The LGBT Community - Why We Should Embrace Them

[osan]

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.

$#@! -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 $#@! 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Welcome to the forum, Kurt

[speciallyblend]

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]

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.

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 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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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.