<b>outlaw</b>: "He's against anything and everything to do with homosexuality." <b>RR</b>: This seems like an exageration. <b>outlaw</b>: "He opposes any discussion of it in schools." <b>RR</b>: This might be a true characterization. From his standpoint, what would be the purpose? <b>outlaw</b>: "He equates acceptance of homosexuality with the acceptance of pedophilia." <b>RR</b>: Is this your final answer?! I definitely challenge this one. You accused me of saying the same thing a few months ago. <b>outlaw</b>: "He believes gay marriage will be the downfall of our society." <b>RR</b>: This is probably an accurate portrayal of his position. I don't particularly agree with it. <b>outlaw</b>: He even believes AIDS is a moral punishment from god. <b>RR</b>: He may believe that. This could fit his worldview. It is the worldview of many conservative Christians. I don't really concur. <b>outlaw</b>: "I don't know if you share these views RR but I think homophobe is a fair and accurate label for Mr. Keyes." <b>RR</b>: So where is the fear; isn't that what "phobe" references? Many of his views I don't share, but his views expand well beyond these few cited. He is intelligent, knowledgeable, and articulate. That's why I watch him. You are strangling on your political correctness I daresay.
I don't think outlaw is being politically correct for not wanting to fire up the TIVO for Keyes' new show. It's pretty easy for me to understand why he'd be unreceptive to any of the rest of Mr. Keyes' other ideas if one of his core beliefs is so rigidly opposed to outlaw's very existence as he knows it. I know how he feels..if Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer had a show, I wouldn't watch it either as many of THEIR core ideas are an offence to MY lifestyle, and I wouldn't take any extra time out of my day to hear anything else they would have to say...even if they were just talking about cake recipes or sports. --Deji
here's what keyes said: People tell us that for purposes of discrimination, sexual orientation--or, more accurately, sexual behavior--must be treated like race. Is that at all legitimate? When I got up this morning I was a black guy. When I go to bed tonight, I will still be a black guy. If we are going to say that sexual orientation is to be treated like race, then we’re saying that sexual orientation--read, behavior--is like race, a condition beyond the individual’s control. If we accept this kind of reasoning, why should we expect to draw the line at sexual passion? If we’re going to have special legal protections for homosexuals, shouldn’t everybody else’s uncontrollable sexual orientations be protected? Shouldn’t adulterers, pedophiles, rapists, and other sorts of sexual aberrants be eligible for the same benefits? If we were to accept this convoluted logic we would be left with the concept of a human person which accepts strict external regimentation: we are basically people out of control. Source: Our Character, Our Future, p. 18-9 May 2, 1996 http://www.issues2000.org/Alan_Keyes_Civil_Rights.htm
<b>outlaw</b>: He is demonstrating parallel thinking not causality. Notice the "IF." Certainly you or he is not saying that all homosexuals are rapists or adulterers-- other groups he is drawing the parallel to along with pedophiles. His point is about tolerance gone overboard. <b>Deji</b>: I think it is PC to reject it out of hand. Both of Keyes' major guests disagreed with him about the issue of military tribunals, yet they were his guests. I watched the Rue Paul show a few times then tuned it out because there was nothing interesting there.
This seems like an exaggeration, this might be a true characterization, this is probably an accurate portrayal, he may believe that... Hell the only time you refute one of outlaw's claims about Keyes, he shows you that Keyes has in fact stated that acceptance of homosexuality uses the same logic as acceptance of pedophilia. And yet you state that the only reason a gay person might not want to watch Keyes is because of political correctness. You are a joke.
<b>dylan</b>: I asked outlaw to prove his assertion that Keyes' is a homophobe. He failed and you have contributed nothing to prove that point. He pointed up some of Keyes' lack of sympathy but that is not homophobic de facto. Keyes has an American right not to want to legitimize a gay lifestyle. outlaw has the right to tune him out; that doesn't make either the right thing to do. I don't expect outlaw to be Keyes' #1 fan but to insinuate that he would never watch and to poor-mouth the network because they have given Keyes' a show is somehow proper? I don't get that kind of thinking. I am more supportive of gay people than either you or outlaw would credit me, I'm sure. I don't have to agree with Keyes (or any host for that matter) down the line, point by point, to be able to enjoy their show. If it stimulates my thinking, I will like it. It doesn't have to be a RichRocket Platform Rally for me to become a viewer. I daresay that is less true for both you and outlaw. I never said it was the only reason a gay person wouldn't watch Keyes-- that was outlaw's position. Re-read his initial post. I was just responding to what he asserted. Now, who's the joke, dylan?! Get it right before you start insulting people, okay?
Keyes is an intelligent, articulate, thoughtful, and passionate man who happens to be an excellent debater; I'd watch the show just for those reasons. I rarely agree with him, but occasionally I do. If he starts making his show a showcase for conservative ideas, then I'll tune it out. But if he keeps it balanced (by bringing on guests with opposing views), then it will probably be a good show. I suspect that the same people who will refuse to watch his show have never bothered to watch O'Reilly either simply because they've heard that he's a conservative (actually, he is not, but that's another story). Those who tune out anything that might make them uneasy are bound to miss out. That's their problem.
I'm sorry, but comparing a homosexual with a rapist or a pedophile to me is homophobic. The guy's a bigot.
The far left is all to eager to silence opposition by any means necessary when they don't like what's being said. Witness GLAAD's campaign against Dr. Laura (who I don't agree with, but who has the right to speak) and Jesse's campaigns against practically everyone... They are all for 1st Amendment rights - as long as they like the message...
The AIDS issue just blows my mind... simply not a legitimate scientific position. Hell, it's not even logical. You can get aids from a ****ing blood transfusion. Bigot.
No one asked the government to censor Dr. Laura or anyone else. They're practicing their 1st Amendment rights just like Dr. Laura.
RR - is your goal in this discussion just to be argumentative? It surely seems so. Were you really refuting the meaning and application of the word homophobe. If outlaw had used the phrase "intolerant a$$hole", would that have been better? i may have misread outlaw, but i don't think causation has anything to do with anything. when keyes refers to homosexuality and predatory behavior in the same light, i've got to believe that's pretty damn offensive. a show doesn't have to reinforce the viewer's every thought and desire, but when the star/host of the show makes a point to say he detests one's way of life, i bet that makes it harder to enjoy. I guarantee you if david duke had a show i wouldn't ever flip my remote to his show or that network.
Either "fear of" (acrophobia, triskaidekaphobia) or "aversion to" (photophobia, Anglophobia) -- "-phobe" untimately derives from the Greek <i>phebesthai</i>, meaning "to flee" (which wraps up both meanings nicely). A quick gedankenexperiment: how would Keyes's public behavior change if he <i>were</i> afraid of gays? outlaw's right about this (and, IMHO, about everything else he said). (Wow! I'm a member -- after only 17 short months!)
Rm95: Please. They went to everyone who was going to sponsor her and told them that if they didn't remove their sponsorship then GLAAD would focus their efforts against the sponsor. That's a PR nightmare for any potential target, and everyone dropped her. That's not "exercising their 1st Amendment rights" - that's PC coercion. In addition, GLAAD also distributed hate-fliers around Dr. Laura's neighborhood, listing her home address and urging violence against her. Yeah, they're just exercising their free speech rights... Jesse's Rainbow Coalition uses similar tactics: support anyone we are opposed to, and we will destroy you in the public eye.
That sounds like the free market at its best. Educating the advertisers that they are supporting a bigot and informing them that you will educate the consumers of the same, sounds like a brilliant strategy to me. If they were wrong, then the public wouldn't care and therefore the advertisers wouldn't care. The fact that the strategy worked goes to show that there isn't enough demand for that kind of crap on TV/radio/whatever. No one's denying her/him the right to spew his/her garbage, they're just asserting their right to NOT support it.
TL: Actually, GLAAD distorted a number quotations of Dr. Laura's; the most controversial quote was the supposed "homesexuality is a biological mistake" quote. Dr. Laura in fact never said that. In addition, Dr. Laura has been involved with a number of feminist, gay, and lesbian movements, yet she is labeled as a bigot by GLAAD. If misinformation campaigns represent the free market at work, than we are all in trouble. The fact that the strategy works indicates that our first amendment rights are seriously threatened in today's PC-sensitive world. BTW, Dr. Laura's show was extremely profitable for the sponsors. A functional free market would have had her retain her sponsorship. The fear of a devastating PR campaign prompted the sponsors to drop her, not market dynamics.
How is that any different from the Baptists boycotting Disney? As for the flyers that's the first I'd heard of that so I won't comment.
