ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:53 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:07 am 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 10:01 am
Posts: 46
Location: Brisneyland Ausvegas
You've missed my point.

Non monogamous hetrosexual couples aren't currently sitting on top of the religious conservative's 'agents of satan' list either. Non monogamous hetrosexual couples aren't terribly likely to experience prejudice or discrimination because of their lifestyle choices (outside of the military). Out gay men and women on the other hand have to expect that if their life style choices are made public, socially (outside of the gay community) or professionally, that they will be forced to defend them, and likely as not will still experience victimisation, discrimination and prejudice because of those choices. A criminal record, even for something as ludicrous as Adultery is a prejudiced conservative's perfect fantasy and entirely reasonable grounds for discrimination. Its a nightmare waiting to happen for the gay community.

I'd suggest that monogamy is unquestionably far less common in the gay male community then in the hetrosexual community. I'd suggest that while there is the possibility that this statement is subject to factors of visibility and that the lack of polyamorous long term commited relationships in hetrosexual couples is a matter of discretion, I'd suggest that thats almost as likely as Elvis being alive and well in Alpha Centauri. While discretion may play a factor in the low visibility of non monogamous hetrosexual couples, perhaps even a significant factor, its IMO incredibly unlikely to account for even the majority of the difference.

Gay women I'd suggest are more subject to debate. Anecdotally my experience is that monogamy is less common among gay women then hetrosexual couples. But its not even close to the dynamic differences in sexual practices while in commited relationships seen among gay men.

Jade dolls/fucking machines? no. No their not. Dynamically different in relationship and sexual practices? Fuck yes they are. The gay activist community has a long tradition of failure to critically assess the negative implications of their actions. Their ideals are noble but their methods are often less then politically astute. Equality for relationship recognition, regardless of sexual preference is a very important thing. Politically? Gay marriage isn't a smart political agenda.

/marching for gay rights since '95

_________________
DNI'd by ptlis - w00t!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:10 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
Um... just so ya know, Bar-mitzvahs are at 13 not 14. Bat-mitzvahs are at either 12 or 13.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:19 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
Scootah wrote:
You've missed my point.


I got your point, and I still say it's retarded. Not all, not even the majority, not even a significant minority of gay people are the sexually devient, bed-hopping whores you paint them to be. Supporter of gay rights my Fat French Ass.

Scootah wrote:
Non monogamous hetrosexual couples aren't currently sitting on top of the religious conservative's 'agents of satan' list either.


So was Galileo. Why are you getting skiddish just because a few people (and not exactly the brightest of all people) disagree with you.

Scootah wrote:
Out gay men and women on the other hand have to expect that if their life style choices are made public, socially (outside of the gay community) or professionally, that they will be forced to defend them, and likely as not will still experience victimisation, discrimination and prejudice because of those choices.


Gay people can take care of themselves. Perhaps if people like you weren't so damn concerned about the feelings of homosexuals they might start being seen as people in the eyes of the masses. No one likes being pitied.

Scootah wrote:
I'd suggest that monogamy is unquestionably far less common in the gay male community then in the hetrosexual community.


No, it just gets more attention. It isn't weird when a straight person changes partners. I doubt there is a real difference between the number of parters straight people have and the number gay people has.

Scootah wrote:
I'd suggest that while there is the possibility that this statement is subject to factors of visibility and that the lack of polyamorous long term commited relationships in hetrosexual couples is a matter of discretion, I'd suggest that thats almost as likely as Elvis being alive and well in Alpha Centauri.


Suggest away. All you like.

Scootah wrote:
Gay women I'd suggest are more subject to debate. Anecdotally my experience is that monogamy is less common among gay women then hetrosexual couples. But its not even close to the dynamic differences in sexual practices while in commited relationships seen among gay men.


I must be around the unexciting, not fucking everyone within arm's reach gay crowd then.

Scootah wrote:
Jade dolls/fucking machines? no. No their not. Dynamically different in relationship and sexual practices? Fuck yes they are. The gay activist community has a long tradition of failure to critically assess the negative implications of their actions. Their ideals are noble but their methods are often less then politically astute. Equality for relationship recognition, regardless of sexual preference is a very important thing. Politically? Gay marriage isn't a smart political agenda.


I'm sorry you're so jaded about this. Just because it's a stupid political agenda doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

And if realism are truely jagged cliffs then I happily throw my styrofoam boat of idealism into it. Because without the idealists the people never have a reason to get anything. A small group of sufficiently motivated people is the only thing that can change society.

Scootah wrote:
/marching for gay rights since '95


My mother is gay, I've been marching since I was a wee child. And in that time I've learned one important thing you seem to have missed. And it isn't homosexuals are gay people. It's homosexuals are people. Mature people who can take care of themselves, regardless of whether they can or cannot marry.

Do you believe that Jerry Falwell with develop the ability to shoot lasers from his eyes and go on a killing spree at the courthouses where all the gay people are dressed in skimpy leather outfits?

In gay marriage is granted what do you honestly think will happen? The poor gay people will find themselves married to someone that they'll grow to dislike? OK, they get a divorce, and enter into their next marriage a little bit wiser. That's how things go; because, people learn from their mistakes. There's no "OMG Scandal" though you might hear it in a general way on Fox News (Gay divorce rates climbing, are illegal drug use and pagan rituals to blame???!!!1 More at 11.). Things will continue, the world won't end. Do you have such a dim view on a person's ability to adapt? Or just a gay person's ability to adapt?

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:00 pm 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:55 pm
Posts: 37
Location: In a van, down by the river
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Rubi wrote:
Read my post again. I said that sex outside of wedlock is no longer a big deal, but when this stuff came around it WAS a big deal. And there were alot of social and economic benefits to marriage until not too long ago. Now not so much, but the majority sees no reason to change the law for the minority. That's ALL I said.


So you're saying that because it's only a small amount of people who aren't treated in the same manner as the rest of the people in the country, it's OK and we shouldn't worry our little heads about it.

Engel v. Vitale was unleased a shitstorm. Nobody liked it. But that didn't make it any less of the correct thing to do. Only 3% of the nations children were not Christians at the time. But it still passed.


I'm not saying nothing should be done. I'm saying that until you can convince the majority that they need to change, they won't.

OI, you seem to have quite the lack of reading comprehension skills. It seems like you're just blowing through the posts that might happen to disagree with you, grab the bits that stand out, and attack the poster; doing so regardless of if the points were presented as an opinion of the poster or just an example.

Slow down, take your time, and this little thread would make alot more sense and cover alot more ground rather than being alot of bantering back and forth over semantics.

_________________
"Gravity just overcame his equilibrium at the precipitant appearance of my foot"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:26 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
Rubi wrote:
Read my post again. I said that sex outside of wedlock is no longer a big deal, but when this stuff came around it WAS a big deal. And there were alot of social and economic benefits to marriage until not too long ago. Now not so much, but the majority sees no reason to change the law for the minority. That's ALL I said.

This stuff what? Gays have been around for about as long as humanity ...

Quote:
I'm not saying nothing should be done. I'm saying that until you can convince the majority that they need to change, they won't.

OI, you seem to have quite the lack of reading comprehension skills. It seems like you're just blowing through the posts that might happen to disagree with you, grab the bits that stand out, and attack the poster; doing so regardless of if the points were presented as an opinion of the poster or just an example.

If you want to play devil's advocate or troll or whatever, don't be supprised if people keep pushing you after you start backpedaling.

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:48 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Rubi wrote:
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Rubi wrote:
Read my post again. I said that sex outside of wedlock is no longer a big deal, but when this stuff came around it WAS a big deal. And there were alot of social and economic benefits to marriage until not too long ago. Now not so much, but the majority sees no reason to change the law for the minority. That's ALL I said.


So you're saying that because it's only a small amount of people who aren't treated in the same manner as the rest of the people in the country, it's OK and we shouldn't worry our little heads about it.

Engel v. Vitale was unleased a shitstorm. Nobody liked it. But that didn't make it any less of the correct thing to do. Only 3% of the nations children were not Christians at the time. But it still passed.


I'm not saying nothing should be done. I'm saying that until you can convince the majority that they need to change, they won't.


Quote:
Until there is a quantifiable gain to allow it, there will be no sweeping reform. Period.

Quote:
[U]ntil there is an apparent benefit to society as a whole there will be no call for sweeping change.


Okay, well, you have been pretty clear that that's not neccessarily the view you share. Playing Devil's Advocate can be rough, since people will sometimes assume that it <i>is</i> the view you share, not just something you're exploring. Anyways:

If you're going to pedal that arguement, define a "sweeping" change/reform.

Are you just arguing that society is ignoring the benefits of gay marriage because it doesn't directly affect their lives nor agree with their ignorant beliefs? (And by ignorant, I mean that they believe all marriage comes from Christianity and there is no separation between church/state to them.)

It seems to me that you're stating a fact rather than debating a side. If you are, in fact, debating a side, then what's so wrong with Che's arguements?

Kevryn - first post wrote:
These laws are common to most of the states in the US, and there doesn't seem to be much sign of them changing any time soon. What are your thoughts on this? Are you for or against legally recognized same-sex marriages, and why?


I can see your thoughts. But I'm curious as to how it ties in with the debate... unless you want to debate whether Americans are naturally self-centered and ignorant on issues that don't affect them directly, or whether they're citizens who DO want the same marriage rights alotted to every citizen of the US.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:24 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
what I find most amusing is that for a few thousand years most of the "civilized" world didn't care about homosexualality, in fact it was even endorsed to a certain degree (*snicker* Adonis *snicker*). It wasn't until some Roman emperor decided he wanted to gain greater control over the populous and used his "concern" over homosexuality and licentious relationships to do so. Kinda like the Republicans.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:04 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Proin Drakenzol wrote:
Kinda like the Republicans.

Bush and most of his cabinet anyways wanting to appeal to the conservative masses for votes anyways. I know some pretty decent Republicans.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:40 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
so do I. I also know horrible Democrats. in this case I was specifically refering to the party's leadership

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:39 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
Rubi wrote:
I'm not saying nothing should be done. I'm saying that until you can convince the majority that they need to change, they won't.


And I was pointing out that even if there isn't a sweeping call for reform shit can still get done.

Rubi wrote:
Slow down, take your time, and this little thread would make alot more sense and cover alot more ground rather than being alot of bantering back and forth over semantics.

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:57 pm 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 10:01 am
Posts: 46
Location: Brisneyland Ausvegas
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Stuff


My dad's gay as it happens. He didn't come out to me untill I was 20 or so. My mum and dad were the cliche couple involving a gay man and a woman who both wanted kids but were single. They pretended to be straight and played happy families untill they thought I was old enough to deal. I'd been marching for gay rights for 6 years then quite genuinely not knowing.

I'm hereby declaring our differences of opion to be largely unresolvable by internet debate, much less internet argument, and walking away pending a suitable alternative (Such as SoulCalibur 2 deathmatch) for determining who's right.

Edited because I am UBB tarded
Edited again because I took some cheap shots and then declared myself to be walking away

_________________
DNI'd by ptlis - w00t!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:15 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
OhEmGee guys. Let's play who's more involved in the gay community due to familial relations! It are fun.

:P

Omni wrote:
Scootah wrote:
Out gay men and women on the other hand have to expect that if their life style choices are made public, socially (outside of the gay community) or professionally, that they will be forced to defend them, and likely as not will still experience victimisation, discrimination and prejudice because of those choices.

Gay people can take care of themselves. Perhaps if people like you weren't so damn concerned about the feelings of homosexuals they might start being seen as people in the eyes of the masses. No one likes being pitied.


Unfortunately, they will have to expect that they will be forced to have to defend themselves against conservative media attacks. Yet, I would argue, are they not already a target? Are hate crimes not yet already committed in the States (look at Mathew Shepard)? They are already experiencing victimization and discrimination. My point is that I do not think marriage will greatly increase the prejudice feelings of the conservatives of America. I want to see studies and polls that say otherwise, if you're going to determine that, Scootah.

I might even go so far as to contemplate whether or not people might change their ideas about homosexuality to being acceptable if the government approves of their right to marry.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_news_01b.htm
Quote:
2001-JUL-27: USA: Senate committee approves gay anti-hate crime bill: The Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor of enlarging the existing hate crime law by adding sexual orientation, gender and ability status as protected groups. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) is the main sponsor. He said that "Hate crimes are modern-day lynchings, and they have no place in modern-day America." All ten Democrats voted in favor of the bill, as did senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Michael DeWine (R-OH) Seven opposed it, led by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). He said that he wanted to see "such atrocities" punished severely, but saw no reason for making them federal crimes, except for a "further power grab in criminal jurisdiction." The full Senate will probably take up the bill in October. 51 of the 100 senators have currently signed up as sponsors. Republican House leaders have no plans to initiate similar legislation.


http://www.advocate.com/html/poll/929_results.asp
Quote:
Michael White
The pictures of everyday people provide a human face to gay couples.


But since most of the people who are not sympathetic to gay marriage/civil union are Christian and believe gay marriage to be a threat to the family - they'll probably just think their government is going to Hell, and the apocolypse is going to happen soon. I don't know.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:32 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
Kali_Ava wrote:
But since most of the people who are not sympathetic to gay marriage/civil union are Christian and believe gay marriage to be a threat to the family - they'll probably just think their government is going to Hell, and the apocolypse is going to happen soon. I don't know.


Mreh, it's not like they haven't been preaching Apocolypse since the religion started. Wasn't 2000 supposed to be the year of the Apocolypse? Maybe we should convince the fundies that the sooner we "go to hell" the sooner their presious Jesus will come and "save" them again. or something.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:13 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:17 pm
Posts: 5983
Location: Around about there.
Proin Drakenzol wrote:
Mreh, it's not like they haven't been preaching Apocolypse since the religion started. Wasn't 2000 supposed to be the year of the Apocolypse? Maybe we should convince the fundies that the sooner we "go to hell" the sooner their presious Jesus will come and "save" them again. or something.

Just for the sake of an amusing tangent, I like tangents, I've nothing really to add to the debate really...

In the twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus, the apostles and so forth preached that the second coming of christ was just around the corner and that any sort of marriage was a Bad Thing™ and should never happen. They changed their minds and decided that marriage was a good thing when the second coming of christ didn't actually occur.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:10 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
Scootah wrote:
I'm hereby declaring our differences of opion to be largely unresolvable by internet debate, much less internet argument, and walking away pending a suitable alternative (Such as SoulCalibur 2 deathmatch) for determining who's right.


I'm no good at Soul Calibur 2.

I'll take you in SSB:M though.

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:32 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
Reason why people should kill themselves in a small dark room, away from inocents.

yeah, so today some ass decided to kill himself. He drove his SUV onto the train-tracks to await death. He gets cold feet at the last minute. He gets out of his SUV AND LEAVES IT ON THE FUCKING TRACKS. He runs away. Three trains end up crashing and ten innocent people, people that wanted to live, die. I hope the fucking bastard is convicted of mass murder. I assure you the State will NOT botch his execution.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:40 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
Wrong thread, Draken.

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:05 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
hehe, oops ^^;;.

I blame my roomate, he turned on the lights and it threw me off!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:59 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
I'm totally not finished with you all. I just got lazy and stopped my post short. The rest will come later. (or editted into this post)

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group