You mean the people who will call the police to report two gay men having consentual sex?[/quote]
Do you have a police report or could I read court documents on this anywhere? Or is this a “friend of mine heard” or “I read on the internet” sort of story. My understanding is that the police kick in the wrong door to someone’s house as often as someone is actually arrested and imprisoned for being gay. Hardly oppression. When the gay Waco or Ruby Ridge happens, call me.
In your opinion, should they be forced to change their signs?
Once again, should they be forced to change derogatory expletives? What about those who use “faggot” to refer to cigarettes?
He proposed a bill it didn’t go very far and you’re whining about it. This is not new or taboo. And the fact that you bring it up as a detraction of “anti-gay rights” (along with your trampling of free speech above) indicates that you would question and corrode the fundamentals of our democracy rather than even admit gays may not have rights.
When Bush starts rounding up all the gays and registering them and keeping them in camps, you’ve got a point. Even then, the act wouldn’t be unprecedented.
Would you mind coming up with 78 more names?
Whole countries banned any form of the DaVinci Code (despite it’s gross errors and loose grip on facts) and you’re (once again) concerned about “the issue” of free citizens exercising free speech?
Out of curiosity, what percentage of these hypothetical people do you think say that about straight sex?
The vast majority of couples I see on the street don’t hold hands regardless of whatever relationship status I do/don’t presume.
What about wearing a ring? It gives no indication as to my spouse’s gender status. Aside from that, I easily go whole months without talking about my spouse with my coworkers. Even then the conversation sticks pretty rigidly to co-habitation. Pretty much the only thing at work that indicates my spouse is a man/woman is the photos on my desk and I’m not married to the photos. Hell, even his/her name is phonetically gender neutral.
This is as frivolous as the people who spell woman with a “y” and get mad when you refer to a car as a her and use “he” as a default pronoun. Hardly comparable to slavery or women’s sufferage and definitely not violating any rights.
Brokeback Mountain was a box office success. Middle America supported it overwhelmingly. Surely that’s enough, isn’t it? Does everyone have to agree with everything? Many gays call heterosexuals “breeders,” a term that definitely implies revulsion. But so what?[/quote]
I think someone is beginning to see the frivolity and irrationality of it all.
Personally, lifting the HIV travel ban for the Gay Games was the clincher for me.
You mean the people who will call the police to report two gay men having consentual sex?
Do you have a police report or could I read court documents on this anywhere? Or is this a “friend of mine heard” or “I read on the internet” sort of story. My understanding is that the police kick in the wrong door to someone’s house as often as someone is actually arrested and imprisoned for being gay. Hardly oppression. When the gay Waco or Ruby Ridge happens, call me.
[/quote]
“Answering what turned out to be a bogus report of a man behaving erratically with a gun, Deputy Joseph Quinn arrived at an apartment building east of Houston about 10:30 p.m. and met Roger Nance, 41, who had phoned in the complaint, authorities said.”
Strawman. My message was never “They should have to change their signs”. My message was “The fact that they carry such signs is an example of homophobia in the United States.”
You’re starting to sound like Mick.
No, I dont think they should be forced to change their signs, BUT THAT WASNT THE FUCKING POINT. THE POINT WAS PEOPLE SHOULDNT CLAIM THAT “WE DONT REALLY CARE” WHEN PEOPLE ARE GOING AROUND WITH GOD HATES FAGS SIGNS.
God dammit why do I have to spell this shit out for you people?
Read above. It was an example challenging the assertation that “we” (straight people in America) “really dont care” about gays.
And the “those who use fagoot to refer to cigarettes” argument is just laughable. What about those who use coon to describe racoons? Surely this must mean its ok to call a black person “coon” since some people use the same word in a way unrelated to the derogatory association! Please, grow up.
Doesn’t matter “how far” it went. It still indicates that the poster who said “we really dont care” was incorrect that “we” really dont care, since some of “us” obviously do since some of “us” went out of our way to introduce/support the bill.
hahahhaah. Oh man, the strawmen are endless.
I trampled free speech? Where? Because I said that people protesting with “God Hates Fags” signs, and people using anti-gay slurs indicate that “we really dont care” was an incorrect statement?
Oh, I see, the strawman here is “You said people arent allowed to say those things!!!” Idiocy. Pure, idiocy.
I said those things indicate homophobia in the “we” referenced in “we really dont care”.
And I’ll never admit that “gays might not have rights”. What rights are you suggesting that they may not have??
Irrelevant. The fact that he introduced a bill banning gay marriages proves that he does care about gays.
I’m sure it wouldnt be that hard.
No, its just incorrect to say “we really dont care” when there is so much obvious proof that “we” really do.
I’ve never heard someone claim that two straight people should not hold hands or kiss in public.
Irrelevant to the fact that a straight couple CAN without fear of retribution, while a gay couple CANNOT without fear of retribution.
Then again you’re the same genius that tried to argue that its ok that gay people CANT get married since you ARENT married (despite the fact that you COULD, if you were so inclined, whereas they COULDN’T even if they were so inclined)
Trust me, you do it more than you realize. Its something that we, as heterosexuals, take for granted. Seriously, give it a try. Its a lot harder than you’d imagine. And thats not even considering the reasoning behind it; removing the photos of your wife from your desk because you’re conducting a minor social experiment is one thing… knowing that you could never have pictures of your lover/partner at your desk because it would cause your coworkers to think very differently of you is another thing entirely.
[quote]
This is as frivolous as the people who spell woman with a “y” and get mad when you refer to a car as a her and use “he” as a default pronoun. Hardly comparable to slavery or women’s sufferage and definitely not violating any rights.[/quote]
If it would be so easy, all I’m saying is try it. You’d be suprised to find how difficult it really is.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Chewie wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Here, try something: Find a guy who is willing, and walk around a public place holding hands. Not groping each other or trying to fuck in public, or any other such nonsense. Just walk around holding hands like a normal straight couple would do. THEN come back and talk about how “Gays can live normal lives as long as they dont flaunt it!”
Ahhh. The sympathy card. When I said I don’t care, I meant it. The sympathy card is the most ineffective form of debate.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Or, even something less daring: For a week, dont give any clues to anyone about your sexual preference. That means no agreeing if a girl is hot, that means never using the phrase “My girlfriend” or “my wife” or even “my exgirlfriend”. That means no staring at a woman when she passes by. No displays of affection in public.
If you could do that for 7 days (which I highly doubt), you might have some sort of an idea of what its like for a homosexual all their lives.
Then, again, come back and say “Gays could live normal lives if they just didnt have to shove it in our faces!”
I can say that with confidence, and I’ll say it again. I don’t care. They can keep it to themselves.
I like your use of the ignorance card.
“They ain’t got it so bad! I dont care!”
“Ok why dont you try going through what they go through?”
“Uhhhhhhhh… I dont care!!!”
Like so many armchair heros, you talk about how easy it is for other people to deal with things you’ll never have to deal with, but the prospect of dealing with someone even close to what they deal with makes you tuck your tail between your legs, cover your ears, and sing LALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU I DONT CARE I’M RIGHT YOU’RE WRONG.
You are a bigot and a hypocrite for saying that “they can keep it to themselves” when you cannot (and will not) keep it to yourself.
[/quote]
What exactly have they dealt with that has not been brought on by their own actions? You need to man up and take acceptance that your gay pride is what is causing your aches. It is not that important that everyone knows your sexual preference. Our society has become as tolerant as it will get.
Yes, I dont give a flying fuck what your sexual preference is. If that makes me a bigot. Than I am guilty. Well, except for the fact that your definition is a little fucked up. You think that anyone that doesn’t agree with you is automatically a bigot. Quit throwing yourself a fucking pity party and crying when everyone doesn’t jump in and congratulate you.
“Whaa, Whaa! These people don’t agree with me, I’m going to call them names because I cannot support my own arguments or answer any of their questions.”
If you get so butt-hurt (now that is a good pun) about people name calling, you should try to practice what you preach. That, sir, makes YOU the hypocrite. You have called pretty much everyone an insult on this thread.
Yes, to answer your question. I have gone a while without discussing my sexual preference. In fact, that is how I talk to every woman who isn’t my gf. So, yes when I say that they can keep it to themselves, I mean it.
You seem to be dismissing the fact I don’t care to know what someone’s sexuality is. Instead you twist my words as if I was some kind of nazi. Because I don’t advertise my sexual preference, others can do the same.
[quote]Chewie wrote:
What exactly have they dealt with that has not been brought on by their own actions?
[/quote]
What exactly did members of interracial relationships deal with that werent brought on by their own actions, during times and in places where interracial relationships weren’t “normal” or “acceptable”?
I certainly hope not. Our society actually isnt very tolerant. I already gave a list of examples of this.
No, I dont see bigotry in anyone who disagrees with me.
I see bigotry when people say “Gays shouldnt kiss in public! But its ok for straight people to do it!”
I see bigotry when people say “I’m against gays because their actions are risky and dangerous! But I’m not against any other actions that are obviously risky and dangerous!”
I see bigotry when people say “I’m against gays because of the bible! Although I ignore other, equally significant, parts of the bible!”
And, I see bigotry when people say “Gays should have to keep their sexuality secret! But I shouldnt!”
I’ve fully supported ALL of my arguments.
What questions? The ones where they indicate that I’m “trampling free speech” when I say that using derogatory terms like “faggot” indicate homophobic bias?
Or when they ask if I support beastiality or pedophilia?
Those arent legitimate questions. Those are strawmen.
Define “discussing your sexual preference”.
Because I dont mean “talking about being straight”. I mean “saying things that indicate that you are straight”. Like “I used to date this girl who…” or “Me and my wife…” etc. I find it hard to believe that you’ve never said anything like that to a woman who wasnt your GF.
Again, the point you miss: There are many things you do that indicate your sexuality, that you take for granted as being “normal”, that you probably dont even realize.
So, lets see the strawmen I’ve had to chop down so far:
Defending gay rights is the same as defending pedophiles/zoophiles.
Pointing out that the fact that its common for most people to use the word “gay” or “fag” in a derogatory against homosexuals indicates anti-gay bias is the same as trying to undue free speech rights (because saying I think something is wrong OBVIOUSLY means I’m saying I think it should be illegal)
I think anyone who does not agree with me is a bigot; it couldn’t be their anti-gay double standards.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
hey what’s with all the nazi bashing. some of them are nice people. I mean some of their ideals might be messed up but on whole they mean good.
my 13 yr old neighbor understands the whole principle better than some of you here is an example
“Silly faggot dicks are for chicks”
[/quote]
Yes.
Clearly,
we dont really care
is a fitting obvervation of a society where a 13 year old child uses slurs such as “faggot”.
Anyone still want to argue that “we really dont care”?
Because I think gay people should be able to have parades, I think gay people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, including sexually assaulting whoever they want with no consequences.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Lucasa, do you know of any research that compares the genetic predisposition of males to homosexuality to that of females?
Yes, lots, and all contradictory. Anywhere from women’s sexuality being ~50% genetically determined and men’s none to approximately equal at around 7 and 5% respectively.
Dean Hamer, who first alleged the “Gay Gene”, seemed to have the strongest data running (to the point where “The Gene” was supposedly on the X-chromosome which would, presumably, bias towards men) but the data was skewed (he only looked at gay men) and several repetitions by other groups failed to confirm it.
IMO, bottom line, the larger twin studies get, the less direct evidence there is for even a genetic component of homosexuality, which precludes evidence for gender specificity. You could argue that larger studies look at average genetics rather than unique genetics, but only in rare circumstance does the data supporting gender specificity suggest anything greater than subtle or latent social bias.[/quote]
Okay, thanks. I’ve found studies in every direction, but they all seem too propagandized to be taken seriously. I thought there might be a “final word” on the matter that you would know about.
Your mention earlier in the thread that some of my data seemed anti-male made me wonder, as I have in the past, if some women choose lesbianism as a reaction to negative experiences with men, and if so, what percentage of them. I don’t think I’ve even run into a man who’s become homosexual after a bad relationship with a woman, but I feel that I have run into the reverse.
However, my experience with male homosexuals is limited, so maybe I just haven’t run into them, or haven’t been intimate enough with them (in, you know, the platonic sense) that they’d share their past relationship miseries.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Man, I’m already glad that I went out of my way to clarify “doesnt hurt any NONCONSENTING OTHERS”.
But your wrong. By spreading the HIV virus they hurt many, many unknowing individuals. Just take that 68%, or whatever it is out of the equation. There is practically no AIDS epidemic. I had no frickin idea that homosexual men were that responsible for this disease.
You cant be this stupid. I refuse to believe that you are this stupid, you MUST be just trying to annoy me.
How can you miss the obvious fact that, when you have sex, you take the risk of contracting an STD. Now, tell me, Mick, how does that constitute HARMING A NONCONSENTING OTHER.
Yea, good point. And apparently when one man sticks his dick up another mans asshole they have a very high probability of getting the HIV virus, at least according to the CDC. Or are they stupid too?
I know how you don’t like facts so I assume you think that they are stupid.
[/quote]
What does the level of risk involved have to do with the fact that they ARENT risking affecting any nonconsenting others?
Nothing. Sorry, you lose, as usual
What isnt the case? That the people who got HIV DIDNT consent to the sex? You make no sense
They consented to the risk of getting HIV by having sex. Not that hard to figure out.
Your point being? Just how much more dangerous is having anal sex as opposed to oral or vaginal sex? I’m curious
No no, I understand. But gay sex being “more dangerous” than straight sex doesn’t make being gay wrong, or unnatural, or any of the other nonsense you’ve tried to draw from it.
What is your point, exactly?
Any member of the population, gay or straight, should take the… wait, whats that thing you keep talking about in the other thread… oh yeah personal responsibility to avoid STDs.
Again, what is your point? That gay people shouldnt have as many sexual partners as they do? What? That being gay is wrong because gays face an increased risk of STDs?
Would you mind actually stating your position?
Here, I’ll state mine, again:
Consenting adults have the right to do as they wish so long as what they do does not objectively harm or risk objectively harming any nonconsenting others.
You have not, nor has anyone, been able to pass a “gay is wrong” argument through that filter.
Remember the incest issue? You gave a reasonable example of how incest could harm a nonconsenting other. So it did not pass the above qualification.
Yes, I think people should be protected from harassment.
However, if someone wants to say, in a way that does not harass or endanger someone else, that they think “faggots” are silly, then they have the right to.
Even if I think its wrong, they have the right to say it.
Just like other things I think are wrong, but people have the right to do.
I think its wrong to eat till youre 600lbs. But I wouldnt support laws against it.
I think its wrong to think other races are inferior. But I wouldnt support laws against thinking so.
Unlike those who use the logic of “I think being gay is wrong therefore it should be illegal”, I understand that there is a difference between what I think is wrong and what should be illegal.
So, please, stop accusing me of “trampling free speech” or any of that other nonsense, ok?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Chewie wrote:
No, I dont see bigotry in anyone who disagrees with me.
I see bigotry when people say “Gays shouldnt kiss in public! But its ok for straight people to do it!”
I see bigotry when people say “I’m against gays because their actions are risky and dangerous! But I’m not against any other actions that are obviously risky and dangerous!”
I see bigotry when people say “I’m against gays because of the bible! Although I ignore other, equally significant, parts of the bible!”
And, I see bigotry when people say “Gays should have to keep their sexuality secret! But I shouldnt!”
[/quote]
Wow, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said any such thing. I never said anything about keeping anything a secret. All I said was that I don’t like having it shoved in my face. That’s it. Nothing else. No special treatment. Just different. Accept it and go on with life. The more you parade around, the longer it will take for you to understand it.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’ve fully supported ALL of my arguments.
What questions? The ones where they indicate that I’m “trampling free speech” when I say that using derogatory terms like “faggot” indicate homophobic bias?
Or when they ask if I support beastiality or pedophilia?
Those arent legitimate questions. Those are strawmen.
[/quote]
Since I joined in this debate I asked the question"
Chewie: Why is it that swingers have only one rule…
CappyPlanet: … You are a bigot.
So, you call a question you can’t answer a strawman? You simply avoid those things that go against your agenda.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Define “discussing your sexual preference”.
Because I dont mean “talking about being straight”. I mean “saying things that indicate that you are straight”. Like “I used to date this girl who…” or “Me and my wife…” etc. I find it hard to believe that you’ve never said anything like that to a woman who wasnt your GF.
Again, the point you miss: There are many things you do that indicate your sexuality, that you take for granted as being “normal”, that you probably dont even realize. [/quote]
Again, the point YOU miss. I never said anything about keeping it a secret. I said to stop inundating society and looking for a pat on the back because of your sexuality.
[quote]Chewie wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Chewie wrote:
No, I dont see bigotry in anyone who disagrees with me.
I see bigotry when people say “Gays shouldnt kiss in public! But its ok for straight people to do it!”
I see bigotry when people say “I’m against gays because their actions are risky and dangerous! But I’m not against any other actions that are obviously risky and dangerous!”
I see bigotry when people say “I’m against gays because of the bible! Although I ignore other, equally significant, parts of the bible!”
And, I see bigotry when people say “Gays should have to keep their sexuality secret! But I shouldnt!”
Wow, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said any such thing. I never said anything about keeping anything a secret. All I said was that I don’t like having it shoved in my face. That’s it. Nothing else. No special treatment. Just different. Accept it and go on with life. The more you parade around, the longer it will take for you to understand it.
[/quote]
Thats understandable. But the fact remains that there are many things that heterosexuals can do that would not be considered “flauting their sexuality” whereas a homosexual doing the same things WOULD be.
But when I brought that point up, your response was an ignorant “I dont care. They can shut up.”
Why do swingers avoid bisexual men? Because gay sex carries an increased risk of STDs.
What does that have to do with the conversation at hand?
Pointing out that gay sex is riskier than straight sex does nothing to prove that being gay is wrong. It does nothing to prove that being gay is immoral. It does nothing to prove that gays should have to censor any indications of their sexuality. It does not justify using slurs against homosexuals.
What point were you trying to make by asking that question? That gay men have an increased risk of HIV? So what?
I think that, if you had an aspect of your personality challenged in such a way, you’d eventually start acting the same way. This goes back to my original point that most of the malady against homosexuals stems from the homophobia against them.
What I’m gathering from you is that you dont see why gays feel the need to have parades and other forms of “gay pride”.
I think the issue here is that “pride” is the opposite of “shame”. I think the message homosexuals are trying to convey in “gay pride” isnt so much “I’m proud to be gay” but “I refuse to be ashamed to be gay.” I think there is a subtle, but significant difference there.
I think that, if, say, people with red hair started facing discrimination for their hair color, we’d start seeing “Redhead Pride” events. It would be an example of people with red hair resisting the idea that they should be ashamed of having red hair. But, as things are, there arent any of those events; people with red hair arent constantly reminded that they have red hair so they dont highly identify themselves as being red haired.
In the same way, I think gay pride is only a direct result of a homophobic society.
If gays could live normal lives, if they could talk about their partners or hold hands or kiss in public, if they could get married, etc, then they wouldnt identify themselves as “gays” as much as they do. They wouldnt feel the need for “gay pride” because they wouldnt have the idea of “gay shame” pushed upon them. If the whole “we really dont care” thing were actually true, they really wouldnt care either.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Brokeback Mountain was a box office success. Middle America supported it overwhelmingly. Surely that’s enough, isn’t it? Does everyone have to agree with everything? Many gays call heterosexuals “breeders,” a term that definitely implies revulsion. But so what?
I think someone is beginning to see the frivolity and irrationality of it all.
Personally, lifting the HIV travel ban for the Gay Games was the clincher for me.
[/quote]
Wait, is that someone…me? I don’t think I’ve come out as being in favor of radical homosexuality. I’ve agreed that sexuality is something best kept private. I am not in favor of policy which favors homosexuals, or gives them special status. Existing laws should suffice, but they must be fairly enforced.
I am disinclined to view homosexual acts, but my politics and personality are such that I’d be comfortable just ignoring it for that one day a year they parade. My point all along has been that I think we have more important worries than pride parades. HIV/AIDS is one of those worries.
I think Chewie’s position is entirely reasonable. He seems to be asking simply that he not be required to celebrate something he doesn’t like and doesn’t care about. That seems fair.
I’m fine with homosexuals having photos of their partners on their desks and talking about their lives together, and I’m okay with them holding hands and kissing one another goodbye at the airport. But I don’t want to hear my gay coworker talk about a new sexual technique or whether they’ve bought sex toys recently. But gay or straight, someone who shared graphically at work about his or her sex life would be someone I would strive to avoid.