Well said, PD, and that is one of the reasons I profoundly disagree with what Lemmy said. Likewise, Gunnair, well said.
For the record, this is likely one of my last posts on the site anyways. Given I'm not going to stay around much longer, I'm probably going to stop holding back as much as I have been. A very small minority of my posts have been about this, so I'm not happy that this will likely be the last thing topic in my posting history, but so be it.
Lemmy, you are wrong on three counts. First, Bart clearly wants to discuss homosexuality. Second, this is a forum, not a blog. Third, if you are a student of Mill, then you know exactly what the duty is of any person with free speech.
Bart on homosexualityIf Bart didn't want to talk about homosexuals,
than he shouldn't interject and sprinkle homosexuality into so many of his comments.
He shouldn't post entire threads denouncing homosexuality. He should not constantly bemoan the growing gay population.
He doesn't want to talk about sex acts, fine. Neither do I. But he sure as hell wants to talk about the "
radical gay agenda."
He sure as hell wants to attack us or declare himself or people like him a victim. I'm not allowing it to become a one-way discussion, where Bart preaches rather than discusses his views. This is an internet forum, and I'm tired of this forum being more of a pulpit when he enters a thread.
If Bart was silent on the issue, and didn't keep on demeaning, attacking, or demanding answers from me or other posters on the topic (as he did in this very thread, quoted in my post, not a few up), then your commentary would have had a shadow of a point. As it is, all you ask is that those who are gay be silent while Bart continues to run rampant with his view across this site. I am challenging him because he ignores the other side while flooding the site with an anti-homosexual viewpoint. I am challenging him because he is actively ignoring discourse while posting in these threads, and I am challenging him because if I don't, people will equivocate away his activities and allow him to continue unheeded.
The biggest problem with your post? It's not about my preferences. It's not about explaining to you why I am what I am or my preferences. All the stuff you said we shouldn't discuss has never been discussed, or posted on, by myself or the majority of the other gay people on this site. To be frank, that's pretty stupid to talk about; we've only ever talked about it to the point of "yeah, it's not a choice," which Bart KEEPS pushing on us. When you have a man telling you that you are a part of a "radical agenda," that you are not worth the same rights, that you are psychologically imbalanced, that wants to segregate you out of society, that is what this is all about. The fact that I am gay is not at this point. The fact that people like me are being oppressed in the USA, and that we still face struggles in Canada, is a clear point of contention.
Finally, I'm not saying it is a defining characteristic. The fact is that he
wants it to be chased back into the closet. That homosexuality shouldn't be open. Seriously, what the fuck, Lemmy. If you are "not talking about chasing homosexuality back in the closet," then butt out, because that is exactly what Bart is talking about. He wants to limit what we do and what kind of life we lead compared to our heterosexual counterparts. In addition, I never described homosexuality as the defining characteristic of myself. I don't get why you thinking I have -- as I clearly pointed out, the only reason I've ever discussed it on this site is because Bart keeps attacking it. You've mentioned your wife (and the part about her being black, which is ironic, since you only mention it for the same reasons I mention being homosexual) more than I've mentioned my sexuality. But it's damn well a part of me, and I'm sick and tired of Bart posting what he does and running away whenever someone challenges him on it, just so he can parrot it again and again and again. You backed me when andyt did the same thing on economic matters; I am doing nothing here but discussing rights instead of economics. You're far from consistent on your stances there.
How many examples of Bart discussing homosexuality would you like? One of his dozen threads? One of his hundreds of posts? I can damn well force a confrontation because that is the only way you deal with ideological purists; you confront them. You demand them to enter discourse, you defend yourself in public. You fight back against the words being posted against you. Which brings me on to the second point of why what you said is wrong.
This is a forumNo one here gets to be free of criticism. When Bart goes after other people when he posts, they respond. When I debate with other people, I debate. Conversations happen. That's kind of what the entire concept of a forum is for. What you posted here demands two things entirely in contrast with the entire idea.
1) You don't want to hear about it? Click on another thread and leave.
2) I shouldn't try and force a conversation. Bart has made the threads, or the posts, or the references. I'm not allowed to defend myself and others like me? Fuck that. I'll damn well respond, and I'll call him on being wrong, on not responding, on denouncing gays and then running to another thread when called on it to do the exact same thing. I tried to be nice, but I'm really sick and tired of being silent and having Bart do this in each and every thread. I'm tired of reading a thread about the Middle East and reading a sneer from Bart about homosexuals. I'm tired of reading a thread about the Charter/Constitution and getting a comment about gays getting "special rights."
What Bart has been doing here is preaching, not discussing. I'm calling him on it. If he wants to keep on preaching, then I should get to keep on counter-posting. Nothing you've said explains why I should not. Indeed, it is more or less my duty to do so. Which brings me to point number three.
Mills was rightMill said that the only way to ensure rationality was through learning, and the only way for people to learn rationality is through discourse. How is rationality going to happen if no one chooses to engage in discourse?
One of the best things about discourse and debate is that you get the opportunity to hold your ideas over the fire and see whether they are bronzed or burned. It's the only way to change minds. The struggle for gay rights is far from over in the USA, and even in Canada we're still disadvantaged. I, frankly, don't care if you want to ignore that the struggle still exists or not. I'm not going to hold your hand and drag you through a Pride parade by defending myself here. There is still something to discuss. There is still need to make those changes. There is a need to confront and to challenge, and to do all the good things that freedom of speech actually gives us.
When Bart recently said he was "sufficiently convinced," it was in that thread about what a true Libertarian was. You might remember that, as you gave me accolades for it. He moved away from the topic, he refused to engage. How did that improve anything? How does that improve the site or the forum? How does your constant attacking of global warming skeptics any better, and how is that any different from me attacking deniers of homosexual rights? Why are you even bothering to post when you "think it's wrong of you to hound Bart into a discussion" he does not want, when "he doesn't want to talk about which" AGW stance he has or why?
As for "flaunting it," I'm not flaunting it by posting in this thread. If you didn't mean that for this thread, then that comment is a slam on homosexuals. I'm fighting Bart in yet another thread where he has actively attacked homosexuals. I'm sorry, is it now flaunting if I try to defend myself? I'm on record on this site saying that I think pride is over-sexualized, but I stand by the rest of what I said at the same time. That if what gays are doing is flaunting, then heterosexuals are the biggest queens ever. I see maybe one or two flamers going about their day a
week. I see men and women making out, holding hands, talking about fucking each other, and having commercials aimed at their preference all the time -- at least a two or three dozen times a day.
And frankly, if it takes that to make people notice the cause, then fine. Clearly, disinterest in civil rights have already begun to set in. Keeping up the pace stops us from being forgotten, the same thing women have to do to constantly fight to be considered equal (as an economist, you've seen those stats), the same thing minorities have to do, and so forth. I'm not going to stop commenting on gay marriage, any less than I would have stopped comment on interracial marriage. Something that really should hit home to you. Full stop.
It's not going to help us by remaining silent. Asking people to hush up is asking for the issue to go away, essentially as PD and Gunnair have been getting at. Silence gets people nothing. So no silence will be given until there is no need for anything but silence. Voicing issues should never be silenced in any free democracy; as a libertarian, you should recognize that. Since what I'm doing here is not flaunting, I view that rhetoric as irrelevant anyways, and a distraction from the original topic, and a distraction from why Bart should respond.
Forum Addict 
CKA Uber 
