A Polite Society According to a Liberal Cad – Censored at ordinary-gentlemen.com (read ordinary-cads)

I stumbled across this blog called “Ordinary Gentlemen,” which is curiously populated by its very opposite. At least one of the blog owners, a certain Dave, is a major cad. As such, he uses the blog to display how warped his views are regarding sexuality, and, if anyone questions his twisted mindset, then he gets nasty and vomits insults and incivility. In the name of a “polite” society, of course! Because for a cad, a violent sexuality pigsty is a polite society. Raging like a demented queen, he alternated between threatening to censor my comments and spewing his retarded insults. Not only that, when he first threatened to censor me, I pointed out he was acting no differently than a little ayatolah, you know the repressive, petty, ignorant kind, who hates debate and dissent. “But, but, acting like a cad and a retarded ayatolah is how people act in my brand of polite society!” Well, so much for liberal sexuality pigs and their polite society of cads.

As you can see below, his pitiful insults included calling me an attention whore, aside from “full of it,” etc. It takes a cad to call a woman a whore of any kind, but that’s Dave for you.

Anyhow, foreseeing that this very ordinary cad would move to delete my posts to avoid being embarrassed by having someone expose how invidious his views on sexuality are, I saved the exchange.

When I pressed Burt, the OP, for definitions of words he claimed to know a lot about, including “homosexuality,” he ran away as fast as he could. The funny thing here is that while Burt was running away from my questions, they accused me of not wanting to “engage” with them! In summary, the discussion went like this: they misinterpreted everything I said (like Burt claiming that I think “homosexuality is a mental illness like schizophrenia”). I explained that they did not understand what I said, because I don’t think that. I clarified what I think, and I asked them what they think (what do you mean by mental illness? mental health issue? homosexuality?). They ignored all my questions, they refused to define the meaning of key words that they were debating, and then asked me completely different questions. I pressed for an answer to my initial questions, including the definitions they were running away from; and they complained I was refusing to engage in the debate! So nothing more logical for Dave, the cad, to end it right there and throw out some more of his insults.

It was getting too embarrassing to admit they are too boorish to define words like “mental illness,” “homosexuality,” etc., and that there is nothing incorrect about stating that homosexuality is dysfunctional, perverted, or a result of a series of psychological problems. If they are forced to debate these questions and are proven wrong, there goes their argument that people who question their churlish homosexuality views have “animus” towards homosexuals – you know, the narrative. Running away from debating social conservatives is the only way they can maintain their own ignorance and bigotry firmly in place. There is nothing that a liberal hates more than people who are ethical and wholesome in the areas of sexuality and relationships.

The other clown was this “Cascadian” who thinks humans are clones when it comes to their minds and individual psychology. His grand claim is that his mind is an exact clone of everyone’s else’s! “If I haven’t turned bisexual, then this proves homosexuality is immutable”. Seriously, he thinks he’s intelligent with that one! Not just a little intelligent, but very intelligent, which is so funny. Plus the “you must be afraid of turning into a homosexual” bit. They don’t get tired of being so stupid, do they? And he couldn’t understand why I wouldn’t even respond to that level of stupidity! They can’t.

One more example that liberals are incompatible with ethics in every sphere of life.

It is unfortunate they ran away while we were still on the question of the definition of homosexuality, mental illness, mental health issue, and the etiology of homosexuality. Nothing that I wrote that they claim has been discredited ever has.

Another interesting point is that liberals like Dave like to portray the Westboro folks as some kind of extreme bogey men. Yet, there are many more, I mean literally millions more liberals who sexually harass, molest, abuse, spread STDs, and degrade children and adults in society, and who think homosexuality is normal, than the handful of Westboro folks. Reality is that the Westboro folks are a bit strident, true, but they are certainly not the destructive, violent pigs that so many liberals who normalize homosexuality are.

Who is making society a violent sexuality pigsty? It’s certainly much more people who think like Dave than the Westboro folks.

CENSORED at ordinary-gentlemen (read cads):

==============================

The Price Of Citizenship (Updated)

One of the “nightmare scenarios” invoked in the rear-guard action against same-sex marriage is that private businesses who refuse to participate in same-sex marriages will be subject to suit. This is not a bogeyman, it’s quite real. And the case that is usually either first or second on the list of examples of these “nightmare scenarios” just got affirmed today: the New Mexico Supreme Court today affirmed that businesses holding themselves out to the public are indeed subject to anti-discrimination laws. Whether it’s such a nightmare or if it’s really the right result? I have an opinion, but so do you.

I’m breaking down the whole case for you here. While I’ll not conceal my opinions as we go, my aim is to be more descriptive than prescriptive until a few comments towards the end.

(continued at their site)

==================================

Excerpt of comments:

  1. I simply do not understand how these cases can be framed as discrimination from a legal standpoint. The provider is refusing to provide service because they would be serving a destructive political and social agenda. These are freedom of conscience cases, much more than freedom of speech. The compelled speech is just the type of compelled behavior (working for people who are destroying society because of their political agenda). It’s no different than being asked to take photographs of a Neo-Nazi event and refusing.There is no such thing as equating “sexual orientation” to race (or any in-born physical characteristics), thus legislation that equate it to racial discrimination is empty of meaning. It is a fraudulent concept at its very root.This is just one more case that evidences that every piece of legislation regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation is a fraud and must be scrapped.Lastly, and the most important point in all of this, is that once you establish a “protected class” for whom different laws apply, you’ve clearly done away with equal protection before the law.http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/another-lawsuit-from-two-men-with-a-homosexual-problem-colorado-bakery-refused-wedding-cake/
    • I’d like to point out to some other commenters that Allesandra has articulated a point of view strongly and assertively disagreeing with the judicial opinion (and my own), without being in the least bit disagreeable in tone, word choice, or other modes of expression. Thank you very much for that.In substantive response, I’d suggest that there are times when cultural and economic realities make the theoretical equal standing before the law inherently inequal in practice. We rely on the political process to hash out when that occurs, and to provide an appropriate counter-balance; this has occurred in the form of anti-discrimination legislation authorizing corrective lawsuits for situations and reasons determined important enough by the legislatures.As to whether it is possible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or not, that’s an observational question of the positive law rather than a normative question of what the law ought to be. The legislature of New Mexico has deemed, perhaps arbitrarily, that sexual orientation is to be protected by anti-discrimination law the same way race is — the same way it can deem and has deemed, perhaps arbitrarily, what the maximum speed one may drive an automobile on a freeway is. You seem to concede that, as a normative issue, race is properly and appropriately the subject of this sort of protection but that sexual orientation is not. Can you identify a qualitative difference between these two personal attributes which forms the foundation for that conclusion?Your last point — the creation of a protected class itself challenges the notion of equal protection — is an interesting bit of formalism. But the availability of what are commonly called “reverse discrimination” causes of actions takes the air out of that point. If we’re going to say that, for instance, African-Americans are a protected class and employers or providers of public accommodations may not discriminate against African-Americans, we also say that employers or providers of public accommodations may not discriminate against Americans with fair skin and apparent European ancestry. So in fact all members of the public stand on equal footing: anyone who is discriminated against on the basis of race has access to a judicial remedy. While it may be the case that sexual orientation lawsuits are almost always brought by people who are other than heterosexual, there is nothing to prevent a heterosexual from saying that she too has been discriminated against because of her sexual orientation, given an appropriate set of facts which ought not be difficult for anyone to imagine. To my knowledge, the only protected class for which reverse discrimination suits are unavailable is in the realm of age discrimination. So if the claim is that as a formal, logical matter the availability of anti-discrimination lawsuits challenges the principle of equal protection, doesn’t the formal availability of a cause of action and resulting remedy satisfy the demands of equal protection?
    • So equality for gays is less compelling because it’s not an innate characteristic. Does this apply to Religion as well? Or, is there some special reason why religion should be protected even if it’s not a physical attribute? A little bit of “for me, not for thee”.
      • There is nothing that justifies compulsion regarding an ideology that normalizes homosexuality.To the extent that any religion is an ideology, why should religion be protected and other ideologies not be protected? That clearly violates equality before the law.Take this example of this Republican politician who walked into a restaurant owned by a liberal. Liberal owner recognized the politician and told him to leave. Because the liberal didn’t like the guy’s politics. Now if the same politician, who was also Catholic, walked into another restaurant and the restaurant owner didn’t like the Catholic religion, and told him to leave, why should the politician be able to sue in the first scenario against “discrimination,” but not in the second? Does that make sense? And if you force everyone to serve everyone for everything, one thing is sure, the society you live in has become a dictatorship. Just like Nazi Germany, you cold not refuse working with the Nazis.
      • As has been pointed out there are only a few states where Political affiliation is protected Religion is Federally protected, so we’ll have to get rid of that one before we can be consistent.Before I throw the gays under the bus, I must make one observation. I’ve gone from a fundamentalist Christian to a libertine pagan, from a Reagan Republican to Democrat to PaleoCon. No matter how I’ve tried, and trust me I’ve tried, I’ve failed utterly to become bi-sexual.
      • I don’t know how to tag replies. On my screen, I only get a “reply” link on the bottom of main comments, not replies to replies. How does that work?
        In any case, I didn’t see you write anything that addressed the points I made, so I can’t respond.
      • ” I didn’t see you write anything that addressed the points I made, so I can’t respond.”You argue that homosexuality can’t be a protected class because it is, according to you, not immutable. However, we already have a class like this… religion. So why can’t we discriminate against someone based on their religion if it’s not immutable?Second, people that argue that homosexuality is a choice must have a much stronger same sex attraction than I. No matter how hard I’ve tried, I’m still het. Maybe things would be different for you and that’s what you’re scared of.
      • crickets….
        [Cascadian is too stupid to realize that homosexuality is neither inborn nor a mere choice. I think it’s funny that while he is too stupid to realize he’s stating a false dichotomy, he thinks I wasn’t answering because I didn’t have an answer…]
  2. “You seem to concede that, as a normative issue, race is properly and appropriately the subject of this sort of protection but that sexual orientation is not. Can you identify a qualitative difference between these two personal attributes which forms the foundation for that conclusion?”If I understood your question correctly, here is my answer. There is no good reason for refusing service to a person because their skin color is different than yours. However, if a black person were holding a ceremony where they had sex with a dog and a white person refused to photograph it because of the type of sex involved, you cannot claim the white photographer is discriminating against them based on the color of their skin. This example highlights the difference between opposing color of skin and opposing a perverted psychology related to sexuality and relationships. In no way are these two things the same. Skin pigment does not equal a deformed psychology. Therefore, you cannot force a person to endorse a destructive and/or dysfunctional sexual practice and the ideology that normalizes it. This is why “sexual orientation” discrimination laws are similar to laws that compelled Germans to work for the Nazi regime. You could not refuse. “Sexual orientation discrimination” legislation compels people to serve a destructive agenda. Obviously this goes counter to the most core liberty principles that the United States was founded upon. If a citizen cannot be free to oppose an ideologically destructive group of people, and must be compelled by the State to serve them against their will, this citizen can be many things, but free is not one of them. Even with a less contentious example, it would be outrageous if a Republican could use the power of the State to force a fierce Democrat to provide any and all kinds of services they requested to further the Republican political agenda.Americans do not want to face how dysfunctional they are in the areas of sexuality and relationships, and they do not want to face that homosexuality and bisexuality are dysfunctional. No one is born with a homosexual problem and incapable of having a healthy heterosexual relationship. It is a major problem that people develop over time. Therefore, nothing good comes out of normalizing homosexuality. It is a lie to state that homosexuality is “just like heterosexuality” and it is a grave mistake to ignore all the psycho-social problems that generate the condition. Consequently, a conscientious and well-informed citizen should be perfectly free to oppose any homosexuality agenda that purports to lie about how deeply dysfunctional and perverted homosexuality is. Any action or event that normalizes homosexuality is something that every citizen should always have the freedom to oppose.If some people come to a professional photographer and request that the photographer shoot a porn session, the photographer should be free to refuse. The State cannot force them to work for the people who want porn simply because some people claim that porn is normal (even if the APA stomps its feet and says so) or because they claim everybody should be in favor of porn, otherwise it’s “discrimination.” It would be the same thing for the people with a homosexual problem.The State is particularly wrong in normalizing homosexuality and it is being tyrannical in compelling Elaine to serve a destructive group of people who clearly will not allow citizens to act according to their conscience. How can we say that a slave has freedom of conscience? Their fundamental rights have already been taken away from them.
    • Allesandra,While Burt appreciated the civility and tone in your first post here, I sensed that it concealed viewpoints that were far more objectionable than what you led on. I see you proved me right.This:However, if a black person were holding a ceremony where they had sex with a dog and a white person refused to photograph it because of the type of sex involved, you cannot claim the white photographer is discriminating against them based on the color of their skin. This example highlights the difference between opposing color of skin and opposing a perverted psychology related to sexuality and relationships. In no way are these two things the same. Skin pigment does not equal a deformed psychology. Therefore, you cannot force a person to endorse a destructive and/or dysfunctional sexual practice and the ideology that normalizes it. This is why “sexual orientation” discrimination laws are similar to laws that compelled Germans to work for the Nazi regime. http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/commenting-policyWe have a commenting policy here at the League and while we value civility, when that civility comes with a diatribe of the kinds of baseless assertions that have been so thoroughly debunked that the only purpose for their existence is to denigrate an entire group of people based on an individual’s animus toward said group, that’s where the line is drawn. There is nothing in the statement above that contributes meaningfully to this discussion. You are espousing viewpoints that have not only been thoroughly discredited, but your decision to bring bestiality into the discussion and equate it to homosexuality was in particularly poor taste and accomplishes nothing more than giving you a platform to espouse your viewpoint, a viewpoint that has less to do with the case and more to do with a world that has evolved far beyond your limited worldview.You’re more than welcome to comment on the case, but tone down the rhetoric. If I see more of it, I will start deleting comments. Some would call this political correctness. I call this having no tolerance for viewpoints that a polite society would not tolerate.
      • Dave,Why would an example involving any kind of dysfunctional sexuality constitute a diatribe?Are saying that only you can determine what is dysfunctional, perverted or harmful regarding sexuality? Are you saying that any time someone expresses another viewpoint about issues in sexuality, or debates you regarding your opinions, you will label that a “diatribe?” Are you saying that you will censor any discussion or any viewpoint that you do not understand or agree with? Apparently yes.If that’s your comment policy, I can’t do anything about it, because it’s like trying to start a discussion about the problems with Islam in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Repression will be swift.If I understood you correctly, you are saying that people who do not agree with your ideas about homosexuality cannot discuss any matter regarding the issue. I’m sorry, but that’s preposterous. And it shows not only a lack of civility on your part towards them, but most of all a most clear inability to sustain your viewpoints.I also dispute your claim about what has been discredited and I am pretty sure that most of your beliefs have no basis and are misinformed. But only a debate would allow me to show that.However, I think that a debate is what you don’t want most of all.“I call this having no tolerance for viewpoints that a polite society would not tolerate.”

        Thank heavens for repression of dissent; where would your “polite” society be without it? It’s clear to me that my viewpoints profoundly question your status quo and all the misinformation you’ve adopted. I’m also sure telling yourself that shutting down debate is all for the good of society makes you feel much better. It’s what every ayatolah says when they punish anyone who questions them too.

        If you can’t debate, you can always delete, right?

      • Allesandra, the portion of the comment policy Dave refers to is that which indicates that comments which are “repeatedly and overwhelmingly aimed towards denigrating certain groups,” the group in question being homosexuals. If I’m reading you right, you’re saying that homosexuality is, by definition, a mental health problem — an illness like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. A few pokes around your blog reveals that those who insist otherwise are in your estimation “stupid” and “ignorant,” although I appreciate your not using such language here. Saying that they are mentally ill, however, is not much better.I’m not going to convince you away from your insistence that “they aren’t really born that way” and I won’t try. I will point out for the benefit of other readers that such an attitude goes against a very substantial trend of scientific research going back to the very beginnings of psychology as a field of clinical and academic study. But to set up another question, let’s assume you’re right and all those people with Ph.D.’s, including the ones who write the standardized texts setting forth recognized mental disorders, who wrote homosexuality out of the realm of disorders from the standard texts forty years ago are simply wrong. If, arguendo, homosexuality is indeed a mental disability, then aren’t you advocating disability discrimination?
      • Did you notice that Alessandra has been banned at both First Things and TAC? That takes a “special” person to pull that off.
      • Author: Burt Likko said: Allesandra, the portion of the comment policy Dave refers to is that which indicates that comments which are “repeatedly and overwhelmingly aimed towards denigrating certain groups,” the group in question being homosexuals. If I’m reading you right, you’re saying that homosexuality is, by definition, a mental health problem — an illness like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
        ……………………………………….
        Homosexuality is much more than a mental health problem, because it involves ideology, culture, and society, but we can discuss the mental health part if you’d like. If you would like to read me right, it would be important to note that I didn’t say that homosexuality was an illness like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. In fact, you are the one who brought in the term mental illness, not me. To clarify, I don’t think homosexuality is a mental illness like schizophrenia.Let’s see if we agree on anything. How do you define illness in the context of mental illness? What characterizes a mental illness? Is a rapist in your view mentally ill? Is a person who engages in bestiality, or pedophilia, or a person who who wants to sexually harass another human? Is someone who cheats on their spouse mentally ill? How about someone who batters a partner? Is a person who gives sexually sleazy looks to another person of the same sex mentally ill? Is a person who enjoys beating another adult who consented to the practice mentally ill? Is someone who enjoys looking at people having sex with animals mentally ill? Is a person who wants to change sex mentally ill?
      • that’s all the more reason you should want to take the high road here.
        [The high road for a liberal is spitting out insults and moronic provocations – it’s the high road for a cad all right]
      • Why would an example involving any kind of dysfunctional sexuality constitute a diatribe?
        Irrelevant although I’ve never seen bigots attempt to tie homosexuality to bestiality and lump the two of them together in the same group of sick f–ks and do so saying “but we’re having a civil debate”. Nope. Not at all.
        [A cad preaching about what is sick and civility? Now that’s a joke, right there. ]
        Are saying that only you can determine what is dysfunctional, perverted or harmful regarding sexuality?
        No. I’m saying you are full of it.
        [the market place of insults of a cad!]Are you saying that any time someone expresses another viewpoint about issues in sexuality, or debates you regarding your opinions, you will label that a “diatribe?”

        No. I am saying that you are full of it.

        [more of the market place of ideas of a cad]

        Are you saying that you will censor any discussion or any viewpoint that you do not understand or agree with? Apparently yes.

        If someone like Professor Robert George asked to present his arguments in defense of opposite-sex marriage here at the League, I would be in favor of it even though I have read his most recent work and strongly disagree with it. I would also police the comments section to make sure people kept it civil. It’s not an easy job since I may have to tell a few people that I like to cool down the rhetoric, but I try not to be selective of who I go after.

        [A cad speaking about civility is ludicrous – if the rhetoric exposes more than a little his own stupidity, then it’s too hot, then the maligning must be put into full gear]

        We encourage disagreement, but we’re not going to ask members of the Westboro Baptist Church to share their views on same sex marriage. We have our limits.

        [Well, a liberal cad with no self-awareness criticizing the WBC for being what now? Uncivil? LOL]

        If that’s your comment policy, I can’t do anything about it…

        You can complain about it.

        because it’s like trying to start a discussion about the problems with Islam in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Repression will be swift.

        Always one step ahead of me.

        If I understood you correctly, you are saying that people who do not agree with your ideas about homosexuality cannot discuss any matter regarding the issue.

        You didn’t understand me correctly.

        [Yes, I did.]

        I’m sorry, but that’s preposterous.

        It would be if it was true, but it’s not.

        [Yes, it is.]

        I also dispute your claim about what has been discredited and I am pretty sure that most of your beliefs have no basis and are misinformed. But only a debate would allow me to show that.

        I call it like I see it. I can differentiate between people that show good faith concerns about same-sex marriage and people that take the Scott Lively view of the homosexual agenda. The latter deserves no place in civil discourse, and playing the victim card and claiming that your opponents are the intolerant ones won’t change that.

        [A cad talking about civil discourse! Because “good faith” is having the mind of a cad like Dave has. Having good faith means insulting people who don’t have his profoundly twisted views on homosexuality. The good faith of a liberal cad]

        However, I think that a debate is what you don’t want most of all.

        Is that the line you used before you were banned at TAC and First Things?

        [I was right. Didn’t take two minutes for Dave to shut down the debate because his “polite” society cannot tolerate dissent; the more dissenters show how ignorant and twisted his ideology is, the more he shouts “animus, animus!  Everyone must be stupid and perverted like me otherwise they are showing animus to homosexuals and I can behave like a cad because that’s a polite society” ]

        Thank heavens for repression of dissent…

        There is a difference between actual dissent and the marketplace of ideas determining that certain viewpoints are so obnoxious that they should likely be kept to one’s self.

        [Dave clearly fails to take his own advice. Here’s a cad with a mind full of obnoxious viewpoints that could quite clearly be much better kept to himself ]

        It’s clear to me that my viewpoints profoundly question your status quo and all the misinformation you’ve adopted. I’m also sure telling yourself that shutting down debate is all for the good of society makes you feel much better.

        No, I’m telling myself that your lack of self awareness is a source of comic relief for me.

        [The only thing Dave appears to be self aware of is that he’s too stupid to think intelligently about homosexuality – therefore the insults and the censorship of others ]

        It’s what every ayatolah says when they punish anyone who questions them too.

        I’m 5’5″. I prefer that my tyranny be referred to using Napoleonic references.

        If you can’t debate, you can always delete, right?

        Nice try.

        [Toldya]

      • if you are backing away from calling homosexuality “a perverted psychology related to sexuality and relationships” and “a deformed psychology” and “a destructive and/or dysfunctional sexual practice” and “homosexuality and bisexuality are dysfunctional” and “It [homosexuality] is a major problem that people develop over time” then I for one would applaud. I reject the notion that homosexuality is a mental health issue at all. It was your (repeated) use of words and phrases like that which led me to believe that you were calling homosexuality a mental health issue. I guess I misunderstood you and you’ll need to explain yourself again.Obviously, mental health issues have cultural and social dimensions to them. Mental health disorders often manifest in behavior not conforming to cultural and social norms. Not every deviation from a norm is a mental health issue, although some are (addressing your irrelevant laundry list of other kinds of behaviors).I also distinguish between homosexuality itself and a legal norm requiring a degree of tolerance of it, which you’ve allowed yourself to be pushed into a more extreme characterization as “the ideology that normalizes it,” and characterizing laws like Title VII and its state-level cognate as “similar to laws that compelled Germans to work for the Nazi regime.” This is actually a more interesting question to me than either 1) how homosexuality should be examined through the lenses of psychology, culture, crime, and history; and 2) whether homosexuality is an innate and immutable attribute of a person, akin to race, or a malleable facet of one’s identity substantially the product of individual socialization, akin to religion. (Both of which are given equal status by anti-discrimination law, a subject upon whichhas been trying, unsuccessfully, to engage you.)That’s why I tested your claim that the creation of anti-discrimination law inherently creates unequal classes and disrupts the principle of equal protection — you never answered my question about whether the potential for reverse discrimination claims redeems that. That’s why I asked you about disability discrimination — to the extent that homosexuality is a mental health issue (while you attempt to obscure your characterization of it as such behind purported cultural complexity, you also do not reject the postulate that it is a mental illness entirely) and therefore if discrimination against mentally ill people is not a form of disability discrimination, something that again you haven’t responded to.The time to tap dance is over. These are questions answerable by the phrases “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t know.”1. Does the availability of reverse discrimination suits redeem the legitimacy of anti-discrimination law?
        2. Should anti-discrimination laws protect only against discrimination based on immutable personal characteristics?
        3. Is homosexuality an immutable personal characteristic?
        4. Is religion an immutable personal characteristic?
        5. Can someone who is not mentally ill be homosexual?
      • Cascadian,I concur with Burt. There is no reason for this to go any further although I did laugh out loud at the straight guys with wide stances comment (lost a little coffee too).
        [Anyone who disagrees with an ignorant liberal must be silenced]
      • Burt Likko said:
        if you are backing away from calling homosexuality “a perverted psychology related to sexuality and relationships” and “a deformed psychology” and “a destructive and/or dysfunctional sexual practice” and “homosexuality and bisexuality are dysfunctional” and “It [homosexuality] is a major problem that people develop over time” then I for one would applaud.
        …………………..;I’m certainly not “backing away” from saying anything I have said before, because there is nothing wrong with it.What I am is clarifying what I said that you didn’t understand. You said you were assuming that I thought homosexuality is “a mental illness like schizophrenia”. I was clarifying that a) I have never said this, b) because I don’t think this. Second, I believe homosexuality is certainly a mental health issue, depending on how one defines the term, since homosexuality is produced by profound psycho-social problems.The term “mental illness,” however, is completely loaded and I think it is too easily associated with psychosis as a main aspect. If we are going to define the term “mental illness” as obligatorily having a major component of psychosis, then would it be correct to include homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.? No. Second, I also think that the term “mental illness” also usually designates conditions where a person has little control of the overall functioning of their mind or at least has major episodes of loss of control. In this sense, we could not call a series of perverted, harmful, and dysfunctional sexuality problems “mental illnesses,” even if a person who has a homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. problem can be profoundly dysfunctional and perverted in many ways.“I reject the notion that homosexuality is a mental health issue at all.”We are back at square one. I had asked you a series of questions about what you consider a mental illness. And you did not reply, and you also did not reply with a definition of mental illness – unless you are now claiming that “mental illness” is any time someone deviates from a norm? That’s ridiculous. And you have also not defined “mental health issue.”You have also not defined homosexuality, nor explained its etiology.So basically, when you say that you don’t think homosexuality is a mental illness, and you cannot define the term “mental illness,” “mental health issue,” or “homosexuality,” it’s impossible to know what you are claiming because you give no definitions to anything.

        You wrote: “Not every deviation from a norm is a mental health issue, although some are (addressing your irrelevant laundry list of other kinds of behaviors).”

        Given that I’m discussing problems related to a person’s psychology, I have no idea what you mean about an “irrelevant laundry list of other kinds of behaviors.” Psychological problems are inside the mind, behaviors are outside. And as long as you don’t define what is a “mental health issue,” your above statement makes no sense either.

      • And now we come to this. “You haven’t defined your terms! So that means I didn’t say what you just quoted me saying!” Trying to change definitions is a predictable dodge when words prove inconvenient. The insipid next step will be to complain that I haven’t done sufficient “epistemology” to coherently address the subject matter of our conversation.You seemed to have no trouble offering this statement without having either understood “my” definition of homosexuality or offered your own:

        Americans do not want to face how dysfunctional they are in the areas of sexuality and relationships, and they do not want to face that homosexuality and bisexuality are dysfunctional. No one is born with a homosexual problem and incapable of having a healthy heterosexual relationship. It is a major problem that people develop over time. Therefore, nothing good comes out of normalizing homosexuality. It is a lie to state that homosexuality is “just like heterosexuality” and it is a grave mistake to ignore all the psycho-social problems that generate the condition. Consequently, a conscientious and well-informed citizen should be perfectly free to oppose any homosexuality agenda that purports to lie about how deeply dysfunctional and perverted homosexuality is. Any action or event that normalizes homosexuality is something that every citizen should always have the freedom to oppose.

        If you don’t know what the word “homosexuality” means, that entire paragraph — indeed, nearly everything you’ve written in this thread — is nonsense.

        And you’ve only half-answered one of my questions (#5) — it’s a half-answer because you’ve obscured the clarity of your response behind a gossamer construct of no longer understanding the English language.

      • Author: Burt Likko wrote:
        And now we come to this. “You haven’t defined your terms! So that means I didn’t say what you just quoted me saying!” Trying to change definitions is a predictable dodge when words prove inconvenient.
        ………………………..;;
        I have no idea what you are referring to when you say “trying to change definitions is a predictable dodge”Are you changing definitions? Of which words?Burt wrote: You seemed to have no trouble offering this statement without having either understood “my” definition of homosexuality or offered your own:

        Americans do not want to face how dysfunctional they are in the areas of sexuality and relationships, and they do not want to face that homosexuality and bisexuality are dysfunctional. No one is born with a homosexual problem and incapable of having a healthy heterosexual relationship. It is a major problem that people develop over time. Therefore, nothing good comes out of normalizing homosexuality. It is a lie to state that homosexuality is “just like heterosexuality” and it is a grave mistake to ignore all the psycho-social problems that generate the condition. Consequently, a conscientious and well-informed citizen should be perfectly free to oppose any homosexuality agenda that purports to lie about how deeply dysfunctional and perverted homosexuality is. Any action or event that normalizes homosexuality is something that every citizen should always have the freedom to oppose.

        Burt said: “If you don’t know what the word “homosexuality” means, that entire paragraph — indeed, nearly everything you’ve written in this thread — is nonsense.”

        Somehow you are very confused. I asked you for a series of definitions, because I don’t know what you mean by these words. I know what I mean by homosexuality and I have just given you a very brief definition of mental illness.

        So far, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say “mental illness,” “mental health issue,” and “homosexuality,” because you refuse to define them.

        Can you define these words? Or are you saying that you define these words exactly as I do? If so, please tell me what is my definition of homosexuality, since, as I understand it, you claim to know what it is?

        [And then Burt ran away fast]

        • Cascadian
          August 26, 2013 at 1:43 pm
          Did you notice that Alessandra has been banned at both First Things and TAC? That takes a “special” person to pull that off.
          ……………
          hah! As if any of these sites wanted real debate… wherever there’s politics and money involved, the first thing that is squashed is debate. But, hey, right here is the proof that you want real debate and not to simply malign people who question you, right?
          Call them “special” and shut them now, it’s less embarrassing, for sure…
      1. For a person who wants debate, I’ve yet to see you agree that religion shouldn’t be protected or how you must view your own sexuality as mutable. You obviously have chosen to be straight, and I say good on you. I think straight guys with wide stances are interesting.
        [Cascadian seemed upset his trolling was working…]
      2. I asked: Why would an example involving any kind of dysfunctional sexuality constitute a diatribe?You, Dave, said: Irrelevant although I’ve never seen bigots attempt to tie homosexuality to bestiality and lump the two of them together in the same group of sick f–ks and do so saying “but we’re having a civil debate”. Nope. Not at all. In other words, you don’t accept that anyone disagrees with you on what is dysfunctional, perverted, or harmful. Any disagreement is, according to you, “incivility” and people should not have a right to debate you on these issues. You believe you have a duty to shut down people who question your notions of what is dysfunctional or perverted. It’s what you said you would do if I wrote any views that questioned yours.Don’t you find it interesting that your notion of “politeness” means absolute agreement with you on what is dysfunctional, perverted, or harmful in the sphere of sexuality and relationships? See, just like an ayatolah; they also think that anyone who disagrees with their beliefs is being a very bad person.I asked: “Are saying that only you can determine what is dysfunctional, perverted or harmful regarding sexuality?”You replied: “No. I’m saying you are full of it. ”I gather that this kind of uncivil reply is just more of your particular brand of “polite” society? How interesting that in your “polite” society, there is no debate, there is no civility, and you are incapable of discussing any issue raised.So far you have only proved me right – you have shown no basis for anything you claim.

      3. “There is no reason for this to go any further”. As long as your sure about that. Sorry about the coffee. At least it wasn’t beer.
        • LOL. It’s all good.I was enjoying the debate and the direction you were going. By the way, you need to learn how to choose the right way if you want to be gay. Just saying. 😉
          • The right way? The only thing I had a problem with was the kissing, the romantic connection side. Naughty and adventuresome I can do till the cows come home.
          • It wasn’t much of a debate. I’ve never actually seen anyone take the dilemma’s of these positions on…. which horn are you going to choose if you hold these positions?

Dave, the cad:

Author: Dave
Comment:
I've allowed myself to get baited into this ridiculous discussion, and I was fine with that.  This is exactly where I expected it to go since morons that hold particularly repugnant viewpoints project their shortcomings onto others in the form of accusing people of closed-mindedness.  

You bitch and moan about getting a fair shake at a debate and when Burt and Cascadian attempt to oblige, you scurry away with your pithy evasions and refusal to address their points.

You are not interested in debate.  As far as I'm concerned, you are nothing more than an attention whore.  As such, I will not respond to you and comments you post will be deleted in their entirety.
Advertisements

3 thoughts on “A Polite Society According to a Liberal Cad – Censored at ordinary-gentlemen.com (read ordinary-cads)

  1. Pingback: A Polite Society According to a Liberal Cad – Censored at ordinary-gentlemen.com (read ordinary-cads) | Reflections, Reflections by Alessandra

  2. Pingback: Dave, the liberal cad over at Ordinary-Gentlemen.com says: The market place of ideas must be shut down, because too obnoxious | Reflections, Reflections by Alessandra

  3. I have had my own tangles with these characters, who commonly alternate between the supercilious and the loutish. “Dave” isn’t even the worst of them. One of them is an academic, though I have not been able to identify the institution.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s