New York New York!

Better watch it... I heard of one that pulled the balls right off his former owner... Thanks for selling me to this zoo, Mudda fugga... The guy was old... He probably didn't need them anyway...

That's interesting, I guess I never thought about what the band meant when they called themselves that.
Could it be the British version of a Homeboy?

In some cultures the rooster is highly regarded.
In truth, they are quite brave, defending their flock against intruders.

wrong

As long as you're talking to that brainless jackass, you're playing his game--and you're feeding the troll.

I am certain I have a brain... What do you suppose is keeping my ears apart???

You didn't?

I quote:

I'm always amused at what you consider repulsive.

Even the "sort of thinking" you manufacture.

Me backhand liberals?

Well, I guess I do... so guilty as charged.

I wear the stripe quite proudly.

I do, however, continue to deny that I have equated homosexuality with child molestation in any way other than the fact that both have at one time been considered perverse by American society. Most of the folks who champion gay rights would not have done so a mere generation ago.

My argument is not that homosexuality is the equivalent of pedophilia, bestiality or even incest (you'll have to take that up with Thomas).

My argument is that there is a legitimate concern that Progressives can't help themselves. They are lost without a cause and their favorite cause is so-called civil rights.

Seventy years ago a very tiny percentage of liberals championed gay rights. Considering the absolute certainty of today's liberals that gay rights is a bedrock Constitutional issue, I imagine y'all must be quite ashamed of those of your stripe who went before you. Perhaps you feel that shame for yourselves as well.

What changed in the past 70 years?

I can understand that the forces of social evolution wore away at the Neanderthal mind set of conservatives over time, but you liberals have always been enlightened...haven't you?

I guess the sin of your liberal forefathers was simply timidity. They knew gay rights was a righteous cause, but they were afraid of having their heads busted by all those right wing cavemen.

I know, I know, as so many of you have pointed out I am ignoring the fact that you're progressive mind sets are (relative to this general issue) founded on your embrace of the notion of adult consent.

The naked irony of this argument astounds me.

The same people who argue that we can't hold people responsible for actions that have been influenced by the conditions of their lives, are suggesting that prostitution and (in one case) even incest involves rationally developed "adult consent."

Actually, Thomas has made by case for me.

I don't consider him a wild-eyed leftist. He's a fine example of an intelligent and informed liberal, and yet he acknowledges that he would not oppose, if not support, the right of "consenting" adult fathers to marry their "consenting" adult daughters. ( or mothers marrying sons or brothers marrying sisters).

Is it really that far fetched to imagine that 70 years from now the taboo of incest will be seriously questioned and assailed as has been the case with the taboo against homosexuality?

The only pertinent similarity between the two is that they both have been taboos in American society.

My argument is that progressives can't be trusted to assert that there is any limits to the progress they worship.

Should incest, or for that matter pedophilia or bestiality, somehow be perceived as deserving of a liberal's automatic regard for civil rights, progressives will, eventualy, line up to march, hector and hrummph.

It's not because people of that stripe are necessarily evil (although I think a complex argument can be made that they are), its because their strange notion of tolerance and has been elevated to the highest shelf of their moral pantry.

It makes perfect sense if one accepts moral relativity. If there are no fast rules that can or should be applied to human conduct, then it follows that tolerance is the most worthy of characteristics.

None of you have answered my question: Are there any other minorities that current don't enjoy the advocacy of liberals that should?

How tough is that?

Thomas dodged it with his silly comment about a pro-discrimination lobby, as if he has to wait and see which minority the big bad wolves will pick on next.

Your stripe advocates the rights of all racial and ethnic minorities, illegal immigrants, gay, lesbians and transgenders, and women.

Have I missed any?

I join your stripe in this regard, but I wonder if there are any other groups lurking about which you will latch on to when the good fight for the others is fought and won.

Can your stripe be comfortable in a world without a civil rights cause? Will it grasp for any that comes its way like a drowning man grasps for bits of debris?

I've no hope that I've put to bed the ridiculous argument that I am equating, morally, homosexuality with pedophilia. It's one so many of you can feel good about making, and get reinforced by one another.

I have no problem with gays, lesbians and transgenders. I have a huge problem with liberals, and they are hardly a minority.

Now that is just what I would have expected of someone of your literary talents.

Taboos not only vary from culture to culture but from time period to time period as well.

Thanks for stating the obvious Walter.

Do you believe that in all cases the elimination of a taboo is a good thing?

Can you foresee which of today's taboos will be eliminated in the future?

You're welcome.



No idea.



If I could, you would use this talent commercially and not linmit to the foresee of changing taboos

Thanks for clearing something up for me Walter.

For some time now I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming what seemed to be glib tripe was really due to a difference in language.

No more.

Thanks, Finn.

I feel honoured that I got promoted from the league Chinese-English-learner-group!

You're more than welcome Walter.

(You don't have something against the Chinese do you?)

Neither that nor trying to learn second, third ... language to s.o.'s native language.

In fact, the rights of homosexuals was not a "caveman" issue. Whether or not one can describe people as liberals, the oppression of homosexuals was a product of christian hysteria, not an eternal human trait. Among the ancient Greeks and Romans, there was not only no oppression of homosexuals, they were often celebrated in society. Achilles and Patroklos, for example, although probably fictional characters, were much celebrated by the Greeks; the Theban Sacred Band were considered the best warriors in Greece until Philip destroyed them at the Battle of Chaeronea. Julius Caesar was bisexual, and much to the benefit of the empire. Even after the ugly disease of christianity descended on western civilization, people who were powerful enough could defy public opinion--Richard Lionheart and James I come immediately to mind.

Who here argues that people can't be held responsible for their "actions that have been influenced by the conditions of their lives?" Just making the **** up as you go along, aren't you.

I think we all enjopy the feeling but, in your case in that last go round, you seemed to try to use the personal insult as your entire argument. There really was precious little substance in your point. You seemed to recognize that things change but then you try to make gay rights as some issue of natural law that we should have recognized all along if we were indeed good liberals. We are but humans all, with filings and stuff. I always wondered , as a kid why people smoked cigarettes and why it took so long to put seatbelts in cars.



Isnt that marvelous how societal evolution works. 120 years ago the REpublican party stood more for progressive issues than did the Dem party, 60 years ago we still got governors elected by upholding Jim Crow.

Civil rights requires us to "grow into" the concept, it usually isnt an issue that was obvious to all but a vocal minority. The pioneers of certain civil rights movements were often beaten or worse during the nascent years of a movement. Were they all liberals? no, there were specific aspects of early civil rights that were championed by people wed agree were conservative. The move to integrate the US military came from within the ranks and the brass most of whome were what Id call the 1940's vesrions of conservatives.The final signatory responsibility came only coincidentally to a Democrat.
ALL the environmental laws that the Conservatives gripe about as being "Rampant environmentalism" were championed and passed by REpublicans like Nixon and Ford ( not card carrying conservatives like today but they would have to do for the time). The entire start of the "clinmate Change" movement was by a few Republicans in the Ford admin. (Except back then everyone was pushing a new Ice AGe)

You brought up the point of societal evolution and I agree that such a force exists in nature and whenever I hear arguments like your here someones would state "Well, in the old days we didnt need no fancy civil rights...." I have to chuckle a bit. Its like someone saying that "They dont make a decent Conestoga wagon anymore"

As far as denying that you were trying to equate gay folks with pedophiles, Did you mean not to so eqaute the two?

The incest taboo has been a constant... Only those groups and families bent on self destruction have ignored it...