Heterosexual Discrimination

[EmilyQ]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Observing that its incorrect to claim that homophobia is not present in society when it is not hypocracy.[/quote]

There are too many negatives in this sentence. Honest to God, it’s making my eyes cross. I’m really not sure what you’re saying. But I’ll guess that you’re saying that I deny homophobia, and so I am a hypocrite? But I never denied that. I said you can’t generalize from the behavior of some to the feelings of all.

[quote]To say that homophobia is present in society is NOT to say that EVERY heterosexual is homophobic.

Do I really need to explain that to you?[/quote]

No. Did I really need to explain it to you?

[quote]“Don’t you see that you’re talking about the .01% of straights who carry signs that say “die fags,” while Mick is talking about the .01% of gays who french kiss in public?”

Unless you can cite me a credible source backing your claim that “.01%” of straights carry signs that say “die fag”, or that .01% of gays french kiss in public…

you are equally guilty of “pulling a number out of your ass”

Wouldnt you agree?

Only I didnt piss and moan over the relevance of the actual number you put, I took it to mean “A very small percent”. Whereas, I incorrectly assumed, you’d be a big girl and realize that 90% was not meant to be an actual statistic but, rather, taken to mean “A very large percent”

Now why, Emily, could you make up a number (.01%), then get mad when people “pull numbers out of their ass”?

Hmmm?[/quote]

Fair enough. You’re right. I did it, too. I apologize, both for using ass numbers and for hassling you for doing the same.

[quote]I think that I’ll just be aware that there may be some animosity on the part of some of the people there and be accordingly cautious. I don’t see myself demanding that someone admit that they’re all a bunch of filthy white-haters. I particularly don’t see demanding it of someone who’s been friendly to me.

I never claimed that every heterosexual was homophobic. I really really shouldnt have to spell that out for you.

Perhaps you’re the one taking things too personally, Emily, so I’ll be more direct: No, I dont think you’re a gay hater. Happy?[/quote]

I’m glad you don’t think I’m a gay-hater, Capped. But I don’t think I’m taking anything too personally. After all, you asked what my reaction would be to combining the knowledge that there is animosity toward me in the neighborhood with the possibility that people might deny feeling animosity. And my honest reaction is eh, doesn’t matter. It is what it is. I work around it. Again, the people in that neighborhood who know me seem to like me. The others will come around. Or not.

[quote]I hope the topic of MY sexuality never comes up at a dinner with my parents and their friends! “Did you hear that Emily has sex with men, Frank?”

Do your parents tell your friends that you got married to a man?

Duuuuhhhrrrrrr. I dunno if that might indicate your sexuality, that you got married to a man. Let me think.

Come on, dont be fucking stupid. [/quote]

Wow. “Duuuuhhhrrrrrr?” “Don’t be fucking stupid?” Is that necessary?

[EmilyQ]

I took my avatar down in My Magnum. It’s not showing in Get A Life. Why is it still showing in this thread?

Can you guys see it?

I want it to go away. I can’t handle looking at that man anymore. Or having him look at me.

[EmilyQ]

Okay, never mind. It’s gone.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, here we go.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
As if to say that gays are somehow being denied those human rights. But gays CAN do those things. They may be given weird looks or overhear comments, but they have the right to do it nonetheless. You seem to want some protection from reaction.

I pointed out that those things indicate continued homophobia in society.

That I’m advocating that “something must be done” or “gays deserve protection from reaction” is a false conclusion you’ve drawn. Did you ever stop to ask me if I think gays should be protected from reaction? Of course not; roundabout logic and indirect reasoning is fine.

Why dont you actually ask me about the topic instead of just assuming things?

Well, you keep offering these “flauntings” that heteros can do and gays can’t as examples of inequality and then seeming to expect an answer.
[/quote]

“Seeming”.

As in “Because of this, I assume…”

It would help, generally, if you stopped making assumptions. Ok?

I offered examples of things that heterosexuals take for granted as being “normal” that homosexuals cannot. I offered these examples to illustrate the point that we live in a homophobic society. I did so to contest the idea that we do not, in fact, live in a homophobic society.

Is that clear enough?

What I think (if anything) should be done about it is besides the point. The only point I was making is that American society, today, has a present anti-gay bias. Thats all. Thats it. Nothing else. Nothing more. Please stop making assumptions.

That leads me to conclude that you want something more than my agreement that yes, weird looks and overheard comments can and do occur.

I cited them as examples to contest someone elses point. I did not bring them up to illicit any reaction from you. You jumped in with reactions based on assumptions you made from what I said.

Matthew Shepard was beaten to death nearly ten years ago. Since then we’ve had a mega-hit sitcom with a lead gay character (Will & Grace) and a blockbuster gay character-led movie (Brokeback Mountain). The one openly gay poster on this thread - a thread at Testosterone Nation - received no derision. In fact, I interpreted the silence in response to his post as respect. I hope he did, too. So while yes, there is homophobia, there is also a great deal of progress. Chicken-Little-ing over an arrest made 9 years ago is counter-productive to your cause.

Again, you react to the assumption that I brought up those examples for a reason other than to point out examples of homophobia. This continues to be incorrect.

Why are you fighting so hard, when you admit, just now, that there is homophobia in our society, to insist that I’m wrong to say that there is homophobia in our society?

My husband works in a heavily male-dominated industry. When he hires women (as he occasionally has) he works hard to ensure that they suffer no maltreatment. If anyone does harass one of them, he puts a stop to it. If he had (perhaps when he’s had) a homosexual working for him I know it would be the same way.

Then how do you think he would react if someone, after repeated incidents of sexual discrimination, tried to claim “We dont care if a woman works here”? You’d probably point out that they, in fact, do. Thats all I did.

My husband would tolerate people ranting about who cares about what for about two minutes. He wouldn’t have any interest in getting to the bottom of who feels what.* If there’s harassment, it’ll stop or the harasser will be fired. If the problem originates with the minority worker, female or gay or whatever, that person will go. He’d do however many written reports are needed to satisfy the law and then fire whomever. The better, more productive worker would stay. The two goals for him would be to A) satisfy the law, and B) maintain productivity. Not necessarily in that order.

I didnt ask what he would do. Did I ask “What would he do if someone were getting harassed?” No. So why are you telling me what he would do if someone got harassed?

I asked if he would agree or disagree when someone said “There is no anti-female” bias here after he observed a blatant anti-female bias. Common sense says he would disagree.

If someone said “There is no bias against females here”, he would probably say “I disagree, I have observed bias against females here”, and possibly cite examples that he has observed.

Same as I did in this thread.

He would protect the worker from harassment both because it’s the law and because from an ethical and business standpoint it is the correct thing to do. For him, it’s all about the bottom line. He wouldn’t care whose picture was on the desk as long as it didn’t interfere with work, whatever his own personal feelings are.

But why should those women get special treatment? Why should they get protection from fucking reaction?

Um, I thought I was very clear that it would work the same for gays in his employ as women. That, in fact, was my point. Sexual harassment is against the law. The smart employer enforces that for all employees both because it IS the law and in order to minimize disruption. Again, a remedy that’s already in place.

I didn’t ask if it would be the same for gays and women at his workplace. I’ll rephrase: If advocating that it is morally wrong for people to harass or discriminate against gays is “expecting special treatment” or “advocating special rights” or “asking that gays be treated with kid gloves”, why not apply that to women?

Is saying that its morally wrong to discriminate against or harass a woman (for being a woman) “expecting special treatment”? Is it “advocating special rights”? Is it “asking that women be treated with kid gloves”?

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Observing that its incorrect to claim that homophobia is not present in society when it is not hypocracy.

There are too many negatives in this sentence. Honest to God, it’s making my eyes cross. I’m really not sure what you’re saying. But I’ll guess that you’re saying that I deny homophobia, and so I am a hypocrite? But I never denied that. I said you can’t generalize from the behavior of some to the feelings of all.
[/quote]

I wasnt calling you a hypocrite. Just…nevermind.

To say that homophobia is present in society is NOT to say that EVERY heterosexual is homophobic.

Do I really need to explain that to you?

No. Did I really need to explain it to you?

Lets look back at another part of our conversation here:

"
And then, Emily, how would you react if someone was talking about that neighborhood and said “We really dont care about whites around here”, when you’ve observed that, in fact, they do have a problem with whites around there?

Would you, maybe, I dunno, argue that they were wrong and that “they” really “do” “care about” whites around there?

I think that I’ll just be aware that there may be some animosity on the part of some of the people there and be accordingly cautious. I don’t see myself demanding that someone admit that they’re all a bunch of filthy white-haters. I particularly don’t see demanding it of someone who’s been friendly to me."

Now, first off, I never asked how you’d act in that area, so I have no idea why you brought that up.

Secondly, reread the part in bold. Now why, Em, would you say that you “wouldnt demand that they admit they’re all a bunch of filthy white-haters” unless you got the feeling that I, in this thread, was “demanding you all admit to being a bunch of filthy gay haters”?

I’ll be direct: Do you feel as though I’m insinuating that all heterosexuals (yourself included) are homophobic when I say that we live in a homophobic society?

If you do, I apologize, because that was not my intended message.

“Don’t you see that you’re talking about the .01% of straights who carry signs that say “die fags,” while Mick is talking about the .01% of gays who french kiss in public?”

Unless you can cite me a credible source backing your claim that “.01%” of straights carry signs that say “die fag”, or that .01% of gays french kiss in public…

you are equally guilty of “pulling a number out of your ass”

Wouldnt you agree?

Only I didnt piss and moan over the relevance of the actual number you put, I took it to mean “A very small percent”. Whereas, I incorrectly assumed, you’d be a big girl and realize that 90% was not meant to be an actual statistic but, rather, taken to mean “A very large percent”

Now why, Emily, could you make up a number (.01%), then get mad when people “pull numbers out of their ass”?

Hmmm?

Fair enough. You’re right. I did it, too. I apologize, both for using ass numbers and for hassling you for doing the same.

Its ok.

I think that I’ll just be aware that there may be some animosity on the part of some of the people there and be accordingly cautious. I don’t see myself demanding that someone admit that they’re all a bunch of filthy white-haters. I particularly don’t see demanding it of someone who’s been friendly to me.

I never claimed that every heterosexual was homophobic. I really really shouldnt have to spell that out for you.

Perhaps you’re the one taking things too personally, Emily, so I’ll be more direct: No, I dont think you’re a gay hater. Happy?

I’m glad you don’t think I’m a gay-hater, Capped. But I don’t think I’m taking anything too personally. After all, you asked what my reaction would be to combining the knowledge that there is animosity toward me in the neighborhood with the possibility that people might deny feeling animosity. And my honest reaction is eh, doesn’t matter. It is what it is. I work around it. Again, the people in that neighborhood who know me seem to like me. The others will come around. Or not.

The point was, and remains, that you would disagree with someone who claimed that there was not animosity when you knew it not to be true.

Thats all.

And if you brought a specific example OF said animosity, you’d be bringing it up ONLY to reflect that animosity, NOT to complain about it or bang a drum or suggest that something be done or any of the other false inferences someone may draw from you bringing up the example. You’d bring up the example ONLY to contest the truthfullness of thier claim that said animosity does not exist.

I hope the topic of MY sexuality never comes up at a dinner with my parents and their friends! “Did you hear that Emily has sex with men, Frank?”

Do your parents tell your friends that you got married to a man?

Duuuuhhhrrrrrr. I dunno if that might indicate your sexuality, that you got married to a man. Let me think.

Come on, dont be fucking stupid.

Wow. “Duuuuhhhrrrrrr?” “Don’t be fucking stupid?” Is that necessary?

I apologize. That was rude of me.

However, its also dishonest of you to claim that you are not aware that things are said about you that indicate your sexuality, or that “Emily got married to that man she met in Dallas” is the same thing as “Did you hear Emily has sex with men???”

[Uncle_Gabby]

This thread should get the “Trainwreck of the week” award. First you have a reasonable discussion of the topic at hand, then it degenerates into “Homosexuality, right or wrong?” then its just page after page of two people debating semantics.

APB, If you’re still reading this crap, which I doubt, please give us an update on your friends situation as soon as possible.

I would react the same way. But I try to put myself in the cop’s shoes, and frankly, I am not at all surprised your friend is in trouble. Think about it, the cop sees one guy with his face busted open and the other guy calling him a “Fucking Faggot.” That doesn’t look good.

He would have gotten off Scot free if he had calmed down by the time the cops had gotten there, and explained “That guy grabbed my crotch. I punched him.” and left the “Faggot” part out. Yeah, hindsight is 20/20 and all that. Good Luck to your friend.

[EmilyQ]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
“Seeming”.

As in “Because of this, I assume…”

It would help, generally, if you stopped making assumptions. Ok? [/quote]

Um, okay, but there then goes any chance that I might actually work out what it is you’re trying to say.

[quote] You: Then how do you think he would react if someone, after repeated incidents of sexual discrimination, tried to claim “We dont care if a woman works here”? You’d probably point out that they, in fact, do. Thats all I did.

Me: My husband would tolerate people ranting about who cares about what for about two minutes. He wouldn’t have any interest in getting to the bottom of who feels what.* If there’s harassment, it’ll stop or the harasser will be fired. If the problem originates with the minority worker, female or gay or whatever, that person will go. He’d do however many written reports are needed to satisfy the law and then fire whomever. The better, more productive worker would stay. The two goals for him would be to A) satisfy the law, and B) maintain productivity. Not necessarily in that order.

You: I didnt ask what he would do. Did I ask “What would he do if someone were getting harassed?” No. So why are you telling me what he would do if someone got harassed?

You: I asked if he would agree or disagree when someone said “There is no anti-female” bias here after he observed a blatant anti-female bias. Common sense says he would disagree.

You: If someone said “There is no bias against females here”, he would probably say “I disagree, I have observed bias against females here”, and possibly cite examples that he has observed.

You: Same as I did in this thread. [/quote]

You DID ask, and I answered, thoughtfully and at length. But to answer your bias issue, if someone harasses another worker and that person, the harasser, is fired, THERE IS NO BIAS.

If you worked for my husband, he would fire you. Because you’re a pest. That was my answer.

But anyway, I’m inclined to think that Uncle Gabby is right. This is not constructive, and neither is it particularly rewarding for me. You don’t want to solve the problem. You want to wallow in it.

[EmilyQ]

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
a child admitting to being gay “shatters the dreams” of the parents. And I’m citing that as an observation of homophobia in society, which it very clearly is.

Did you ever stop to think that it has nothing to do with homophobia? It has to do with parents who love their child and want the best for him or her. And a life of homosexuality is a very sick one, both physically and emotionally.

You’ve read the facts, want to see them again?

[/quote]

Wait! The shattered dreams are about not having grandchildren, not about emotionally and physically “sick” lives!

And also, let’s face it, because a parent hearing for the first time that their child is gay will have to worry about him enduring slights and possibly worse.

So shattered dreams = maybe hurt kid and probably no babies.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Gays deserve the right to be able to enter into a marriage contract with another consenting adult who is not being forced into the decision.

Oh darn now you have to leave the thread.

Do heterosexuals have the right to be able to enter into a marriage contract with another consenting adult who is not being forced into the decision?

Yes.

Would the stipulations of a marriage between two men or two women be different than the marriage of a man and a woman?

Yes, now keep your word and leave the thread.

[/quote]

How so?

In what way(s) would a marriage between two men be different than a marriage between a man and a woman?

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
“Seeming”.

As in “Because of this, I assume…”

It would help, generally, if you stopped making assumptions. Ok?

Um, okay, but there then goes any chance that I might actually work out what it is you’re trying to say.
[/quote]

What? “If I cant make assumptions I cant figure out what you mean”

How about asking? How about saying “Do you mean ______”?

You: Then how do you think he would react if someone, after repeated incidents of sexual discrimination, tried to claim “We dont care if a woman works here”? You’d probably point out that they, in fact, do. Thats all I did.

Me: My husband would tolerate people ranting about who cares about what for about two minutes. He wouldn’t have any interest in getting to the bottom of who feels what.* If there’s harassment, it’ll stop or the harasser will be fired. If the problem originates with the minority worker, female or gay or whatever, that person will go. He’d do however many written reports are needed to satisfy the law and then fire whomever. The better, more productive worker would stay. The two goals for him would be to A) satisfy the law, and B) maintain productivity. Not necessarily in that order.

You: I didnt ask what he would do. Did I ask “What would he do if someone were getting harassed?” No. So why are you telling me what he would do if someone got harassed?

You: I asked if he would agree or disagree when someone said “There is no anti-female” bias here after he observed a blatant anti-female bias. Common sense says he would disagree.

You: If someone said “There is no bias against females here”, he would probably say “I disagree, I have observed bias against females here”, and possibly cite examples that he has observed.

You: Same as I did in this thread.

You DID ask, and I answered, thoughtfully and at length. But to answer your bias issue, if someone harasses another worker and that person, the harasser, is fired, THERE IS NO BIAS.

If you worked for my husband, he would fire you. Because you’re a pest. That was my answer.

Aw. Now you’re just being insulting. Cute.

[quote]

But anyway, I’m inclined to think that Uncle Gabby is right. This is not constructive, and neither is it particularly rewarding for me. You don’t want to solve the problem. You want to wallow in it.[/quote]

Wow you’re getting good at baseless personal attacks, Em. Have you and Mick been hanging out?

I’m not “wallowing” in anything. I’m trying (unsuccessfuly) to get you to understand that I brought up examples of homophobia simply to illustrate that we live in a homophobic society.

Thats all. Thats it. End of story. End of the road. Nothing else. Nada. Zero. Everything else you’ve drawn from it-

-the “special rights”/“kid gloves”/“preferred treatment” nonsense-

-the “everyone is a flithy gay hater” nonsense-

-the “wanting to wallow in the problem” nonsense-

-the “wanting to trample peoples free speech” nonsense-

EVERYTHING beyond the point that “We do live in a society with a substatial level of homophobia” (which, by the way, you AGREED to a few posts ago) was a result of you making assumptions that you now defend (confusingly) as being “the only way to work out what it is I’m trying to say”.

How many times do I have to say it to get it to sink in:

I gave examples of homophobia in society to defend my position that there is homophobia in society.

You agree that there is homophobia in society. Yet you continue to argue with me because… fuck, why? At least Mick does me the favor of arguing with me on shit he doesnt agree with!

I’ll write it again, and again, and maybe, just maybe, you’ll get it:

I pointed out those things as examples to illustrate my point that there is a substantial anti-gay bias in our current American society.

Do I have to think of some fancy way of saying it 50 fucking more times before you come to the realization that “Hey, maybe I should just take his word for why he brought those things up, and stop trying to be a mindreader with my I know what you REALLY meant!!! horseshit.”

Yes, sometimes I say things rudely. Thats because its frustrating that I have to keep repeating the same SIMPLE FUCKING IDEA to you over, and over, and over again, each time faced with the same line of thought from you:

“I dont care what you say, I know your ulterior motive in bringing up those examples!!!”

Just please, Emily, please, PLEASE, just for a second, think to yourself:

“What if Capped really did bring up all those examples JUST to defend his stance that there is homophobia in society? What if he WASNT trying to wallow in dispair or suggest any laws or anything else? What if his point BEGINS AND ENDS COMPLETELY at “There is homophobia in society”?”

[EmilyQ]

Capped, there is a continuum of poster attitudes as expressed in the latter half of this thread. There is you on the one end and I would say Mick on the other. Somewhere in the middle seem to be lucasa and Chewie. I fall close enough to you that I’m practically snugged up against you on this continuum, yet you somehow fail to see that.

My engagement with you came when you listed your examples of major homophobia. Shepard, the sodomy arrests, the demonstrators against Brokeback, etc. I pointed out that the first two happened long enough ago that they don’t serve your cause and that the reaction to Brokeback is reason for celebration, not outrage.

Here’s where it began:

[quote]You: Or how about everyone who protested Brokeback Mountain because it was about homosexuals?

Me: 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]

You then asked if straight kids have to fear telling their parents and I answered yes, they sometimes do, and drew an analogy to pregnant girls. And we were off and running. My points all along have not been that homophobia doesn’t exist in America, but that

A) Identity politics are unworkable for all but the most surface of discussions, particularly when poorly done, as in bringing up a single arrest from a decade ago, and

B) That declining to participate in the affirmation of a culture is not the same as working against that culture, and

C) All people deal with fear and anxiety. These are not limited to gays, and lastly that

D) Dislike or revulsion for the act of homosexual sex is not homophobia, and it definitely isn’t discrimination.

A lesbian friend once told me that she’d tried to have straight sex as a teen, before deciding for good that she was a lesbian. Foreplay with him was okay, she said, but when he was actually undressed and headed for the act itself, she freaked.

“Oh God, get that thing away from me!” was her reported reaction and she visibly shuddered when she said it, even though it had been a few years earlier. She doesn’t hate or fear straights. She simply feels revulsion for the act of straight sex. Fair enough! She’s not trying to keep anyone down.

As for my insults toward you, eh. I cop to it. I began to feel some pretty significant disdain for you when you called lucasa stupid. lucasa strikes me as arguably the most intelligent poster involved in this discussion and probably the most polite.

Why, then, would you insult him rather than take the opportunity to learn from him? Even as an adversary he’s worth listening to. Perhaps even more so. “Knowledge itself is power,” said Francis Bacon in 1597. Don’t be weak, Capped.

When I didn’t support you I became the target of your insults. The “duuuurrrhhhh” thing (which would have me slapping you if you did it to me in person) and calling me fucking stupid.

I think I’ve shown myself willing to consider that I may be wrong. I don’t think I present as unintelligent. So WTF? Unless you’ve made the mistake of lumping me in with others and treating me accordingly, which I believe is what you’ve done.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
You then asked if straight kids have to fear telling their parents and I answered yes, they sometimes do, and drew an analogy to pregnant girls.
[/quote]

Those are two different points. The issue of sexual preference and the issue of sexual activity are two related issues, but not the same thing.

You responded as though they are. There is a vast difference between “I’m thinking of asking Stacy to the prom” and “Me and Stacy had sex.” A straight child will have no fears saying things that indicate them to be straight, whereas a gay child will have fears saying things that indicate them to be gay.

Looking only at the issue of preference (without regards to how much sexual experience they do or dont have), a gay child faces a different set of fears than a straight child (in admitting only who they are attracted to, not what they have done).

And we were off and running. My points all along have not been that homophobia doesn’t exist in America, but that

A) Identity politics are unworkable for all but the most surface of discussions, particularly when poorly done, as in bringing up a single arrest from a decade ago, and

I’m not sure I fully understand what you mean here. I gather that you think it was wrong of me to bring up the arrest as an example, however, I’m not sure what you mean by “identity poltics are unworkable for all but the most surface of discussions”

B) That declining to participate in the affirmation of a culture is not the same as working against that culture, and

My intended message was never “You have to support gay pride parades” or “You have to stop being homophobic”

A poster did say “Gays can live normal lives”. In some instances, I was pointing out aspects of “normal” life that gays (largely) cannot take for granted.

C) All people deal with fear and anxiety. These are not limited to gays, and lastly that

I never claimed that ONLY gays deal with fear and anxiety. Yes, only non-heterosexuals deal with fear and anxiety based on their sexual preference (sexual action or inaction notwithstanding).

This is not to discredit fears and anxieties people have for whatever reasons, or to say that fear of admitting to being gay is worse than any other fear, etc. It is a moot point to say “other people suffer for other reasons too!”, because I never said only gays suffer.

D) Dislike or revulsion for the act of homosexual sex is not homophobia, and it definitely isn’t discrimination.

If dislike or revulsion for homosexual acts constitutes homophobia is irrelevant to the point that homophobia does exist.

A lesbian friend once told me that she’d tried to have straight sex as a teen, before deciding for good that she was a lesbian. Foreplay with him was okay, she said, but when he was actually undressed and headed for the act itself, she freaked.

“Oh God, get that thing away from me!” was her reported reaction and she visibly shuddered when she said it, even though it had been a few years earlier. She doesn’t hate or fear straights. She simply feels revulsion for the act of straight sex. Fair enough! She’s not trying to keep anyone down.

Its true that many nonhomophobic heretrosexuals simply think gay sex is, pardon the term, icky. While this, in itself, does not constitute homophobia, it can (and does) in many cases lead that person towards unconcious homophobic action or supporting a homophobic society (such as common use of the word “gay”).

As for my insults toward you, eh. I cop to it. I began to feel some pretty significant disdain for you when you called lucasa stupid. lucasa strikes me as arguably the most intelligent poster involved in this discussion and probably the most polite.

Why, then, would you insult him rather than take the opportunity to learn from him? Even as an adversary he’s worth listening to. Perhaps even more so. “Knowledge itself is power,” said Francis Bacon in 1597. Don’t be weak, Capped.

What points has he made that I could learn from?

That anal sex is more dangerous than vaginal or oral sex?

That gay marriage constitutes discrimination in favor of homosexuals (nevermind that heterosexuals would have the choice to marry a member of the same sex, regardless of if they choose to act on that choice or not)?

When I didn’t support you I became the target of your insults. The “duuuurrrhhhh” thing (which would have me slapping you if you did it to me in person) and calling me fucking stupid.

I think it was stupid of you to assert that you would be mortified if the subject of your sexuality came up in conversation with your parents, because they would have to say something like “Emily has sex with men”, when even the slightest bit of reflection would reveal that your parents telling your friends that you married a man (which they probably do) would reveal you to be heterosexual.

I think I’ve shown myself willing to consider that I may be wrong. I don’t think I present as unintelligent. So WTF? Unless you’ve made the mistake of lumping me in with others and treating me accordingly, which I believe is what you’ve done.

Emily. Lets look at these two phrases:

“Emily owns a dog.”

and

“Emily is a dog lover.”

What you were aruging, basically, is that by saying “Emily owns a dog”, it could not be infered that “Emily is a dog lover.” (The same way “Emily got married to a man” would not result in the inference that “Emily is a heterosexual”)

So, according to your original argument, ONLY saying “Emily is a dog lover” (“Emily has sex with men”) would constitute revealing Emilys feelings about dogs (sexual preference).

I’ll make this simple:

Do you think your parents tell your friend that you married a man?

If they do, do you think that indicates that you are a heterosexual, since its generally understood, but unspoken, that you have sex with him?

If the answer to both of the above questions is “yes”, do you STILL claim that you would “be mortified if the subject of your sexuality came up”?

[CappedAndPlanIt]

Lets look at some of the gems of wisdom that Lucasa has blessed me with:

"Okay, you’re right, homophobia exists at pretty much the same levels as anti-semitism (according to the UCR). Pretty much the only way homosexuals will be able to live without fear of any persecution is if the government were to somehow wrest control of peoples’ minds and stamp out free speech.

First, we have the baseless accusation that I want to stamp out free speech if I think its morally wrong people to be homophobic. This is laughable and juvenile. Hardly intelligent.

I shouldnt have to explain that, on the issue of “morally wrong” or “legally wrong”, things can be either, both, or neither.

Lucasa, like a child, draws the false reasoning that “YOU MEAN YOU WANT TO FORCE PEOPLE TO THINK A CERTAIN WAY”. In an actual, intelligent, adult conversation, people dont do things like this.

I’m having trouble seeing him as such a bastion of intelligence and wisdom, Em.

I disagree. A gay man and women living together for a protracted period of time are subject to the same “common law marriage” statutes as a straight man and woman. A gay man/woman is free to marry someone of the opposite sex and barred from same sex marriage just like a straight man/woman is.

Once again, stupid. This is like saying “I cant marry a black woman and neither can he, so its fair”

The obvious point here is that BOTH face the same limitation of who the consenting adult they marry can be. His logic here is “I dont mind the limitation, therefore the limitation is fair.”

Most remaining anti-sodomy statutes (e.g. UCMJ) pertain to any sodomy regardless of orientation. IMO, the reason gay rights are a myth is because;

1. Unlike emancipation and women’s suffrage, while a homosexual may not be able to alter his sexual orientation, hiding/altering the perception of his/her orientation in either direction is quite easy. Completely corroding the idea of an inalienable right.

Ha. Yet every heterosexual I’ve ever challenged to truly hide their sexual orientation, for even a relatively short time, has cowared in front of the challenge. Hardly something thats “quite easy” (unless, of course, you never have to try it).

2. Unlike emancipation and women’s suffrage, proponents of gay rights seek to exceed, expand, or distinguish from “straight rights”. Women weren’t asking to for a female vote or slaves asking for free black speech. They were seeking rights deemed intrinsic to humanity by the constitution. Gays seek rights deemed intrinsic (see above) to homosexuals by themselves.

This is, again, faulty reasoning.

If same sex marriages were somehow to be legally different (grant different rights/regulations/whatever to people in a same sex marriage that would not be the same for people in a different-sex marriage), he would have a point.

But he does not; the law would view any two people as “married” as meaning the same thing; the distinction would be as irrelevant as “interracial marriage” or “marriage of conveinence” or “unplanned marriage” or “january-december marriage” or “trophy marriage”.

None of these distinctions actually make a difference in the eyes of the law; married simply means married. Two men married would be the same, legally, as a man and woman married.

Furthermore, he would have a point if the law said that ONLY homosexuals could get a same-sex marriage (thus making gay marriage a special right to gays). When, in reality, heterosexuals would have the OPTION to get a same sex marriage (regardless of their action or inaction in having said option).

Thus, again, there is no special right granted to a homosexual that is not granted to a heterosexual.

Or the people who will protest a funeral with “God Hates Fags” signs?

In your opinion, should they be forced to change their signs?

Or anyone who regularly uses slurs such as “faggot” or “homo” to insult someone?

Once again, should they be forced to change derogatory expletives? What about those who use “faggot” to refer to cigarettes?

Once again, baseless accusations that I’m trying to take away anyones free speech.

Emily, I agree with you on a lot of things, but Lucasa has certainly not proven himself, IMO, to be someone worthy of “learning from.”

Oh wait, he also brought up the point that, since he cannot get married TWICE, its fair that homosexuals cannot get married to each other.

Again, another stupid point because no one is suggesting that homosexuals be allowed to marry twice.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

That would be giving them “special rights” and you said you’d leave the thread if you had asked for special rights.

I understand why you don’t want to leave though, you’re having so much fun, you just can’t go.

[/quote]

It wouldnt be a special right.

A same sex marriage would not carry any extra perks that a heterosexual marriage would not.

Heterosexuals would also have the choice to get a same sex marriage (the issue of if they would or not is irrelevant).

So where is the “special right”?

What right or option or benefit would homosexuals get that heterosexuals would not?

[EmilyQ]

The avatar battles raging in Get a Life are killingly funny to me and plus I’m wearing new clothes today. So I’m too happy right now to think about the discrimination, Capped. I’ll try to focus myself later.