iQuestor wrote:
To be honest, i am not really all that offended, but wanted to make a point: Why is it not OK (read: not PC) to stereotype gay men as predators and whatever else heterosexuals who tolerate but dont accept that lifestyle choose to label them, but it is acceptable to broadly generalize southerners (And Alabamians in particular) as homophobes? Did I not get the memo on the double standard?
Excellent question. And I think the answer is staring us right in the face: the PC movement is largely liberal in its attempt to control behavior and speech and thought. While the PC movement is very concerned about stereotypes that hurt the feelings of people who vote similarly to themselves, it doesn't give a damn about stereotypes or intolerance towards groups which are largely conservative. The PC movement is just a passive-aggressive attack upon conservatives.
Marvin wrote:
Bloody hell, the chronicles, for the most part, are completely ASEXUAL! In real terms there are virtually no decisions made by any of the character's, or plot twists that occour, because of Covenant's sexual persuasion. So, change Joan for John, Linden for Luke and imagine that Roger was adopted and it's still the same friggin story-AND COVENANT IS STILL THE SAME MISERABLE, STOIC BLOKE HE ALWAYS WAS. If you think that someone's personality is determined by whether they fancy men or women you're living a pretty sheltered life. In fact, you're probably the type of person that thinks Will and Grace showcases absolutely everything gay people have to offer. Rolling Eyes
The Chronicles are certainly not asexual. The single most important character moment--the moment which haunts the rest of the series--is the rape of Lena. Covenant's healed impotence is a metaphor for his entire character progression: learning to let himself have human passion again (mirrored in Mhoram giving up the Oath of Peace). Would that action be different if Lena was a boy? Of course it would be. Elena wouldn't be in the story. This is NOT a inconsequential difference. Through Elena, Covenant is forced to confront his actions in terms of a living, breathing human. He is forced to confront his act of "possession" in terms which contradict his guilt: Elena loves him. Constantly throughout the 1st Chronicles, he is given forgiveness and respect when he thinks he doesn't deserve it. This situation would be impossible with a gay Covenant, precisely because reproduction--creating living consequences of your actions which transcend generations--has nothing to do with gay sex. Gay sex does not have this trans-generational consequence, so it would have been impossible to use it for such metaphorical intentions.
Who ever said that Will and Grace "showcases absolutely everything gay people have to offer"?? See, again, it's perfectly okay to stereotype and generalize people with whom you disagree. But as soon as I make a generalization you find offensive (i.e. that repulsion for gay sex is biological), I'm an ignorant homophobe who lives a "sheltered" life.
What you guys are doing is telling me that I
shouldn't have this opinion--not merely that the opinion is wrong. Not only are you saying that my
personal preference is incorrect (which you have no right to dictate), but you're saying that this opinion comes from living a "sheltered life." Your refusal to accept a biological explanation for my reaction is the exact argument technique that homophobes have used throughout history. They have told homosexuals that their orientation isn't genetic, but cultural. This is a classic technique used to denigrate a
type of person (as opposed to merely an idea or opinion)
whom you do not like. You're doing exactly what homophobes throughout the ages have done. Except now you feel that liberal society has "sanctified" your belief to the level that such
ad hominem judgmentalism is perfectly justified.
You guys can try to make me feel guilty for thinking sex with guys is gross all you want. My culpability isn't the issue--that's just an ad hominem diversion tactic. Your arguments are about
control, not reason. You're trying to control the way I feel by telling me I
shouldn't feel this way. It is just part of this "PC movement" I was talking about, where if you can't win an argument with reason, you try to redefine the issue into one of personal culpability. I think that if anyone's reactions are culturally influenced, it's
yours. You've bought into the notion that you must feel guilty for your natural, biological repulsion of man-on-man sex, and you've adjusted your language and beliefs according to what your political party expects of you. This type of thought control has zero effect on me, because I feel no guilt for perfectly normal, biological reactions. I do not let guilt or the judgment of strangers control my beliefs. What a silly, weak way to arrive at a world-view.
If you really believe that evolution could not make use of "biological repulsion" as a selective factor, then you've got to explain why this is impossible. It's such a strong behavioral motivator--in the area of our single most relevant evolutionary behavior: sex--that it's ridiculous to think that evolution wouldn't have taken advantage of it. That's like saying that evolution doesn't use sensations of pain in order to guide animals away from behaviors which can cause injury. Your PC dogma is nearly "religious" in its willingness to look past reason in order to enforce a purely
cultural interpretation of biology. Your dogma is based on how you think people
should act, rather than how it makes sense for people to act (in terms of evolution and natural selection) or, indeed, how people have acted throughout history. (It's not a coincidence that repulsion for gay sex appears all throughout history across every culture: it is a biological reaction which
transcends culture.) You think homosexuals
should be treated with respect, therefore you conclude, based upon nothing more than that moral judgment, that a repulsion towards gay sex cannot be biological in nature. Ridiculous. Biological facts are not decided based on how you think people
should behave.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
isolate group of nutcases living on an asteroid. 
Genetics have recently proved that there's no such thing as race...if TC were gay Mhoram would have been in a lot of trouble...and we all know about people trying to brand "Golden Boys" *cough Tom Cruise* as homosexuals...(Star, National Enquirer, WNW and various web sites) 
