2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[kurai]

Seeing how my view on Sexuality is incredibly progressive, I doubt so, then again I believe I started out by saying that my view on Sexuality was extremely progressive.

You are actually presenting a viewpoint that is extremely regressive and offensive. This sort of equation is the same argument used to justify the criminalization of homosexuality in the first place - differing from heteronormativity as crime. The other sexualities you mention only remain justified as crime because they necessitate the removal of consent from sexual intercourse. This is why the equation is offensive. LGBT identity and action is not crime as it does not seek to remove consent.

Despite this, some states accept your contention and issue capital punishment for all manner of alternative sexualities without differentiating in this crucial manner. As I provided earlier, some of your examples do not even make sense, where states are typically more harsh on the LGBT than zoophiles...

Regardless, if you doubt that Rick Perry was as "progressive" as the approach you think you are taking, why do you insist on accepting and defending his characterization of human rights for LGBT as "special"? Either you are being intentionally disingenuous, or you have failed to connect your "progressive" interpretation of his remarks with their real world consequences (the remaining explanation is only the viciously heteronormative mandate for 'traditional values').

[Roy Karrde]

You are actually presenting a viewpoint that is extremely regressive and offensive.

Funny I was about to say the same about you.

This sort of equation is the same argument used to justify the criminalization of homosexuality in the first place - differing from heteronormativity as crime. The other sexualities you mention only remain justified as crime because they necessitate the removal of consent from sexual intercourse. This is why the equation is offensive. LGBT identity and action is not crime as it does not seek to remove consent.

You do realize as I have mentioned that those people can be demonized, ostracized, or even imprisoned with out ever actually engaging in sexual intercourse or even having any contact what so ever with another person. That is unless you believe drawn images suddenly should first give consent.

Despite this, some states accept your contention and issue capital punishment for all manner of alternative sexualities without differentiating in this crucial manner. As I provided earlier, some of your examples do not even make sense, where states are typically more harsh on the LGBT than zoophiles...

You seem to have become fairly ignorant of what I am saying, I will repeat it once. I am not saying that other sexualities outside of heterosexuality should be punished. But understood, helped within the manner that does not revolve around actual sexual acts.

Regardless, if you doubt that Rick Perry was as "progressive" as the approach you think you are taking, why do you insist on accepting and defending his characterization of human rights for LGBT as "special"? Either you are being intentionally disingenuous, or you have failed to connect your "progressive" interpretation of his remarks with their real world consequences (the remaining explanation is only the viciously heteronormative mandate for 'traditional values').

I am not accepting his view of it as special, I see it as special in the view of those who have other sexualities and remain on the outside looking in, just as I believe that transsexuals would see it as special if they were not given the same rights or treatment as Gays.

[kurai]

I am not accepting his view of it as special, I see it as special in the view of those who have other sexualities and remain on the outside looking in, just as I believe that transsexuals would see it as special if they were not given the same rights or treatment as Gays.

You have selected disingenuous naivete! Congratulations!

As you reject the concept introduced by Rick Perry, "special rights for gays", you can also set aside concerns over homosexuals receiving treatment above that of other sexualities - you provide confirmation that this is not what he means.

No one appears to be arguing against equal treatment for any alternative identity. Indeed, you write that "those people can be demonized, ostracized, or even imprisoned with out ever actually engaging in sexual intercourse or even having any contact what so ever with another person" - the same is true for your examples as is present in the group targeted by the original diplomatic policy (LGBT).

You might then ask, why not defend the pedophile's right to a fair trial? Such is not a systematic problem. This is a systematic problem. As such, it is being addressed by policy, the criticism of which (by Perry) you set out to defend from the offset, on which you now have wavered (you support it after your own reinterpretation).

Of course, the finest self-contradiction can be observed now that we have come full circle. Early on, you engaged the critique that "it is ignorant to take the video and try to peace[sic] it together with a quote to try and make the video any thing more than it is." You have extensively sought to make Rick Perry's remarks on "special rights" out to be more than they are (a plea for justice rather than horrible discrimination).

[Roy Karrde]

As you reject the concept introduced by Rick Perry, "special rights for gays", you can also set aside concerns over homosexuals receiving treatment above that of other sexualities - you provide confirmation that this is not what he means.

So people will not be arrested for viewing drawn images of children? They will not be fired at the mere suspicion that they are a Zoophilie or Pedophile? Great to hear.

No one appears to be arguing against equal treatment for any alternative identity. Indeed, you write that "those people can be demonized, ostracized, or even imprisoned with out ever actually engaging in sexual intercourse or even having any contact what so ever with another person" - the same is true for your examples as is present in the group targeted by the original diplomatic policy (LGBT).

And yet by and large the LGBT community has advanced in leaps and bounds over the last thirty years in their treatment, and their protection. Same cannot be said for others.

You might then ask, why not defend the pedophile's right to a fair trial? Such is not a systematic problem. This is a systematic problem. As such, it is being addressed by policy, the criticism of which (by Perry) you set out to defend from the offset, on which you now have wavered (you support it after your own reinterpretation).

Really that is not a systemic problem? Last time I checked 18 USC 1466A was still on the books and people were still imprisoned from it. How many Gays are currently imprisoned in the United States based on viewing Gay Porn?

I am not arguing that there are still places in the world that put out horrible Homosexual laws. However do not be ignorant enough to believe that the LGBT community has made large leaps and bounds in most if not all First World countries. While those with other Sexualities have not.

Of course, the finest self-contradiction can be observed now that we have come full circle. Early on, you engaged the critique that "it is ignorant to take the video and try to peace[sic] it together with a quote to try and make the video any thing more than it is." You have extensively sought to make Rick Perry's remarks on "special rights" out to be more than they are (a plea for justice rather than horrible discrimination).

I am not adopting it any where near the context Perry has. And so far you have provided no defense to the fact that those who have not had the luxury of being inside the LGBT bubble are still forced to live in the shadows and do not enjoy the Special Rights bestowed upon the LGBT community

Since you seem to not only be pathetically ignorant but also engage in personal attacks, I am going to act like the Mod here and step out until we do return to the Presidential Election discussion.