Jump to content

I’m gay. And I want my kid to be gay, too.


Pong Messiah
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bah, I just want everybody who isn't crazy to have lots and lots and lots of guns. Surely a pipe dream, since the people most likely to want lots and lots of guns are crazy, but I will own it.

 

Sadly, I have used the term "gun rights" in a positive sense on this forum more than once. This is unfortunate, because i really don't believe in rights as a "thing." Even negative rights, which are by their nature easier to maintain, can be abrogated in moments.

the notion of "rights" is a mere term of entitlement, indicative of a claim for any possible desirable good, no matter how important or trivial, abstract or tangible, recent or ancient. It is merely an assertion of desire, and a declaration of intention to use the language of rights to acquire said desire.
In fact, since the program of social justice inevitably involves claims for government provision of goods, paid for through the efforts of others, the term actually refers to an intention to use force to acquire one's desires. Not to earn desirable goods by rational thought and action, production and voluntary exchange, but to go in there and forcibly take goods from those who can supply them!

I guess it would be more accurate to say I support gun entitlement.

 

:eek:

 

Also, sorry, but despising willfully ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest people != SJW. It ain't my fault that loads of people hide behind stupid and dishonest rationalizations for their dislike/discomfort when it come to homosexuality. I think you'll find that most of the people I dislike fall into the same "stubborn ignorance fueled by dishonest argument" category, regardless of whether they are a class of "protected people" by SJW standards or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

would i prefer my son to grow up to be straight? yes. but would i support him if he was gay and love him just the same? yes.

 

i don't necessarily have a problem with this woman's opinion. but i just find it a little hypocritical coming from this woman and her background. i can't help but believe that she would be writing an angry blog or news piece right this second if a married couple husband/wife had blogged and written an article about wishing their son/daughter were straight and not gay. i have no sources. i have no facts. but i've seen her a few times on cnn, and she's a hardcore advocate for LGBT.

This. Excellent Post.

 

That was the point I was making. I couldn't give two sh-ts if someone wants their kid to be gay. Parents want their kids to be all sorts of things, until they have a couple, grow out of that, realize they can't control some things, and get over it. But that being said, reading this article, I sniffed hypocrisy. I am well over 90% certain that if a straight person said something about wanting their kid to be straight, this person would be all up in their ass, probably making comparisons to them and Hitler or whatever.

 

Now Pong- you're not really one of those annoying, SJW, RC Allen type posters, but I suppose I sensed a bit of the same with you since there are a few issues you have SJW tendencies on, gay rights being one. I was hoping you'd be too smart for that nonsense and I found your posts to be fairly reasonable on this topic.

 

 

My opinion on this is simple- as I said, I couldn't give a rat's ass what someone wants their kid to be. But there's a difference between that and writing about it on the internet. Mommybloggers are seriously the worst. I really don't give a sh-t what the topic happens to be. We're talking about narcissistic attention whoring of the lowest level; writing about your kid(s) as if they were consumer products, talking about your experiences as if you're the first person in the history of humanity to go through child-raising. Do these people realize that eventually children grow up and they'll be able to search all this sh-t and read it on the internet? Teens already have enough angst towards their parents as it is.. why force them to go through a period of intense embarrassment as they learn they were, for years, the object of your vain musings in public for millions to see? Jesus Christ.. f-cking unbelievable.

 

Here's a message for mommybloggers everywhere- nobody gives a f-ck about your ugly little spawn.

 

I have to say this post was pretty f*cking awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, I have used the term "gun rights" in a positive sense on this forum more than once. This is unfortunate, because i really don't believe in rights as a "thing." Even negative rights, which are by their nature easier to maintain, can be abrogated in moments.

I don't think you're accurately describing yourself. In one of those classic LK MRA threads, I was making a point about how all rights activism, (and really most ideology in general) come from a point of entitlement, and from a strictly logical sense, there's no real distinguishing between groups, except what is popularly deemed "silly" or "acceptable" (gay rights being the latter, MRA being the former). Well in challenging you in that thread, you said some things about gay rights, that while- yes, you don't say the word "right," per se, it's pretty clear you're operating from the premise that at some point, homosexuals are entitled to some type of positive right:

 

Supposing an entire class of qualified people can't get a real job in some hypothetical redneck town because of bigotry, I say burn down the churches, lynch the bosses, and start over. An employer is welcome to privately hate gay people all they want, and is welcome not to have personal relationships with them if they choose. Allowing those private hang-ups create a class of permanently unemployed people fosters angry idle hands, puts an unfair strain on taxpayers, and creates stupid, artificial limitations on a community's skills and talents.

 

...

 

I think the enforcement of equal treatment become justified when systemic unequal treatment -- regardless of talent or qualification -- prevents a class of people from political representation, employment, and the hope of ever owning property.

 

I'm not saying your position is unreasonable. But I don't think you're accurately describing yourself either.

 

 

 

 

Also, sorry, but despising willfully ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest people != SJW.

I didn't say you were a SJW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carrie, for me, forcing people to behave civilly to one another or gtfo has little to do with anybody's "rights." It comes from a desire for a superior, smoother-running society. I couldn't care less if people hate each other; I do care if people's disdain for one another results in infantile tribal behavior and creates an underclass that cannot produce and participate to its potential. This isn't to say I have no sympathy for somebody who has been discriminated against because of factors outside their control (e.g. race, sexuality, gender, disability) -- I do -- but I don't think anybody is owed anything by society because others have been jerky to them. When major systemic inequality is present, rectifying it is a matter of creating a healthier, more efficient society, not assuaging anybody's tears or resentments.

 

I have this argument regarding medicine quite regularly. I support socialized medicine, and this too comes from a desire for a better, smoother running society -- anybody who tells me they have a "right" to health care can **** right off as I pinch the tubes on their government-issued oxygen tank. Breathe in those sweet rights now, baby!

 

I realize that from a practical standpoint, there may be little to no difference in end result between my vision and the type of person who can't get sexually aroused without thinking about "free stuff" for "the people" because it's "their right." But philosophically, there is pretty big difference between our points of origin. I find arguing about this to be exhausting, but I do, because I consider those people so childish, offensive, and dangerous.

 

I didn't say you were a SJW.

Yeah, you said I had "tendencies." Still stings. Ya gonna tell me I have a "tendency" to be pregnant after I put on 15 pounds next winter?

 

:no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said, Pong. I don't believe that any "right" exists in a state of nature or anything, but "rights" can be something that a polity agrees is a good thing to have and enforce within its jurisdiction, even if the concept of "rights" has become a misused fetish for a certain portion of the politically engaged population. This doesn't necessarily make one a "social justice warrior." And besides, I don't think that believing in "social justice" is necessarily a bad thing. I'm scathingly critical of the culture that exists in many social justice advocacy communities, but do not think that belief in or advocacy of "social justice" is, in of itself, a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the idea of "natural" or "god-given" rights makes me want to vomit just as much or more as positive (gimme stuff!) rights. Agreements between humans or other beings intelligent enough to understand and abide by and/or enforce them is the extent to which rights exist.

 

It never ceases to amuse me how the same people who talk about every difference between humans or groups of human beings as meaningless social constructs so often discuss "rights" as if they are these super amazing, tangible, immutable things that everybody is born with.

 

Regarding social justice itself, removed from its culture: I am definitely cool with the "opportunity" aspect of the social justice definition in a broad, "access to programs and protections" sense. When it comes to wealth and privilege... I'm a bit skeptical of both prescribed methods and intent. I view wealth and privilege redistribution (privilege redistribution? wtf) as a "cure worse than the disease" in most cases, and am not even a big fan of progressive income taxation. I don't think everybody is equal or born with an equal shot in life, and I'm fine with that. However, I recognize that after a certain threshold, high levels of systemic inequality in wealth and privilege create societal dysfunction, and I am not averse to corrective measures being taken by the state (better the state than the angry villagers). I have a sneaking suspicion people who support "social justice" have a much lower threshold for unacceptable "systemic inequality in wealth and privilege" than I do.

 

Totally with you that the actual culture is its worst aspect, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to wealth and privilege... I'm a bit skeptical of both prescribed methods and intent. I view wealth and privilege redistribution (privilege redistribution? wtf) as a "cure worse than the disease" in most cases, and am not even a big fan of progressive income taxation.

At some point, wealth redistribution and income assistance for the poor just ends up enabling whatever dysfunctional habits contribute to their poverty in the first place. More money for booze, smokes, binge shopping, fast food, etc etc. I'm for investment in training and opportunities for people who are willing and able to better themselves. But a lot of the poor simply have neither, and not always due to obvious barriers such as disability. There's a sort of grey area between full blown neurological pathology and normal function that a certain portion of the population fall into - the sort that send money to televangelists and so on. I see them in my job all the time.

 

I don't think everybody is equal or born with an equal shot in life, and I'm fine with that. However, I recognize that after a certain threshold, high levels of systemic inequality in wealth and privilege create societal dysfunction, and I am not averse to corrective measures being taken by the state (better the state than the angry villagers).

Agreed and well said.

 

I have a sneaking suspicion people who support "social justice" have a much lower threshold for unacceptable "systemic inequality in wealth and privilege" than I do.

And I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of the most obnoxious SJWs and feminist bloggers ultimately advocate for nothing other than their own publishing careers. Let's cut the pretense, shall we: the only "knapsack of privilege" these people have any real knowledge of is the one they carted around campus and kept their overpriced cultural studies textbooks in. Just read their stuff and ask yourself if this is what you're going to hear if you were to go to the ghetto, an Indian reservation, a maximum security prison, a battered women's shelter or rape crisis center?

 

Not bloody likely. Unless you were talking to some unpaid intern volunteering there, of course. But underprivileged people don't use words like "intersectionality." Undergraduates hoping to publish and maybe get on the tenure track, on the other hand ... Now I have no quarrel with academia and those who've had the opportunity to attend Ivy League or even State colleges. My point here isn't some populist, anti intellectual screed against the Ivory Tower. My point is that when people who HAVE had this opportunity condescendingly lecture people on their "privilege" - THAT is pretentious arrogance and hypocrisy sufficient to make a televangelist cringe. Most of their quarrels really boil down to a locking of antlers between master's degree egos. Which, as Sayre's Law so eloquently states, "is so vicious because the stakes are so low."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.