View Full Version : Pissed off at homophobia
cinammonkisses
06-18-2007, 08:14 AM
I have read studies where it says that a lack of testosterone in a male fetus causes the baby to be homosexual and vice versa for a female baby.
Hmm so do you really believe that all gay males are "flamboyant" and all women are "manly"
(yes genius I'm well aware you didn't call women manly BUT since you wanted to throw in the "research" that you've read about testosterone and lack thereof, I chose this word)
What I find as so amusing is how many men there are who are in the "life" just not open about it (ie. downlow) KentuckyMysteryMan, I woudln't be surprised if some of your friends/family members were also gay men. They are just in the closet because of people like you. :)
I'm done posting to you now. You're just a young country boy, set in his country ways. I hope you take the time out to read more, and learn more about society and life in general. You obviously need a wakeup call..
Good day! :D
~CK
KentuckyMysteryMan
06-18-2007, 08:16 AM
Actually, yes I do have a bi sexual family member. And, he does kinda act feminine to be honest and he sounds feminine too. But, ok, have a nice day.
Jenny
06-18-2007, 08:17 AM
Jenny, lol...contrary to your belief, I am not pro-homosexual...lol...I am not for homosexual marraige. I'm just saying that's why I think they are bi or homo. I have read studies where it says that a lack of testosterone in a male fetus causes the baby to be homosexual and vice versa for a female baby.
And I'm sure you are very learned and wise on the subject of biology. I'm sure that queers everywhere bow to your superior knowledge of what makes them gay. (Rejoice all!)
As for being a homophobe... congratulations! If only more people would speak up about being intolerant and couch that intolerance and sheer distaste as concern for the socio-political well being of a minority population. I wish more people were like you. And in my opinion - all the more reason for them to sit down and shut up and act straight. I mean the homophobic population to whom they should be answering MUST find such displays icky to say the least.
KentuckyMysteryMan
06-18-2007, 08:21 AM
Jenny, while I appreciate your compliments, I do not consider myself homophobic. If someone is homo or bi, then they are. It's hard for them to act straight. I mean, I can't hardly act homosexual. End of story. Later ladies.
sun child
06-18-2007, 08:22 AM
I did not mean to start a volatile thread. I was just ranting about how sad and angry it makes me feel when people go out of their way to persecute others who are merely celebrating who they are. I had a strong reaction to it and I wanted to discuss it. It's pretty coincidental that someone would post insane stereotypes and theories. I'm not going to debate the appropriateness of joyful celebrations with people who are clearly ignorant morons (but I will call you an ignorant moron). As for your question Paris I don't think the pro-lifers were supporting the festivities because they were all clumped together with the "gays are going to hell" protestors.
KentuckyMysteryMan
06-18-2007, 08:24 AM
Sun child, yes that's why I am not discussing this anymore. I won't discuss this anymore with people who are ignorant.
Jenny
06-18-2007, 08:25 AM
What? No more of your wisdom and guidance on human sexuality?
KentuckyMysteryMan
06-18-2007, 08:32 AM
I'm off to the gym to get some more testosterone. Yeah! Bye! (flexes bicep)
sun child
06-18-2007, 08:46 AM
I love the "I'm not mad that people are gay! More pussy for me!" line of reasoning Kentucky man uses. I think we should all consider his locale and just sigh. PRICELESS!
stripperMBA
06-18-2007, 08:50 AM
My brother is gay and I love him.
Circe
06-18-2007, 09:00 AM
Yes, these pesky minorities whose inclusion in recent society has been marked by persecution and retaliation, both criminal and social, wanting to express open-ness and pride in their community, and take one stupid week to be "gay in public", and invite the community at large to participate and celebrate with them. I could see how that could devastate gay rights. They're all just attention whores.
Marry me?
...We can have a big, flamboyantly gay Canadian wedding. On a float in the pride parade! With much rainbow paraphernalia and glitter. And naked wedding cake wrestling.
jellob1976
06-18-2007, 10:52 AM
As I said in an earlier thread today, I don't post here too often (mostly a lurker), but there's been some good topics this week. Anyway, I won't add to the pride parade debate, pretty much everything has already been said. However, ftr I'm straight but pretty much grew up next to Boystown in Chicago...and whether you're gay, straight, bi, etc., there's no denying that the pride parade is a great party.
On another interesting note, when I was in law school and taking family law classes, the professor wasn't shy about expressing her beliefs on the hypocrisy of anti-gay marriage laws, and she often put it this way.
While anti-gay marriage advocates often stress that marriage is founded in the judeo-christian ideal of a man and a woman, consider this:
The constitution protects the right to marry for heterosexuals who are atheists.
The constitution protects the right to marry for heterosexuals who are unable to have children, or don't want children.
The constitution protects the right to marry for heterosexuals who are communists.
The constitution often protects the right to marry for heterosexuals who have been convicted of a felony.
Put another way, the government really doesn't care if you hate god, hate kids, hate capitolism and hate the good ol' U.S. of A....just as long as you're matching up a penis and a vagina on your wedding day. But god forbid a republican gay couple (yes they do exist) wants to enter a lifelong commitment and raise a couple kids with a white picket fence.
cinammonkisses
06-18-2007, 01:18 PM
^^Good point JelloB...you're professor is awesome!
Prester_John
06-18-2007, 01:22 PM
I love the "I'm not mad that people are gay! More pussy for me!" line of reasoning Kentucky man uses. I think we should all consider his locale and just sigh. PRICELESS!
I think he really meant "more pussy that would be theoretically for me, even though in reality they wouldnt touch me even if a pluage wiped out all the males in the Hemisphere except for me".
Hatshepsut
06-18-2007, 01:40 PM
10 Reasons Gay Marriage Is Wrong
Pink Panthers:
1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed [or any of Rush Limbaugh’s four marriages that ended in divorce].
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Gay parents who DO raise children obviously will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
LuckiCharm
06-18-2007, 01:53 PM
Just wanna throw my little two cents in...Just to let you know I am straight but I'm not like a homophob or nothing...I just think that people shouldn't be flamed for not agreeing with gay marriage. It's their opinion. However, when they make a big scene like the OP was talking about and holding up signs calling people "faggot" and whatever, that's a whole other story. But just because someone doesn't or does support gay rights, they shouldn't be shot down. I myself am neutral...I live my life and wish people would live theirs too.
Casual Observer
06-18-2007, 02:04 PM
It's an expression of community and freedom from persecution. At this point it is also a way to bring the greater community closer to them, to show that they exist in some fair numbers and to increase participation between the hetero/homo communities. What could possibly be embarrassing about that?
The idea is that instead of polarizing and alienating substantial (arguably, numerically declining) segments of the population with Castro-street type demonstrations, a better PR effort could be made by saying, "Hey, dumbass, I'm your accountant, your garbage man, your city engineer," instead of saying, "Hey, dumbass, check me out in my leather thong and beret and nothing else! And like it!" That's not a great way to "increase participation" in a community.
Jenny
06-18-2007, 02:06 PM
Just wanna throw my little two cents in...Just to let you know I am straight but I'm not like a homophob or nothing...I just think that people shouldn't be flamed for not agreeing with gay marriage. It's their opinion. However, when they make a big scene like the OP was talking about and holding up signs calling people "faggot" and whatever, that's a whole other story. But just because someone doesn't or does support gay rights, they shouldn't be shot down. I myself am neutral...I live my life and wish people would live theirs too.Sorry, I can't get on board with this. I can't take a "live and let live" and "it's a matter of opinion" when the issue is one of fundamental human rights and dignity. I think people should absolutely be flamed for "not supporting gay rights". I also think people should be flamed for suggesting that Asian men should not be allowed to work in the vicinity of white women and for suggesting that blacks should have to ride at the back of the bus and that women shouldn't be able to vote.
Jenny
06-18-2007, 02:10 PM
The idea is that instead of polarizing and alienating substantial (arguably, numerically declining) segments of the population with Castro-street type demonstrations, a better PR effort could be made by saying, "Hey, dumbass, I'm your accountant, your garbage man, your city engineer," instead of saying, "Hey, dumbass, check me out in my leather thong and beret and nothing else! And like it!" That's not a great way to "increase participation" in a community.And yet - it seems to work pretty well for everyone who is not terminally constipated. My city loves its gay pride. (except for some hard core people who really hate all the corporate sponsorship). Being gay is defined by sexuality and sexual preference. There is nothing wrong with making that an issue in the celebration. But we know - strip club customers are really fastidious. It's all good and healthy and empowering to express sexuality - as long its in dark rooms and on your terms and in ways you find titillating or palatable. Everyone else should shut the hell up.
LuckiCharm
06-18-2007, 02:12 PM
Sorry, I can't get on board with this. I can't take a "live and let live" and "it's a matter of opinion" when the issue is one of fundamental human rights and dignity. I think people should absolutely be flamed for "not supporting gay rights". I also think people should be flamed for suggesting that Asian men should not be allowed to work in the vicinity of white women and for suggesting that blacks should have to ride at the back of the bus and that women shouldn't be able to vote.
If someone has an opinion, and they keep it to themselves without making big public protests, no they should not get flamed. Everyone does not think like you do. Just because someone chooses not to support something they don't believe in doesn't mean they deserved to be labeled as "hateful" or "prejudice" or whatever.
Jenny
06-18-2007, 02:17 PM
If someone has an opinion, and they keep it to themselves without making big public protests, no they should not get flamed. Everyone does not think like you do.No indeed, they don't. That doesn't change the fact that rights of equality the right to human dignity are absolutely fundamental. Although - if people were truly "keeping it to themselves" the opportunity for flaming would never come up. Further - how can you possibly argue that it is good and right or neutral to hold beliefs but not to publicly demonstrate them? Like it is okay to be a bigot so long as you don't make a sign?
TigersMilk
06-18-2007, 02:17 PM
Lucki - Thats how things receive change in this country when strong opinions clash. Some outcomes are good and others are not.
Yet, I wonder if MLK kept his opinion quiet? If Susan B. Anthony had said and did nothing? Where would we be? Sometimes big things must happen before change is then allowed.
LuckiCharm
06-18-2007, 02:23 PM
Well whatever Jenny, all I was doing was posting my opinion, which I don't feel my opinion is wrong. We'll agree to disagree.
Casual Observer
06-18-2007, 02:23 PM
But we know - strip club customers are really fastidious. It's all good and healthy and empowering to express sexuality - as long its in dark rooms and on your terms and in ways you find titillating or palatable. Everyone else should shut the hell up.Lame and typical deflection on your part, but the fact remains the same; as a minority group, you either want that "increased participation" of which you spoke in the broader context of the community, or you seek to separate and alienate yourselves collectively from that community. One is more eminently more productive than the other.
If you really want the other 90% of the population to believe you're just like them only slightly different, then show them. People do it all the time every day in ways large and small, but what flies for a parade in Key West might not exactly go over as well in West Texas.
jellob1976
06-18-2007, 02:26 PM
The idea is that instead of polarizing and alienating substantial (arguably, numerically declining) segments of the population with Castro-street type demonstrations, a better PR effort could be made by saying, "Hey, dumbass, I'm your accountant, your garbage man, your city engineer," instead of saying, "Hey, dumbass, check me out in my leather thong and beret and nothing else! And like it!" That's not a great way to "increase participation" in a community.
There's a few problems with that argument. First off, the type of "pr marketing" your talking about does take place the other 364 days a year. There's thousands and thousands of gay and lesbians living open lifestyles as accountants, plumbers, etc.; and many of these people partake in professional "gay" associations for that exact purpose to show that homosexuals aren't just interior decorators and stylists.
Second, this is a one day a year event, and it's designed to be a celebration, which can serve a number of purposes. While the aforementioned associations can do good work, sometimes a big open party does a lot more to grab the public's attention. Additionally, celebration's promote openess, and it's really empowering for many closeted individuals. Simply put, while the quieter statements can have an impact, sometimes you need a big explosion.
Third, pretty much every minority group has a day to celebrate their heritage and/or diversity, why should we treat pride parade's any differently? The pat response to this always seems to be that "whites" don't have a pride day, which is bullshit if you really think about it. There's St. Patrick's day for the Irish, Cashmere Pulaski day for the Polish, Octoberfest for Germans, etc. White may be a common color, but even us "whites" come from diverse ethinic backgrounds who openly celebrate our heritage.
And last, how is the parade doing any harm? It's basically a huge party that celebrates acceptance. Is it appropriate for kids? Not always, but then again neither is Mardi Gras. Not everything has to reduced to what's fit for a child.
Casual Observer
06-18-2007, 02:47 PM
And last, how is the parade doing any harm?
When your political opposition uses--nay, thrives upon--photos and video footage of your parades for crafting their fundraising drives and producing recruitment propaganda, that's a problem for your community, whether you partake in the festivities or not. It's almost like guilt by association. This applies to most any cause, but historically it seems particularly egregious with regard to people in the GBLT community.
sun child
06-18-2007, 02:55 PM
"Producing recruitment propaganda?"
jellob1976
06-18-2007, 03:01 PM
When your political opposition uses--nay, thrives upon--photos and video footage of your parades for crafting their fundraising drives and producing recruitment propaganda, that's a problem for your community, whether you partake in the festivities or not. It's almost like guilt by association. This applies to most any cause, but historically it seems particularly egregious with regard to people in the GBLT community.
The problem is that this "footage" will always exist, and can always be used by the opposition....and frankly, what's the difference between two men in thongs kissing, and a hetero sexual couple in swimsuits at the beach making out?
If you fight for equality with the condition that the "offensive material" will be kept behind closed doors...well then that's not really a fight for equality at all. That said, I'm not saying that the struggle for gay rights is about the right to engage in public sexual behaviour....but it is the fight to have the same rights and acceptance as heterosexuals...and much of what goes on during pride parades is an intentionally exagerated form of expressing the same rights that we heterosexuals take for granted.
I can go out in public and hold hands with my wife without fear. I have no problem kissing her in a public park....sometimes I'll even give her a little grab-ass. For all the people who say "I have no problem with gays so long as they keep it in the bedroom"...well that's just hypocritical cause we bring our romance into our public lives every day. That's one of the reasons pride parades exist. Is it exagerated? Of course it is, but when you're trying to shift the very morals of society, it's generally more effective to shout instead of whispering.
Jay Zeno
06-18-2007, 03:43 PM
1. I've never felt that racial, ethnic, or sexual preference pride was particularly justified. You're taking pride in something you didn't achieve. You were dropped into it. (Likewise, there's a smidgen of hypocrisy in it. I don't feel Mostly Causasian (Male) Pride, or Heterosexual Pride, but if I did, it would certainly be inappropriate in today's sensibilities to show it.)
2. One can be a traditionalist and accept and embrace alternate lifestyles without being a bigot worthy of flogging. A person can readily accept someone's sexual preferences, employ that, form friendships, and still be uncomfortable with officially incorporating a particular relationship into our quasi-religious sanction of marriage. Now, they may be wrong and illogical about it, but they're necessarily a bigot.
3. As noted before, the rationale taken again homosexual marriage is irrational when you consider the assaults that traditional marriage tolerates. The reasons for opening up alternate marriages far outweigh the rationales against.
4. Opening up marriage to simply consenting adults does open up other possibilities, such as polygamous and incestuous marriages. Before you yell at this, hear me out. I cannot think of a solid argument in favor of "two consenting adults" that doesn't hold water for other adult relationships. "We believe in polygamy, we all love each other, we're not hurting anyone else, and we can't practice it legally, and the very system shuns us because of our beliefs. We're being denied human respect."
5. Trying to promote strange and marginal behavior is fun for a parade but not the way to advance your ideal to the mainstream, and it perpetuates the sideshow impression. You think I'm bothered by having my young kids see two men in thongs making out on a float? Well, I'd be bothered by them seeing a man and a woman in thongs making out on a float, too. Hmmm... maybe I'll just take them to Disneyland that weekend (a company which recognizes homosexual unions, which I think is cool).
6. Ultimately, the government should stay out of the marriage business unless there's a civil suit or child welfare involved. We get these deductions for getting married, and it's not logical, not in today's world. Traditional marriage is hopelessly broken, the government should abandon its sanctioning of it, and people should be left to their own personal and/or spiritual preferences and rituals to establish whatever relationship among each other that they wish to establish.
when you're trying to shift the very morals of society...I thought that's what the right-wingers were being criticized for. Some very rational people don't want their morals shifted.
jellob1976
06-18-2007, 04:06 PM
I thought that's what the right-wingers were being criticized for. Some very rational people don't want their morals shifted.
There's some issues where people shouldn't have a choice. Nobody on this board would argue that the civil rights movement shouldn't have occurred, but back in the 60's there were plenty of folks whose "morals" were in stark opposition to equality for blacks and whites.
There were even those "moderates" who said they had no problems with blacks, so long as they don't[insert: work at my job, live in my community, date my daughter, etc.]. A lot of these people were good-rational-hard- working people who just happened to be raised in a time when intolerance was the norm. That said, just because they had a good soul doesn't mean their patently wrong morals were entitled to deference or respect.
Sometimes good people are wrong, and they need a swift kick in the ass to change their perspectives.
Jenny
06-18-2007, 05:08 PM
Well whatever Jenny, all I was doing was posting my opinion, which I don't feel my opinion is wrong. We'll agree to disagree.Ohhhh... I'm sorry. I didn't realize that this was the one thread in which saying "it's just an opinion" made it sacrosanct and immune to criticism.
Jenny
06-18-2007, 05:12 PM
Lame and typical deflection on your part, but the fact remains the same; as a minority group, you either want that "increased participation" of which you spoke in the broader context of the community, or you seek to separate and alienate yourselves collectively from that community. One is more eminently more productive than the other.
On my part? That is so adorable considering the fact that you left out the rest of my post that dealt substantively with your point. I'm sorry, what was that expression? "Lame and typical deflection..."
If you really want the other 90% of the population to believe you're just like them only slightly different, then show them. People do it all the time every day in ways large and small, but what flies for a parade in Key West might not exactly go over as well in West Texas.
Well a) you're making the assumption that is what they want the other 90% of the population to believe, b) maybe it involves the weird notion of "acceptance of different lifestyles" rather than "No we can pretend to be straight." Anyway - this seems pretty moot to me. Pride parades are DEMONSTRABLY effective. Just because some self-loather friend of Hyde's finds them unpalatable doesn't change the fact that they are a) a great party b) bring in huge tourist dollars and c) have been generating good will from the straight population in the urban centres in which they take place for a good number of years now.
Jenny
06-18-2007, 05:22 PM
1. I've never felt that racial, ethnic, or sexual preference pride was particularly justified. You're taking pride in something you didn't achieve. You were dropped into it. (Likewise, there's a smidgen of hypocrisy in it. I don't feel Mostly Causasian (Male) Pride, or Heterosexual Pride, but if I did, it would certainly be inappropriate in today's sensibilities to show it.)
Perhaps it would make more sense if you thought of Pride as the opposite of Shame, and remember that Shame is a big part of the recent history of most of the groups to which you refer. It's hardly an event that is taking place in a historical vacuum.
2. One can be a traditionalist and accept and embrace alternate lifestyles without being a bigot worthy of flogging. A person can readily accept someone's sexual preferences, employ that, form friendships, and still be uncomfortable with officially incorporating a particular relationship into our quasi-religious sanction of marriage. Now, they may be wrong and illogical about it, but they're necessarily a bigot.
Disagree. I think that is exactly what makes you a bigot. Saying that "you're okay as long as you know your place and your place is not equal to our's."
4. Opening up marriage to simply consenting adults does open up other possibilities, such as polygamous and incestuous marriages. Before you yell at this, hear me out. I cannot think of a solid argument in favor of "two consenting adults" that doesn't hold water for other adult relationships. "We believe in polygamy, we all love each other, we're not hurting anyone else, and we can't practice it legally, and the very system shuns us because of our beliefs. We're being denied human respect."
No it doesn't. Because people are not being discriminated against in those cases. Or if they are it is discrimination in the loosest sense of the word, such that it is not legally useful (the same way murderers are discriminated against for being murderers). Whether or not you think marriage SHOULD be opened up to polys and incestuous unions does not change the fact that the legal rationale for gay marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
5. Trying to promote strange and marginal behavior is fun for a parade but not the way to advance your ideal to the mainstream, and it perpetuates the sideshow impression. You think I'm bothered by having my young kids see two men in thongs making out on a float? Well, I'd be bothered by them seeing a man and a woman in thongs making out on a float, too. Hmmm... maybe I'll just take them to Disneyland that weekend (a company which recognizes homosexual unions, which I think is cool).
Well maybe that's why it's a parade and not a standard work uniform.
LuckiCharm
06-18-2007, 05:23 PM
Ohhhh... I'm sorry. I didn't realize that this was the one thread in which saying "it's just an opinion" made it sacrosanct and immune to criticism.
No prob ;) lol
Jay Zeno
06-18-2007, 05:32 PM
Perhaps it would make more sense if you thought of Pride as the opposite of Shame
No, I think of it as "I'm proud of," and it doesn't make as much sense to me to think about it as an opposite of a negative. I don't take pride in my work because I'd be ashamed if I don't do it. Rather, I take pride in it because I accomplished something.
It's hardly an event that is taking place in a historical vacuum.I do agree with that. It's a part of the oppressed (or repressed) getting their voice.
Disagree. I think that is exactly what makes you a bigot. Saying that "you're okay as long as you know your place and your place is not equal to our's."We can disagree. But what you're saying that I'm saying is not what I'm saying.
No it doesn't. Because people are not being discriminated against in those cases. ...does not change the fact that the legal rationale for gay marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with it.I don't see the differences, nor have they been explained to me. And I don't mean that as a challenge. I mean, quite literally, they haven't been explained to me. I've gotten the dissent opinion a lot but without an accompanying rationale.
LuckiCharm
06-18-2007, 05:44 PM
Just one more thing...bigot is a really strong word. The protestors and the people screaming "faggot" in the streets are bigots...they are completly intolerable of certain groups of people because of who they are. People who simply don't condone something they don't believe in doesn't make them a bigot.
Pan Dah
06-18-2007, 05:49 PM
There's some issues where people shouldn't have a choice.
You and James Dobson of the CCV should get along fabulously since you seem to think so much alike.
Lysondra
06-18-2007, 05:53 PM
Just one more thing...bigot is a really strong word. The protestors and the people screaming "faggot" in the streets are bigots...they are completly intolerable of certain groups of people because of who they are. People who simply don't condone something they don't believe in doesn't make them a bigot.
bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions
differing from his own
Dictionary says no. *cough*
Jenny
06-18-2007, 05:56 PM
No, I think of it as "I'm proud of," and it doesn't make as much sense to me to think about it as an opposite of a negative. I don't take pride in my work because I'd be ashamed if I don't do it. Rather, I take pride in it because I accomplished something.
I didn't mean to imply that was the ONLY way of looking at Pride. Just a way that would make sense in this context. There is a reason "Pride" is the word associated with oppressed groups claiming their rights, and that is it.
I don't see the differences, nor have they been explained to me. And I don't mean that as a challenge. I mean, quite literally, they haven't been explained to me. I've gotten the dissent opinion a lot but without an accompanying rationale.
Polygamy is a little harder, because there are religious connotations which make for a more complicated argument (but one that is (demonstrably) hardly insurmountable as it also involves competing rights. Incest - it is not an issue of discrimination against an oppressed group. Gay marriage - it is. Laws prohibiting gay marriage discriminate against people simply for being gay. The argument was never "but we're not hurting anyone and we're adults" (although that is a counter argument). It was "this is illegal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." This thing with incest and polygamy is just an PR bullshit to lump gay in with the backwater deviants. Frankly, I'm a little surprised you fell for it.
Further - where does this idea come from that incest is only illegal because gay marriage is illegal? I seriously doubt that was in the minds of the legislating body... like "Marriage between a man and a woman... well obviously, because otherwise we'd have brothers and sisters getting married." Where is the connection? I mean you say you've never gotten the rationale for the dissent - what is the rationale for the claim? Like a real rationale.
We can disagree. But what you're saying that I'm saying is not what I'm saying.
I think it is Jay. You're just using longer sentences to try to couch it in neutral terms probably because you know lots of people who are really nice except that... But there is no way to say "I don't think gays should be allowed to get married" without implicitly accepting that they are socially less valuable than heteros. If you think there is a way to say that, I'd love to hear it. There were a whole whack of people in the 1960s who might have thought that blacks should be employed at the same prices as whites, but still didn't want them straying off the drinking fountain, and lots of people in the 1930s who thought the chinese should be able to get employment within 100 meters of white women, but would be disgusted at the idea of an officiated relationship between them. I still think that's bigoted.
LuckiCharm
06-18-2007, 05:57 PM
Yea...intolerant and not agreeing is two different things...*cough*
Lysondra
06-18-2007, 06:01 PM
Yea...intolerant and not agreeing is two different things...*cough*
And not condoning and not agreeing are two different things as well. And you used the word condone.
Jenny
06-18-2007, 06:02 PM
Yea...intolerant and not agreeing is two different things...*cough*
Okay, this is true. I think maybe there is some disconnect here. Like there is "I personally find homosexuality disgusting, and don't think two men's genitals should ever be near each other, and I don't even let my doctor give me a rectal exam, but it's their choice and I don't believe in government mandated inequality, even if I find the exercise of that choice disgusting" and there is "It's okay... as long as there are strict government regulations ensuring that they never have the same rights and benefits as I do." One sounds pretty unpalatable, but one is actively seeking inequality. People shouldn't have the choice to actually deny other people basic human rights; that is just tyranny.
But really - between the two, which one is intolerant and which one is not agreeing?
LuckiCharm
06-18-2007, 06:03 PM
And not condoning and not agreeing are two different things as well. And you used the word condone.
Sorry- bad choice of words, my bad.
sun child
06-18-2007, 06:37 PM
I thought some of the men that frequent strip clubs and are posting with distaste about gay pride parades might heed this info from wikipedia:
One can set up a straw man in the following ways:
1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy).
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.
Not trying to make it personal…but anyone who has a problem with gay pride parades, gay pride month or gays in general has a big problem. You do find it icky (as Jenny said) so you set up a false argument where every gay man or woman is naked jiggling around fucking on the street. In front of children no less! Oh sure it is good and fine to be gay…but why do they have to act gay in public like that. Everyone should have the same rights. Unfortunately on this planet (especially this country) people are pretty attached to "traditional" roles of gender. I cannot hate you for it…but it is regressive. Gays should not have to have a PR campaign to be treated like human beings and that is not what gay pride week is about. Like CK already pointed out…it is about commemorating the Stonewall Riots and showing pride in who you are. It is not to piss off and alienate the general public. Surely you have heard of the Love Parade in Berlin. All kinds of kinky naked activities go on there but people do not cry about it. Sorry you guys saw two gay dudes in thongs and it made you shocked sick or flaccid. Not my problem. I bet it would be more palatable (again quoting Jenny) if it were two hot Playmates making out. You do not have to feel pride only when you accomplish something. Pride is a very relative term but in the case of gay pride it means mostly not being ashamed of who you fucking are and who you fucking love. It is because you think that two dudes being gay and fucking each other in the ass is strange and marginal that homophobia exists. It is not strange and marginal. It might not be what most people do but it is what many do and just because it is personally distasteful to you and your children does not mean that you should miss the point of the effort to celebrate the openness that some people can share. Let me see. I bet you guys get a lot of joy and personal enjoyment from going to strip clubs tipping and getting dances. A huge portion of the population probably finds this distasteful even immoral. But I'm sure a lot of you make it OK because you keep it a secret or just don't talk about it. Or maybe you do it with your buddies. I obviously don't think that going to strip clubs is wrong but some people think it is very wrong. Not saying you should have a PL parade in the streets or anything (no one wants to see that) but my point is just because some people find it distasteful doesn't mean that you shouldn't have the right to do it. Just because you find homosexuality distasteful (you inherently obviously do otherwise you would not try to argue against celebrations of homosexuality or mistakenly portray them as hurting their own cause) does not mean that you can judge people that celebrate it. :)
Jay Zeno
06-18-2007, 07:17 PM
Frankly, I'm a little surprised you fell for it.I didn't fall for anything. I follow my logic where it leads, without the benefit of someone else leashing me along. I'm not going to knee-jerk agree or disagree to something merely because someone considers it the right or wrong politics.
I've said I'm in support of homosexual marriage. I'm not using anything as a rationale against it.
"We believe in polygamy." Too bad. There's laws against polygamy. If you practice it openly, you could go to jail. There is no civil recognition of your status - indeed, there is civil prohibition. There's no place for "P" for marital status on your job application, and thank goodness, because most employers would shun you. You can't wait until some enlightened time in the future comes along and you can come out of the group marriage closet.
Where is the connection? I mean you say you've never gotten the rationale for the dissent - what is the rationale for the claim? "What's wrong with it besides your traditional morals, which is keeping us fettered from realizing our human potential?"
But there is no way to say "I don't think gays should be allowed to get married" without implicitly accepting that they are socially less valuable than heteros. If you think there is a way to say that, I'd love to hear it. Well, I'm not trying to find a way to say it, since I don't believe it. But I can imagine people who are traditionally invested in a traditional marriage, where traditionally, the government sanctioned it as a way to promote the nuclear family. The tides of society have left that concept high and dry, but they still have investment in it. They don't apply logic to it.
These folks don't believe that sexual preference should dictate jobs, or corporate status, or other social status, or bonds of friendship, or membership in clubs, or status of ownership, or any of that other stuff that the law embraces as rights of humanity. They just can't wrap their arms around stretching out an institution past what their tradition, upbringing, and maybe religious training dictates.
In short, that single issue doesn't, to me, necessarily dictate personal maliciousness on their part. I can see these people at a neighborhood barbecue debating the aspects of it with their gay friends.
PaigeDWinter
06-18-2007, 07:59 PM
This thread has become rather poo-ish. It's gonna take a nap now.