Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 29:
Line 29: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Homosexuals and the Holocaust (view source)
Revision as of 17:06, November 13, 2008
, 17:06, November 13, 2008long comment about the need for this article
:Where on earth are you getting this idea that homosexuals were only arrested for having sex in public? The terms of the legislation ruled against [http://www.holocaust-trc.org/parag175.htm "lewd and lascivious acts with another male"] irrespective of whether it was in public or in private, & the Nazis used police lists of suspected homosexuals as well as a special Gestapo division to root out closet homosexuals & identify secret homosexual meeting places. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 12:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:Where on earth are you getting this idea that homosexuals were only arrested for having sex in public? The terms of the legislation ruled against [http://www.holocaust-trc.org/parag175.htm "lewd and lascivious acts with another male"] irrespective of whether it was in public or in private, & the Nazis used police lists of suspected homosexuals as well as a special Gestapo division to root out closet homosexuals & identify secret homosexual meeting places. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 12:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::I should point out that at the time Britain and most (possibly all?) of the US also considered homosexual acts to be a criminal offense. It wasn't at all unusual prosecute homosexuality - many held, and indeed many still do hold, the view that the state has a compelling increase in fighting homosexuality as a threat to public health and morality. The UK faced a lot of opposition to legalising homosexuality, and the US has a few states that would likely re-criminalise it if the supreme court hadn't somehow declared gay sex to be a civil right. What defined the Nazi approach isn't that they criminalised homosexuality, but the '''enthusiasm''' with which they did so - tightening the laws, establishing a specialist department with the single role of finding and catching homosexuals, and subjecting those arrested to cruel 'treatments' or to likely death in a concentration camp. They took the criminalisation of homosexuality to an extreme, singling it out above other sex crimes as specific menace to society and demonising homosexuals in propaganda as an 'enemy within' that would try to destroy Germany. While only a small percentage of homosexuals were actually prosecuted, this is not for a lack of trying - were it not for the identification process being so unreliable and time-consuming (Compared to the ease of Jew-finding), the Nazis would certinly have been more than happy to execute every single homosexual or bisexual person in Germany. But, if you want an alternative view, you can always study [[Scott Lively]]. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 14:38, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::I should point out that at the time Britain and most (possibly all?) of the US also considered homosexual acts to be a criminal offense. It wasn't at all unusual prosecute homosexuality - many held, and indeed many still do hold, the view that the state has a compelling increase in fighting homosexuality as a threat to public health and morality. The UK faced a lot of opposition to legalising homosexuality, and the US has a few states that would likely re-criminalise it if the supreme court hadn't somehow declared gay sex to be a civil right. What defined the Nazi approach isn't that they criminalised homosexuality, but the '''enthusiasm''' with which they did so - tightening the laws, establishing a specialist department with the single role of finding and catching homosexuals, and subjecting those arrested to cruel 'treatments' or to likely death in a concentration camp. They took the criminalisation of homosexuality to an extreme, singling it out above other sex crimes as specific menace to society and demonising homosexuals in propaganda as an 'enemy within' that would try to destroy Germany. While only a small percentage of homosexuals were actually prosecuted, this is not for a lack of trying - were it not for the identification process being so unreliable and time-consuming (Compared to the ease of Jew-finding), the Nazis would certinly have been more than happy to execute every single homosexual or bisexual person in Germany. But, if you want an alternative view, you can always study [[Scott Lively]]. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 14:38, 12 November 2008 (EST)
==Action and identity==
We need to distinguish between homosexual acts and "being homosexual". The [[gay rights]] movement blurs this distinction, and that blurring is making this article hard to write.
As we all know, the activists liken homosexuality as an inborn condition unrelated to thought or action, such as race. After a century of fighting for equal rights between the races, the Western world is now starting to consider choices and actions to be on a par with race. "I didn't choose my skin color, I didn't choose to be gay." Therefore, no one has a right to discriminate against homosexuals in any way or even to criticize homosexuality.
But even if it were proven that homosexual desires are inherited via heredity, it wouldn't change anything. Doctors who believe alcoholism is a hereditary "disease" do not advocate elimination of the laws against drunk driving. They simply say we should have sympathy for people who can't hold their liquor (or who crave it).
The argument of gay rights advocates about Nazi Germany and the imprisonment of homosexuals is that it was as bad as genocide against Jews; that discrimination against homosexuals and even criticizing people for "being homosexual" is similar to what Hitler did. Therefore we should not permit it.
This argument should not simply be accepted tacitly. It should be examined and analyzed.
But gay rights advocates don't want their arguments analyzed. They work by confusing people. That's why, when I started this article and a few others like it recently, we got a lot of vandalism. They are trying to suppress any criticism of homosexuality.
And why would they do that? Because they don't want to have an open discussion of '''whether or not''' homosexuality is bad. They know they would lose that debate.
That is typical of liberals. They don't want the opposite POV to be mentioned at all. Scientists, on the other hand, have no problem with alternate views being aired. You'll never hear an astronomer trying to censor the view that the moon is made of green cheese. They are confident that any "moon vs. cheese" debate will only result in more people knowing the truth about the moon, i.e., that it's made of sand and dirt and rocks.
It is only people who hold false views who don't want debate and discussion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:06, 13 November 2008 (EST)