NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/02/020106lewdPastor.htm

There is so much irony in this that it is sort of mind boggling. What's also mind boggling is that law that "prohibits a person from offering to engage in a lewd act 'regardless of whether money is sought for or engaged.'" That's just stupid.

Now you know where to find hot gay men in the US - go to church.

Now you know where to find hot gay men in the US - go to church.

That's true all over the world.

That law would get me locked up whenever I go to the bar to crudely hit on drunk girls. I'm against it.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/02/020106lewdPastor.htm

There is so much irony in this that it is sort of mind boggling. What's also mind boggling is that law that "prohibits a person from offering to engage in a lewd act 'regardless of whether money is sought for or engaged.'" That's just stupid.

It just confirms my generalized suspicions, that the people who are most vocal against LGBT's could fall under the Shakespearean phrase about protesting too much.

Yay! :D

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/02/020106lewdPastor.htm

There is so much irony in this that it is sort of mind boggling. What's also mind boggling is that law that "prohibits a person from offering to engage in a lewd act 'regardless of whether money is sought for or engaged.'" That's just stupid.

Fass, if you still have access to the other forums (if you don't remember your password I can reset it for you), would you mind posting this story and your comment on there as well?

Fass, if you still have access to the other forums (if you don't remember your password I can reset it for you), would you mind posting this story and your comment on there as well?

I won't be posting it there myself, but you are free to do so.

That law would get me locked up whenever I go to the bar to crudely hit on drunk girls. I'm against it.

Exactly. Lewdly propositioning guys is a large part of my successful pick-up routine.

I'm so shocked that this would happen to one of our local pastors. And after the sheriff got locked up on the child porn charges.:rolleyes:



That type hypocrisy is rampant around here.

Hmmm where are all the ACLU haters?

Dumb question: What does the 365 mean? That is if it does mean something....

Dumb question: What does the 365 mean? That is if it does mean something....

I imagine it means "all year round".

Hey, I remember that story, there was actually a thread on it back when it happened. So now he has to pin his hopes on the devil, aka the ACLU, eh? Serves him right for all those years of making other people feel terrible about themselves.

Hmmm where are all the ACLU haters?

Dumb question: What does the 365 mean? That is if it does mean something....
Gay all year round?

Only guessing

I imagine it means "all year round".

Doh! That actually makes sense.

Can I claim not having my coffee yet? ;)

Doh! That actually makes sense.

Can I claim not having my coffee yet? ;)
You can but we both know that it's only an excuse ;)

I'm having trouble getting the page to open. Can anyone post some of the text of the story for me?

I'm having trouble getting the page to open. Can anyone post some of the text of the story for me?

(Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) The American Civil Liberties Union told an Oklahoma city judge Wednesday that a pastor who frequently speaks out against homosexuality and was arrested last week for propositioning a male police officer was charged in violation of the Supreme Court's ruling on gay sex.

In a friend-of-the-court brief the ACLU argues that the law used to arrest the Rev. Lonnie Latham contravenes the Supreme Court ruling that overturned sodomy laws.

"The Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that, when it comes to their sex lives, consenting adults are free to do whatever they please in private," said Joann Bell, Executive Director of the ACLU of Oklahoma.

"According to the police report, Rev. Latham did nothing more than invite another man to his hotel room for consensual sex. It is not a crime merely to invite someone to have completely lawful sex. If it were otherwise, every bar in the state may as well shut its doors."

Latham was arrested January 3 after allegedly asking an undercover officer to join him in his hotel room for oral sex. (story)

Oklahoma law prohibits a person from offering to engage in a lewd act "regardless of whether money is sought for or engaged."

Latham has resigned from his church, the board of directors of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma and the executive committee of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Latham has spoken out against same-sex marriage and in support of a directive urging the group's 42,000 churches to befriend gays and lesbians and try to convince them they can become heterosexual "if they accept Jesus Christ as their savior and reject their 'sinful, destructive lifestyle."'

Welcome.

As well as violated his right to equal protection under the law. How many heterosexual offers of the same nature result in arrests?

Welcome.
Thanks. That's one hell of a law they've got there in Oklahoma. No wonder they're the only state to execute more people than Texas. They're all bound up, need some release.

Looks like it's time for the pastor to crank out a music video featuring disco-lit bathrooms with golden toilets and dancing cops....Maybe he should go after George Michaels's director...

In all seriousness, though, much as I like to see a homophobic preacher get what's coming to him (so to speak), he is being done very wrong in this case. It pains me to see that there are still parts of this country that see it as their business to pry into peoples' sex lives. It's immoral and sick.

Looks like it's time for the pastor to crank out a music video featuring disco-lit bathrooms with golden toilets and dancing cops....Maybe he should go after George Michaels's director...

In all seriousness, though, much as I like to see a homophobic preacher get what's coming to him (so to speak), he is being done very wrong in this case. It pains me to see that there are still parts of this country that see it as their business to pry into peoples' sex lives. It's immoral and sick.
I'm looking at it this way--homophobic pastor gets outed as gay, and his congregation boots him. That's cosmic justice right off the bat. But then the law he's charged with breaking is challenged (and should be overturned easily), but challenged by the group wingnuts swear is in league with the Devil. Their cognitive dissonance circuits will be in overdrive with this one.

Or maybe not. They can always claim that the homophobic gay preacher is now a tool of Satan, and as such, would naturally turn to his allies at the ACLU.

I won't be posting it there myself, but you are free to do so.

Unfortunate, but accepted. Thank you. I'll post it there in a minute.

Nazz, I absolutely love this brand of cosmic justice. Another brand in my mind would be if, in heaven, sex is a common form of bonding with your fellow former human without the burden of consequences and such. Somehow I picture a few busted veins in the ol' head if mutual manual manipulation turned out to be the standard greeting when we meet up in the sky.

So the ACLU is consistent in it's approach of seeking to further the civil rights of each and every American, regardless of other factors.

Does that make the ACLU weird, bad, hypocritical?
In MY book, it makes the ACLU a collection of fine and decent upstanding Citizens.

Which is why I find it amusing to have the ACLU called a liberal organization. Only liberals would do such a thing?

Which is why I find it amusing to have the ACLU called a liberal organization. Only liberals would do such a thing?

Let's say that those who do have to fear being cursed as liberals in certain quarters...

"The Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that, when it comes to their sex lives, consenting adults are free to do whatever they please in private," said Joann Bell, Executive Director of the ACLU of Oklahoma.then i dont get why the ACLU is doing nothing against the laws outlawing necrophilia. people should be free to do whatever they please in private.

Let's say that those who do have to fear being cursed as liberals in certain quarters...

You say that like being labelled a liberal is a bad thing.

then i dont get why the ACLU is doing nothing against the laws outlawing necrophilia. people should be free to do whatever they please in private.

Because the ruling referenced had nothing to do with necrophilia, but with consensual sex between two adults behind closed doors. You really should look these things up before you speak. Which part of "consenting adults" was it exactly you failed to understand?

then i dont get why the ACLU is doing nothing against the laws outlawing necrophilia. people should be free to do whatever they please in private.
Two problems with necrophilia:

1) Public health.

2) (and this is the big one) a corpse cannot give consent.

then i dont get why the ACLU is doing nothing against the laws outlawing necrophilia. people should be free to do whatever they please in private.

Yeah, cuz that's the same thing, right? I love it when people have to resort to such arguments. It shows their desperation to find ANY argument against granting equal rights. Desperation shows that they know that human rights victories are forthcoming and unstoppable.

And last I checked, dead people cannot give consent.

And don't worry. When we win, we won't force you to engage in homosexual sex or outlaw whatever sex you engage in. We believe whatever goes on between consenting adults stays between consenting adults. Now, of course in a just universe...

You say that like being labelled a liberal is a bad thing.

It isn't the labelling perse - it's the cussing.

I'm no Liberal - I consider myself a Libertarian.

then i dont get why the ACLU is doing nothing against the laws outlawing necrophilia. people should be free to do whatever they please in private.

Hey, if the dead people don't object, I don't see what the problem is.:p

Just because it grosses me out doesn't mean someone else should be prevented from doing it unless it's a public health problem.

It isn't the labelling perse - it's the cussing.

And that's bad...?

I'm no Liberal - I consider myself a Libertarian.

What's that old saying, libertarians are people who can read Ayn Rand without laughing out loud. :p

1.And that's bad...?



2. What's that old saying, libertarians are people who can read Ayn Rand without laughing out loud. :p

1. Yup. Do you like getting cussed, you pathetic unamerican welfare case liberal from Sweden? *grin* Cussing is not really nice.

2. Better yet. I can read it WHILE laughing out loud!

1. Yup. Do you like getting cussed, you pathetic unamerican welfare case liberal from Sweden? *grin* Cussing is not really nice.

But, you see, it doesn't have an effect on me.

2. Better yet. I can read it WHILE laughing out loud!

Then why are you libertarian? You know, apart from wanting to be special. ;)

Rofl, that is indeed quite ironic.

I think we need a new Law to describe this kinda situation.

How's about -

There exists a direct, proportional relationship between the amount of homophobic rhetoric one spews and the likelihood that one is, in fact, a closeted homosexual.

But, you see, it doesn't have an effect on me.



Then why are you libertarian? You know, apart from wanting to be special. ;)

Remember that there is a spectrum of libertarians, just as with liberals and conservatives. We've simply decided that we identify most closely with the ideology called Libertarian.

But, you see, it doesn't have an effect on me.



Then why are you libertarian? You know, apart from wanting to be special. ;)

A basic distrust of human nature.
I consider most humans to be... prone to sadism and tyranny.
Including myself.
To combat it, I prefer a system that minimizes the amount of damage people can inflict on eachother.

Because the ruling referenced had nothing to do with necrophilia, but with consensual sex between two adults behind closed doors.that is bs, the ruling meant any kind of sexual activity or do you think they excluded threesomes or groupsex or masturbation, against which government then could make laws?1) Public health.

2) (and this is the big one) a corpse cannot give consent.1) now with that reasoning you could make all kinds of crazy laws, claiming certain sexual practices have a statistically higher chance to cause transmission of a STD

2)a corpse doesnt need to give consent, it is just an object o do you require consent from a dildo? you could even construct a case in which the deceased has consented before his death.

Remember that there is a spectrum of libertarians, just as with liberals and conservatives. We've simply decided that we identify most closely with the ideology called Libertarian.

See, that's the first mistake you can make - identifying with an ideology.

See, that's the first mistake you can make - identifying with an ideology.

Well, you say you're gay...

Why not say that you choose who you like to have sex with, instead of having that choice made for you?

See, that's the first mistake you can make - identifying with an ideology.

Why is it a mistake? Surely a body has the right to make a certain ideology one of his attributes?

that is bs, the ruling meant any kind of sexual activity or do you think they excluded threesomes or groupsex or masturbation, against which government then could make laws?

Again, which part of "consenting adults" in the part you quoted was it you didn't understand? Oh, and have you read the ruling? Because it seriously seems like you didn't.

Why is it a mistake? Surely a body has the right to make a certain ideology one of his attributes?

Of course he has the right to make a mistake.

Well, you say you're gay...

Irrelevant. Or would you claim that to be an ideology?

Why not say that you choose who you like to have sex with, instead of having that choice made for you?

Because I don't choose which gender I have sex with. Either my dick gets hard, or it doesn't, and pussy had the latter effect on it.

Of course he has the right to make a mistake.

Why is it a mistake?

How can someone be so self-deluded as to preach homophobia while being a homosexual himself? Or maybe he was just trying to delude others.

Why is it a mistake?

Well, look at the ideologues of the former century. Ideologies are so limiting.

How can someone be so self-deluded as to preach homophobia while being a homosexual himself? Or maybe he was just trying to delude others.

He could be afraid and or disgusted of himself.
Conditions not confined to just homo's and homophobes.

Well, look at the ideologues of the former century. Ideologies are so limiting.

Yet a man might wish exactly that.
It might make him happy.

*fears a certain amount of pointlessness entering this thread*

1) now with that reasoning you could make all kinds of crazy laws, claiming certain sexual practices have a statistically higher chance to cause transmission of a STD

If the government has a compelling interest, sure. Statistically higher, however, doesn't exactly clear the compelling interest bar. Dead corpses, however, are a clear public health risk, just ask any pathologist.

2)a corpse doesnt need to give consent, it is just an object o do you require consent from a dildo? you could even construct a case in which the deceased has consented before his death.
Why yes, you do. Can you steal someone else's dildo and use it?

Even if you got consent from the deceased before his death, you'd still run into public health issues

?1) now with that reasoning you could make all kinds of crazy laws, claiming certain sexual practices have a statistically higher chance to cause transmission of a STD

2)a corpse doesnt need to give consent, it is just an object o do you require consent from a dildo? you could even construct a case in which the deceased has consented before his death.
1) And they did. That was one of the reasons invoked for banning homosexual sex. You have to decide where to draw the line.

2) Are you suggesting that a dead person is now an object? In that case, the government can up and seize all the assets of dead persons since they are now object with no property rights. Are you willing to go that far?

How can someone be so self-deluded as to preach homophobia while being a homosexual himself?

It's the same thing as with those people who are all anti-porn, but then regularly squeeze one out to the nastiest products available this side of Japan. It's all an overcompensation - they hate in others what they see in themselves, and must of course deflect attention.

Yet a man might wish exactly that.
It might make him happy.

*fears a certain amount of pointlessness entering this thread*

Many things that make you happy are mistakes. Of course, this is all IMHO, so I don't see why we're "debating" it.

*drops it if you do*

Many things that make you happy are mistakes. Of course, this is all IMHO, so I don't see why we're "debating" it.

*drops it if you do*

*does*

*would rather cuss at those who now consider the ACLU traitors, or liberal - or even not-quite-liberal-enough-cuz-they-dont-limit-their-efforts-to-aiding-liberals*

that is bs, the ruling meant any kind of sexual activity or do you think they excluded threesomes or groupsex or masturbation, against which government then could make laws?1) now with that reasoning you could make all kinds of crazy laws, claiming certain sexual practices have a statistically higher chance to cause transmission of a STD

2)a corpse doesnt need to give consent, it is just an object o do you require consent from a dildo? you could even construct a case in which the deceased has consented before his death.

A corpse is not an object. I cannot do whatever I wish to a corpse whether that action is illegal or not. Formerly living people are considered persons under US law. This is why they are protected from slander and libel, among other things. You really are talking out of your arse.

Also, the ruling refers to all actions involving only consenting adults. You must consent to each act, each time, every time. A corpse cannot do that. Homosexuals can.

If the government has a compelling interest, sure. Statistically higher, however, doesn't exactly clear the compelling interest bar.lets look at AIDS, in anal intercourse the infection risk is about 100 times as high as in vaginal intercourse, now that surely can be used as a basis for a law outlawing an activity so dangerous to public health.

# Receptive anal intercourse ("bottom"): The risk for one episode of of unprotected receptive anal sex has been document to range from about 1 in 1300 to about 1 in 50. It's important to note that infection can occur with just one unprotected sexual encounter. Also note that even though the risk is 1 in 1300, that one time can be the first time.

# Insertive partner ("top") during anal intercourse: While the risk is about 10 times less than being the receptive partner, the risk is there and is real. And of course the same holds true...it only takes one time.

# Vaginal intercourse - infected men to uninfected women: One study put the risk at about 1 chance in 100,000 unprotected sexual encounters but again, the one might be the first contact you have.

# Vaginal intercourse - infected women to uninfected men: Studies seem to confirm that the risk is quite low, about 1 in 200,000 but of course the risk is not zero.

http://aids.about.com/od/hivaidsstats/f/infectionrisk.htm

lets look at AIDS, in anal intercourse the infection risk is about 100 times as high as in vaginal intercourse, now that surely can be used as a basis for a law outlawing an activity so dangerous to public health.

# Receptive anal intercourse ("bottom"): The risk for one episode of of unprotected receptive anal sex has been document to range from about 1 in 1300 to about 1 in 50. It's important to note that infection can occur with just one unprotected sexual encounter. Also note that even though the risk is 1 in 1300, that one time can be the first time.

# Insertive partner ("top") during anal intercourse: While the risk is about 10 times less than being the receptive partner, the risk is there and is real. And of course the same holds true...it only takes one time.

# Vaginal intercourse - infected men to uninfected women: One study put the risk at about 1 chance in 100,000 unprotected sexual encounters but again, the one might be the first contact you have.

# Vaginal intercourse - infected women to uninfected men: Studies seem to confirm that the risk is quite low, about 1 in 200,000 but of course the risk is not zero.

http://aids.about.com/od/hivaidsstats/f/infectionrisk.htm

Yep, except there is no danger of you spreading aids through incidental contact. The diseases that can be spread by corpses are often airborn and contagious. See the difference. Again, your arguments are desperate.

I can repeatedly encounter and intentionally contract AIDS and not break the law, so long as I warn the people I put in danger of exposure afterwards. However, since I can't help exposing people to say, the plague, I can't really make the same considerations. Meanwhile, you ignore that dead people cannot consent and ARE NOT OBJECTS.

This is what we call poetic justice.... I'd like to know how the esteemed Reverend will defend himself from the homophobia of his congregation. I'm thinking that he'll have change his name and move away.

See, that's the first mistake you can make - identifying with an ideology.

More like a description rather than an ideology. Kind of like the Kinsey scale. We describe ourselves as being under the description we fall closest to. However, it does not mean we are exactly that. I'm certain there are people who describe themselves as gay that are actually somewhat bi, but simply not really interested in pursuing it. This is not a comparison of the type of description, of course, seeing that Libertarian is an ideology and gay is a sexuality, but the point holds. Let's just say I'm Libertarian, but also conservative-curious in some areas and liberal-curious in others.

Fass, you've seen me around, it should be pretty obvious that it's not particularly easy to place me in any box.

People are, of course, never, ever, objects. However, a corpse is not, in my view, a person. Suppose someone's arm got cut off - is the arm you? Hardly, and that holds for any amount of the body. One can argue mind/body duality and whether the mind is separable from the body, but it seems to me that, once a body is dead, it is not a person. If the person still exists, it's not in the body (hence, the argument against libel of deceased persons and confiscating of deceased persons' property). Once someone is dead, any ownership they had passes on to someone else - that's what wills are for, so that someone - while alive - can decide what they want done with their possessions. The phrase, "You can't take it with you" applies to the physical body just as much as to various possessions. If anyone owns the body, it's the family of the deceased.

People are, of course, never, ever, objects. However, a corpse is not, in my view, a person. Suppose someone's arm got cut off - is the arm you? Hardly, and that holds for any amount of the body. One can argue mind/body duality and whether the mind is separable from the body, but it seems to me that, once a body is dead, it is not a person. If the person still exists, it's not in the body (hence, the argument against libel of deceased persons and confiscating of deceased persons' property). Once someone is dead, any ownership they had passes on to someone else - that's what wills are for, so that someone - while alive - can decide what they want done with their possessions. The phrase, "You can't take it with you" applies to the physical body just as much as to various possessions. If anyone owns the body, it's the family of the deceased.

No, the arm isn't you, however, would someone be permitted to take that arm and throw it in the trash? Nope. Why not? Hint: It's the same as one of the primary reasons sex with corpses is not allowed.

Once the body is dead, it still has rights, by necessity and should have rights. And the fact is, you CAN take it with you.

Fass, you've seen me around, it should be pretty obvious that it's not particularly easy to place me in any box.

You give my memory regarding this place way too much credit.

2)a corpse doesnt need to give consent, it is just an object o do you require consent from a dildo? you could even construct a case in which the deceased has consented before his death.
In the case of a dildo you OWN rights to that property

I am not sure anyone owns rights to a dead corps

You give my memory regarding this place way too much credit.

Well, I'll give some of what might appear to be inconsistencies to the naked eye, ones you should have seen in the last week or so. I support giving the teachers the benefit of the doubt in the other thread and support not forcing them to hang the poster (in other words, I think a mandatory poster that isn't more level is a bad idea). I support the ACLU defending this gentlemen and revel in the poetic justice of it all. I administrate the LGBTS forums. I think Gay Pride is different than equal rights, but I support both, the first one should be voluntary though (I don't think anyone should be forced to support gay pride) and the second should be mandatory. I made them sound less inconsistent, but were one to visit the threads and try to paint me with a single brush I suspect they might find me to difficult to pin down.

Add in there that I hated Clinton. I would support bombing the nuclear facilities in Iran and I don't think Bush was lying about weapons of mass destruction. I think Dick Cheney has a tail and a pitchfork. I think Chicago is one of the most politically corrupt cities in the western hemisphere. I think Pat Robertson is evil, but if some government entity tried to take him off the air I would fight tooth and nail for his right to say hateful and dumb things. I'm a former Marine. I abhor violence. I've been in better than 1000 fights. I wish I was gay. I'm not. I don't like pot, but I think it should be legal. I think people who do 'harder' drugs are morons, but I think they should be legal too. I think euthanasia and suicide should be legal. I support the death penalty but think the system is too flawed to use it.

Blah, blah, blah. The point is, that's not a fence that's easy to choose a color for.

In the case of a dildo you OWN rights to that property

I am not sure anyone owns rights to a dead corps

Exactly. The rights are almost identical to someone in a coma. There are only people who can make decisions on behalf of a PERSON who can no longer make decisions themselves. You don't own a corpse any more than you own a coma patient.

then i dont get why the ACLU is doing nothing against the laws outlawing necrophilia. people should be free to do whatever they please in private.


Dont say stupid things on the forum "Kossackja."

Clearly, "necrophilia" does not involve two consenting adults.

I wish I was gay. I'm not. At the risk of hijacking the thread, I'm going to have to ask you to explain this.

At the risk of hijacking the thread, I'm going to have to ask you to explain this.

Does it need an explanation? Being gay rocks.

At the risk of hijacking the thread, I'm going to have to ask you to explain this.

Ha. I do much better with gay men than I do with women and I've met some very nice gay men that I could see myself being very happy with were I to swing that way. Also, admittedly, I like being contrary. I would actually enjoy forcing people to deal with their prejudices (people generally view me as a priveleged WASP). I would thoroughly enjoy debunking the ridiculous stereotypes people have about homosexuals.

Does it need an explanation? Being gay rocks.

I was wondering if I'd be able to get my reply in before yours.

Does it need an explanation? Being gay rocks.
I didn't mean to imply that it didn't, but rather that if people wish to change their sexuality, it's usually the other way around. (Not that people should wish to change their sexuality.)

Ha. I do much better with gay men than I do with women and I've met some very nice gay men that I could see myself being very happy with were I to swing that way. Also, admittedly, I like being contrary. I would actually enjoy forcing people to deal with their prejudices (people generally view me as a priveleged WASP). I would thoroughly enjoy debunking the ridiculous stereotypes people have about homosexuals.That's a very enlightened opinion to have.

I'm so shocked that this would happen to one of our local pastors. And after the sheriff got locked up on the child porn charges.:rolleyes:

That type hypocrisy is rampant around here.
That's what you get when people are raised to believe they are going to hell if they do the same things that humans have been doing since time immemorial. It's also one of the main reasons I left organized "religion."

Human nature being what it is, simply trying to supress natural urges via moralizing and/or legislation is going to drive certain kinds of behavior underground, make people carry around a massive burden of undeserved guilt and fear, and place people behind bars who have done nothing whatsoever worthy of being there. :headbang:

Holy duplicate post, Batman.

I didn't mean to imply that it didn't, but rather that if people wish to change their sexuality, it's usually the other way around. (Not that people should wish to change their sexuality.)

That's a very enlightened opinion to have.

I think you mean unusual. I wouldn't call not embracing who I am, enlightened, but I think it depends on how you look at it. Some might argue that it's not much different than a transgender wishing to be the opposite sex physically. I wouldn't agree, however, because in one case you are mentally one thing and physically something else. In my case I'm am physically and mentally the same except I think it would be easier to be different. Yeah, I definitely wouldn't call that enlightened.

I think you mean unusual. I wouldn't call not embracing who I am, enlightened, but I think it depends on how you look at it. Some might argue that it's not much different than a transgender wishing to be the opposite sex physically. I wouldn't agree, however, because in one case you are mentally one thing and physically something else. In my case I'm am physically and mentally the same except I think it would be easier to be different. Yeah, I definitely wouldn't call that enlightened.I would. Most people can't see beyond what society tells them that they're supposed to see - that there's a "normal" way of being, and that people who are "not normal" should strive to be "normal". What you're doing is the opposite of what society says you should be doing, and that is enlightened.

I would. Most people can't see beyond what society tells them that they're supposed to see - that there's a "normal" way of being, and that people who are "not normal" should strive to be "normal". What you're doing is the opposite of what society says you should be doing, and that is enlightened.

Hmmm... well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll agree that not letting your views be set by what's popular or 'normal' is good, but I don't agree that trying to buck the system is necessarily enlightened, so perhaps it's a little of both.

I do have to say that I really enjoyed the scene in The Family Stone where SJP's character acts like they should have preferred their son was straight (interestingly, she never mentioned his deafness). The parents' reaction was more or less, "why would we want him to be straight?"

This is like a moebius strip of irony.