The journey from there to here

That's it! I need a radio talk show. These bozos just aren't doing their job.

A perfect example was brought forth yesterday on Michael Medved's talk show. He was talking about the issue of whether or not discrimination against homosexuality should be a crime, actually an interesting debate. A caller called in and made a major misstatement that Medved should have been all over. He referred to discrimination that occurs against the "Race" of homosexuals. I was laughing so hard at that comment I thought I'd have to pull over to the side of the road for a second. But Medved didn't address the comment at all.

You see, for all the arguments you can advance regarding whether homosexuality is a choice or genetic (I believe it is a choice...but further believe that we, as a nation, were founded on the principle of the rights of individuals to make choices....even those we consider to be stupid, as long as those choices are made by consenting adults...but I digress), one thing that it cannot EVER be considered, is a race.

You see, the major defining feature of a "race" is the ability to make progeny organically. By its very definition, homosexuals are unable to produce offspring from their relationship (you'd think, if genetic, that somehow evolution would have "found a way"...but I digress). Sure they can adopt, and this is not a diatribe against homosexual adoption. But they cannot produce any offspring. That's not bigotry, folks, that's biology talking.

What concerned me the most about this statement being left unchallenged is its implications. If we begin to view homosexuals as a race, then we will begin to view attitudes against homosexual behaviour to be racism. And that, I believe, was the full intent of the caller, and precisely why he should have been corrected as soon as the comment left his mouth.

You see, while I defend fully the rights of homosexuals to live their lives as they see fit, despite my own STRONGLY held views against such behaviour, I equally defend the rights of myself and others to speak out about what we feel to be morally irresponsible and sinful behaviour. And not only does equating homosexuality with race potentially impact MY rights, but it also diminishes the blood of the thousands of abolitionists and civil rights leaders that was shed on the soil of our country over many, many years.

And THAT, my friends, is a crime against humanity.


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jan 11, 2006
I need a radio talk show. These bozos just aren't doing their job.

You'd be the new King of all Media, broadcasting and blogging from little Lefors. You'd put it on the map.

What concerned me the most about this statement being left unchallenged is its implications. If we begin to view homosexuals as a race, then we will begin to view attitudes against homosexual behaviour to be racism. And that, I believe, was the full intent of the caller, and precisely why he should have been corrected as soon as the comment left his mouth.

This caller belongs to the subset of humanity which I call "stupid".

And not only does equating homosexuality with race potentially impact MY rights

I honestly don't think we are in any danger of that. It's one thing to claim that homosexuality is a biological predisposition, but show me the biological evidence that homosexuals are somehow a unique and different species from the hetero. Other than an excellent sense of fashion and culinary taste...

(For the record, I am in your camp regarding the "origins" of homosexuality. We all have choices, and we cannot absolve ourselves of those choices by saying we were "born that way".)
on Jan 11, 2006

Could it be perhaps that the caller misspoke?  Or was he really just a parrot of the mantra that is fed into the sheep of his cause?  You got to wonder.

But I agree with your summation.  Trying to make every fight for justice a racial one, as each has its own merits and problems.  But equating all to race is to denigrate a very significant fight that has been going on for years and we are gradually winning.

on Jan 11, 2006
Well obviously the radio personality didn't take the caller to task because it wouldn't have been politically correct. ~rolls eyes~

I have seen countless media types avoid the subject all together for fear of reprisal. Reprisal by people who aren't even gay. When you have tv shows about it that are glamorized and put on prime time, it should come as no shock to see the rest of the media slowly follow.

Anyway, maybe you should think about making video tapes and airing them on your local cable access channel. Most people don't know that the station can't refuse your tape, or refuse to play it, as long as it falls under FCC rules and regs....however if they don't like it they could play it at 3am....hehe.

I worked for a cable access channel in college...we had to put everything on the air that someone brought in...our schedule though.

Something to think about.
on Jan 11, 2006
You know freedom only goes one way, and if a minority wants to be considered a different "race", only a bigoted white guy would argue against it. After all, "race" isn't a scientific classification, only a social one... right? ;~D
on Jan 11, 2006

After all, "race" isn't a scientific classification, only a social one... right? ;~D

Unfortunate but true!

on Jan 11, 2006
You see, the major defining feature of a "race" is the ability to make progeny organically. By its very definition, homosexuals are unable to produce offspring from their relationship (you'd think, if genetic, that somehow evolution would have "found a way"...but I digress). Sure they can adopt, and this is not a diatribe against homosexual adoption. But they cannot produce any offspring. That's not bigotry, folks, that's biology talking.


While the rest of what you're saying I broadly agree with, this is just wrong. It's not exactly difficult for a homosexual man or woman to have children, even without IVF. It's been happening for millenia. Enough stimulation and a man can do it; women don't even need that. So it's entirely possible there's a genetic cause, because for a very long time people have been expected to have children, regardless of their sexual persuasion. So if there is a gay gene, it's probably fairly widely spread.

They're still not a race, but it's not because they can't produce offspring. It might be more because they don't want to.
on Jan 11, 2006
If it's a race, then it's a very strange race that people can join or leave.
on Jan 12, 2006
So it's entirely possible there's a genetic cause, because for a very long time people have been expected to have children, regardless of their sexual persuasion. So if there is a gay gene, it's probably fairly widely spread.
...it's not because they can't produce offspring. It might be more because they don't want to.


If there was a "gay gene", which there isn't BTW, it would be a recessive gene that would have been evolved out in only a few generations. Because the strict homosexual would not be procreating. End of genetics.

And before you postulate a "bi gene"... now you're just splitting hairs.

If it's a race, then it's a very strange race that people can join or leave.

Exactly. I go back to what I said before: We all have choices, and we cannot absolve ourselves of those choices by saying we were "born that way".
on Jan 12, 2006

While the rest of what you're saying I broadly agree with, this is just wrong. It's not exactly difficult for a homosexual man or woman to have children, even without IVF. It's been happening for millenia. Enough stimulation and a man can do it; women don't even need that

NO, cacto...a homosexual man and woman CANNOT procreate within the context of their relationship....PERIOD. A man and a man can't make a baby, nor can a woman and a woman. They HAVE to make babies using an outside partner, even in the case of IVF (although it's possible that could change, if cloning ever becomes a viable possibility). There is no way offspring can come out of their relationship no matter how stimulated they are.

on Jan 12, 2006
While the rest of what you're saying I broadly agree with, this is just wrong. It's not exactly difficult for a homosexual man or woman to have children, even without IVF. It's been happening for millenia. Enough stimulation and a man can do it; women don't even need that. So it's entirely possible there's a genetic cause, because for a very long time people have been expected to have children, regardless of their sexual persuasion. So if there is a gay gene, it's probably fairly widely spread.


Yikes... Just in.... All those stupid physiology and biology classes I took fell on deaf ears. Grandma always said I was growing potato's in dem dar ears, she was right! I hate it, she's been gone for a long time, and she's still teaching me.
on Jan 12, 2006
Descrimination against homosexuality, yes, happens all the time, as we're all aware. But homosexuality as a race, no. Your summation is correct Gid.
on Jan 12, 2006
They HAVE to make babies using an outside partner


This is the crutch of my point. A gay man can have sex with a straight woman and a gay woman can have sex with a straight man, or with a gay man. They just won't enjoy it as much, if at all. It'll be lustless. Of course a gay couple they need an outside partner, but if history suggests anything it's that homosexuality has been repressed in favour of maintaining societal norms. So up til the 60s there haven't been many publically gay people. And most of the publically gay still had wives and children, which means if there is a gene they passed it on.

which there isn't BTW, it would be a recessive gene that would have been evolved out in only a few generations. Because the strict homosexual would not be procreating


Why do you assume they wouldn't procreate? Haven't you ever felt socially obliged to do something which doesn't exactly thrill you? Historically society has exerted a great deal more pressure on men and women to marry and have children. Then there's the sodomy laws which made it illegal to be gay publically. Of course anyone wishing to avoid years of hard labour or execution would maintain the pretence, even if it involved a lustless marriage.

Oh, and when did they establish that there isn't a gene at all? I haven't really kept up to date with genome projects. But still, even if there's no longer a scientific basis, and therefore I'm wrong, there's nothing about history to suggest it's not possible.

But if I'm wrong I hope my ignorance excuses my stupidity.
on Jan 12, 2006
Well, since "race" has nothing to do with reproduction, that whole part of the discussion is pretty much meaningless. "Species" would be the part of the Organization of Living Things that separates the "reproduceable" from the "non reproduceable". Of course, any two species can go through the motions.. ;~D
on Jan 12, 2006
Homosexuals are not a race but they are a segment of society just like handicapped people. Yes you are borne with it. If a self-proclaimed heterosexual can envision making a choice to fall in love with another man then he is bi-sexual or gay and just in denial. They are not heterosexual. Sure there are homosexuals out there that say they’ve converted and are now married to a woman even with a families. But they’re still thinking about the pool boy when they have sex with their wife. The majority eventually ends up in a relationship with another man or they just get to old to care about sex and are just growing old with a dear friend. They remain gay until the day they die.
on Jan 13, 2006
I have strong feelings about homosexuality: Let them do as they like but don't equate a homosexual with "natural life". What they do is not natural and never will be.
3 Pages1 2 3