PA Senator allowing gay people to exist

[CubOB]

This man is abhorrent. He wants to ruin the lives of thousands of families in his state; he should not be in a position of authority.

If you're a US resident and feel strongly about this, please sign this petition:
http://www.keystoneprogress.org/page/s/paeichelberger

[CubOB]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read the above, Phil. That is what the guy compared my relationship to. He also claims that homosexual relationships are "inherently dysfunctional". You're damn right I find that abhorrent - are you going to tell me that's an inappropriate reaction?

[CubOB]

I'm not sure why should I extend him a courtesy he clearly hasn't extended to my community, but fine; his views are abhorrent, and I am disgusted that somebody who holds them has any influence when it comes to public policy, but for all I know Mr Eichelberger is a perfectly nice man one-on-one.

For the record I didn't sign the petition (as you have to have a US address to do so), but what's "silly" about it? It's simply asking him to apologise for his remarks.

[CubOB]

Look Phil, I don't want to say "you're not gay so you can't understand" but I really don't think you get how hurtful it is to see these things being said, especially by people with power. Read his statements in the original post again; he is dehumanising gay people at every turn possible. I don't give a crap about what else this guy's done, it isn't relevant. He could be the greatest senator ever on every other issue for all I know, but these views belong in the last century; whether he likes it or not, gay people (and gay families) make up a portion of his constituents and it's them I feel sorry for.

As far as your "nonsense" comment about my use of the word community, what's your problem? It's very hard for me not to feel angry when I hear about incidents relating to LGBT issues, or to empathise when gay people face discrimination whatever country they're in. If you don't choose to see it as a community that's fine; you and I will agree to disagree on that point. And for the record it isn't the only issue that matters to me, but it is an important one.

[CubOB]

If I lived in PA (which I appreciate I don't - but we all comment on places we don't live, that's kinda the point of this place) then no, I would not want a state senator who regards me and people like me as one step up from paedophiles. Even if he was great on other issues, because the whole "one step up from paedophiles" thing, well, that's kind of a dealbreaker for me (BELIEVE IT OR NOT!!!). It's not that gay issues are all that matter, but when the senator's opinion on gay issues is that gays are subhuman it tends to trump the other stuff.

I don't think that's as outlandish as you seem to think, actually.

[CubOB]

Wait, what? I don't think paedophilia should be legal.

[CubOB]

Wait, what? I don't think paedophilia should be legal.

What's so wrong with it? I don't think people should be fucking 4 year olds, but surely a 13 year old is grown enough to give legal consent. Just saying.

I disagree, I don't think it's old enough for the child to give informed consent. I think 16 is a more appropriate age of consent, as most individuals are (pretty much) done with puberty by that age, as well as being far more worldly and less prone to manipulation than at the start of their teens. In theory anyway

[CubOB]

Even if I accepted that the slippery slope argument was not comparing my relationship with Andrew (for example) to a man marrying a baby or a horse (other example) - I don't accept that for a minute by the way - it is still Eichelberger demonstrating that he does not understand the difference between two consenting adults wanting to marry, and the other types of marriage he suggests. So even if he is not a homophobe for using it, he's at least an idiot (disclaimer: I feel that this would make him an idiot, I am not suggesting that he is demonstrably an idiot in other areas. Phew).

Please give me some indication that you understand my point of view.

[CubOB]

But I do think he's a homophobe ("foaming at the mouth" is your phrase not mine), and him using the slippery slope argument is one of the reasons that I think so. You can dispute it all you want, but it's an argument that I feel does compare gays to paedophiles and bestialists. It's another thing we'll have to agree to disagree on, as is our assessments of Mr Eichelberger's character.

[CubOB]

Considering you exploded at me a while ago for doing exactly what you just did with your little rolleyes there, I believe you're a hypocrite and have absolutely no leg to stand on here. You're also trying to belittle me based on a difference of opinion, and I fully stand by everything I have said.

[CubOB]

It was a while back, in one of the gay marriage threads. You posted something I disagreed with, I quoted it and said "sheesh" or similar, you went nuts. I'm not trying to twist things, I just found it hypocritical since that was your last interaction with me and you just did what you accused me of doing back then. Whatever, it isn't important.

Regarding the slippery slope argument, can you explain how using it in this context isn't homophobic? If your reasoning on this is based on how you like gays but just don't want them to get married, you don't have to bother. You can choose not to call that homophobia if it makes you feel better, but it is an attempt to deny equal rights to gay people and their families. How have I twisted what he said?

[CubOB]

No, that's not what I'm saying! I get quite emotional about certain issues and it can make my arguments a bit muddied sometimes, I'm aware of it and try my best to stop it happening. I hope that's not taken the wrong way; I find arguing very difficult because I have problems with confrontation, and I really have to try hard not to take things personally. If that sounds insane, it's because it is This is why I very rarely post outside Forum Community and Off-Topic - because it usually ends up like this, haha.

However, I do feel that the senator is either homophobic or has some kind of problem with gays. If we leave the slippery slope angle for a sec, there are several other statements that give me this impression:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This indicates to me that the senator views gay relationships purely in the context of sex, apparently unconvinced that they can have anything beyond sex with each other.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mr. Eichelberger sees homosexuality as a behaviour that can be encouraged, indicating that he may believe in gay "recruitment" and that it is a choice people make.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure this one needs comment from me, but if I were to comment it'd be to say the senator may see gay relationships as "pretended relationships", to borrow the parlance of '80s Tories for a moment. This idea that gay relationships are dysfunctional by nature seems a pretty strong indication that he doesn't see them as equivalent to a heterosexual relationship (even an unmarried straight relationship with no children).

Now I will admit that I've applied my own analysis to the quotes above, but I don't think it's unfair for me to take a view, based on that interview, that Eichelberger has a negative opinion of homosexuals.

[CubOB]

I've said my piece, as far as I'm able to. I also explained my reasons for not wanting to continue arguing; I hope you don't take them as a cop-out. I really do get stressed out when I engage in an argument of this sort, and I find it difficult to get on with other things if it's left hanging. Again, I know how utterly insane that makes me sound.