. Why is it that a guy can have a relationship with a teenager & be publicly disgraced, jailed, raped, while throngs cheer and throw stones at him -- yet have the same exact relationship with a slightly older teenager and only cause small whispers of disapproval? More egregiously, the first relationship can be the GOOD one, with good feelings involved, and the guy still gets it...while it's reasonably okay to be disgustingly physical with an 18/19/20 yr. old stripper, prostitute, etc (if they catch you, just apologize on the Tonight Show). So it's very important to show these hypothetical age/race/gender models around to the people who defend the "logic" behind our fascist sex laws.

Since you refuse to give me an age range, then you can’t credibly criticize my use of the terms “pedophile” (the most common perception, which does NOT necessarily blame near-age teenagers) or “child”.

You seem intent on changing the argument into one over close-age-range relationships. Pedophilia is quite the opposite; not merely “nontraditional relationships/sex”.

With the principle of legitimate consent in mind, your kind of “tolerance” implies quite the opposite. Your only criteria for making child sex OK with the adult is that the child be an “adolescent”, that he “suggests” the sex, is that he is “able to or do whatever fooling around that occurs”. Let’s just say that your standards are about as strict as telling a kid he can only have as much candy as he can ask for and can eat.

Take this example:
You walk up to a 12-yo and ask him if he wants to play Russian roulette and tell him that it’s really fun. If he consents, is it legitimate consent? If you give him the loaded gun, has he chosen freely? If you agree with me that this is not a case of legitimate consent, then you must concede that pedophile sex is rape. And rape is NOT merely “the sex lives of others”.

Or if you’d rather take THIS example:
A 12-yo asks you for a gun to play Russian roulette. You give him a loaded gun. Has he consented legitimately?

Or if you’d rather take THIS example:
A 12-yo asks you for as much candy as he can physically eat. You give it to him. Has he consented legitimately? Now let’s extend it. He eats it all and gets sick. Whose fault is it?

FYI, pedophiles notoriously defend their behavior by claiming that their victims wanted (“consented” / “suggested”) it.

Slutter McGee
07-08-2010, 10:53 PM
Politically, it would be stupid to purposely reach out to this community unless it is a factor in a certain political race. That is not to say that we lie about the more socially liberal views in our movement or attack them in anyway. Simply that economics is the issue right now, and we need to win elections.

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

White Knight
07-08-2010, 11:25 PM
I will never embrace them people. Does the Constitution Party have a website similar to this one? Because I'm getting tired of Libertarians on this issue, and loving a Communist like MLK too.

low preference guy
07-08-2010, 11:27 PM
I will never embrace them people. Does the Constitution Party have a website similar to this one? Because I'm getting tired of Libertarians on this issue, and loving a Communist like MLK too.

"Embracing" them seems kinda ridiculous. But what about not giving a damn about what they do in the privacy of their homes?

Slutter McGee
07-08-2010, 11:27 PM
I will never embrace them people. Does the Constitution Party have a website similar to this one? Because I'm getting tired of Libertarians on this issue, and loving a Communist like MLK too.

You don't have to agree with what they do. But hopefully you agree that the government shouldn't be in our bedrooms, regardless of your moral opinion.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

White Knight
07-08-2010, 11:48 PM
"Embracing" them seems kinda ridiculous. But what about not giving a damn about what they do in the privacy of their homes?


You don't have to agree with what they do. But hopefully you agree that the government shouldn't be in our bedrooms, regardless of your moral opinion.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I agree with you both. However, I do not support their right to marry the same sex. They already have the same rights as straight people. They can marry someone of the opposite sex.