|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New York Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4173 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
I guess I am confused to what you really think, is it either your homosexual or not, is this your belief?
If so then you are way off base, human sexuality cannot/should not be limited to only a gay or not view point anymore than it would be correct to say either you are Caucasian or not. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given."No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten." Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
When did you become a pig ignorant poe? I am sincerely shocked at the level of discourse you have displayed in this thread. So, you disagree that people from England are also from Europe? Is that what I'm to take from your quote?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
How dare they. Pigeonholes are there for a reason, people. Diversity just causes confusion in nuggin's noggin. Yawn. I get it. You're one of the people who doesn't believe that there are any groups of anything ever. Every single cat is an individual. There are no "cats" as a group. Not larger family of felines. After all, what does a tabby and a calico really have in common. HEAVEN FORBID someone say "these are cats, those are dogs". How dare I! Obviously I must be _afraid_! I must be a bigot! Clearly. Of course the THREAD is called "gay marriage" not "bisexual marriage" so clearly the bisexuals are feeling left out of that debate too. Right? I mean, gay rights clearly has NOTHING to do with bisexuals since they are in no way gay other than the having sex with members of their own sex. But there I go "lumping everything together again". I must be impossible for you to put away your clothes after washing them - what with every single sock needing its own drawer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Haha id love to see a cupple of stereotypical gays bash some straight dudes. id bash that straight dudes face in but im late for my manicure. That straight dude is so perverse e has sex with women id beat him up but i might get my new clothes dirty Ok i know im evil but i still think its funny and i would still like to see it. I don't know what stereotypes you are familiar with but out here the gay guys are RIPPED. And that's the skinny ones. The big burly guys are muscle bound as well, but not all Jesus-on-the-cross abs etc. I have no doubt that if you picked any two random gay guys off Santa Monica in West Hollywood and pitted them against any two random straight guys, the gay guys would wipe the floor with them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
it's you who has this strange obsession with bisexuals, the rest of us are just mocking it. You should go back and re-read the start of the thread. I didn't bring up bisexuals. I responded to a question about them when people felt left out. If you would stop asking me questions about bi-sexuals, I wouldn't be responding TO your questions about bisexuals. The fact that you call it "obsession" that YOU are asking ME questions is laughable in the extreme.
Apparently some sort of phrase is needed to specify bisexuals, or how would you bitch about them? I'm not bitching about them. I was IGNORING them -- remember? Or have you forgotten exactly what you've been bitching about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Something it would have in common with the claims you actually made, then. Are you aware that you can page back and re-read your own comments? This seems to be news to you. You've gone from accusing me of claiming that bi-sexuals don't exist to accusing me of being obsessed with them. You've gone from attacking me for saying that bi-sexuals have sex with men and women to now claiming that I said that bi-sexuals don't have sex with men and women. You're ALL OVER THE MAP. My position has remained consistent. "bi-sexual" is a subset of "gay". And, as a whole, this group is apparently OBSESSED with endless discussions about how they can label themselves and how everyone who doesn't keep 100% up to date with the proper labels is "afraid of them". You just aren't that scary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Someone that says all bisexuals are self involved, full of themselves, gay people who don't want to limit themselves would fall under having averse feelings towards bisexuals as a social group. Or is just being observant. Here we've spent an entire weekend with a bunch of you guys droning on ENDLESSLY about your various special labels and special treatment. Are you pushing for bi-sexual marriage rights? No. Why? Because it's a NON-ISSUE. You admitted yourself that there are gay guys who have had sex with women yet they are still considered "gay". In other words, NOT so SELF INVOLVED that they are insisting on special labels and special treatment.NOT so SELF INVOLVED that they accuse anyone who doesn't use todays special label of being afraid of them. Seriously. If you had just walked away, you would have won this discussion. The more you post, the more it proves how desperate you are to be considered special.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I never contested that, so why you would think that was an interesting 'admission' is beyond me. So you admit that bi-sexuals fall under the banner of "gay rights" but you deny that bi-sexuals should be considered gay. And you don't see that as a double standard. Or is this a "nigger" thing? Where you can call bi-sexuals gay but no one else can because it's a special word that only you get to use?
Really, I can't understand it at all, could you please make the point in a straightforward manner? I've been EXTREMELY straight forward. "bi-sexuals" are just a subset of "gay". "Gay rights" (as you've conceded) covers bi-sexual rights. "Gay marriage" covers any issues bi-sexuals have with marriage equality. Your chief complaint apparently is that you don't think it's fair that I use the word "gay" to describe bi-sexuals since I am not "gay" myself. After all, THAT is what got this whole thing started. "How dare a straight boy have an opinion". Yet, despite bitching ENDLESSLY at me about how "bi-sexuals" are super special rare mystical unicorns, you go right on and talk about gay rights including bi-sexuals in the term. Self involved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Are you aware that you can page back and re-read your own comments? You too could read what I said instead of making it up.
My position has remained consistent. "bi-sexual" is a subset of "gay". And, as a whole, this group is apparently OBSESSED with endless discussions about how they can label themselves and how everyone who doesn't keep 100% up to date with the proper labels is "afraid of them". See, how would you stereotype bisexuals if you didn't have a word for them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
d.p.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Or is just being observant. Here we've spent an entire weekend with a bunch of you guys droning on ENDLESSLY about your various special labels and special treatment. Are you pushing for bi-sexual marriage rights? No. Why? Because it's a NON-ISSUE. You admitted yourself that there are gay guys who have had sex with women yet they are still considered "gay". In other words, NOT so SELF INVOLVED that they are insisting on special labels and special treatment.NOT so SELF INVOLVED that they accuse anyone who doesn't use todays special label of being afraid of them. Seriously. If you had just walked away, you would have won this discussion. The more you post, the more it proves how desperate you are to be considered special. I don't think our posts are responsible for your delusions. I suspect you'd have 'em anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I guess I am confused to what you really think, is it either your homosexual or not, is this your belief? What I am saying is that, like with ALL THINGS, humans are making groups and attaching labels. There's no such thing as an "elephant". There is a group of animals that we as humans have decided to call "elephant" but that term is merely a contrived label to make communication easier. When it comes to sexuality, particularly in the context of the topic of the thread "gay marriage", you can split the populous into two easy root groups. Straight and gay. "Gay" covers men and women engaging in sexual activities with members of their own sex. Exclusively or non-exclusively. It does not cover abstractions like beastiality or necrophilia. It does not cover pedophiles or same sex rape victims. It's REALLY SIMPLE. The problem is that some people feel it's unfair for someone who is not having sex with people of the same sex to have an opinion about who belongs in what group. THEY can call themselves gay but if I say it, I'm afraid of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm not bitching about them. My dear chap, that is manifestly what you are doing. Also there's this thing you have about vegetarians who eat eggs, but mainly it's the bisexuals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There's no such thing as an "elephant". There is a group of animals that we as humans have decided to call "elephant" but that term is merely a contrived label to make communication easier. I get it. You're one of the people who doesn't believe that there are any groups of anything ever. Every single cat is an individual. There are no "cats" as a group. Not larger family of felines. The Great Debate forum is thataway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
You too could read what I said instead of making it up. Let's review: I said that bi-sexuals were gay guys who are having sex with women. You objected saying: I wonder if it has crossed your mind that perhaps your telepathic link with bisexuals is less than perfect? I asked if you thought they weren't having sex with women. You objected and pointed out some bisexuals do not in fact have sex with women: for example, those who are teenagers and have not yet got lucky. So, assuming that you now agree that bi-sexuals DO have sex with women, I ask if you were objecting to the assertion that they were having gay sex. You objected saying Golly, you do know how to miss a point, don't you? Then asked if I was a creationist. My characterization of bi-sexuals was that they were gay and also having sex with women. You admit they have gay sex. You admit they have sex with women. Yet somehow, I'm a "creationist"?!? Moving on in our review:
Gay men can also be split into groups, that's why the hanky code exists. Don't know what the hanky code is, but this proves my point. You aren't referring to three different classifications of gay men. You are referring to "gay men". If YOU had posted first on this thread, then one of the hanky men could have come along and said "Clearly you are afraid of us because you called us all gay simply because we are having sex with men". But you didn't. So instead you bitch at me. Moving on:
the larger problem, namely all the gay men who won't admit that they're lesbians. I let this go, since I was using the term "gay" to mean everyone in the homosexual community and apparently you are anti-Lesbian for some reason. Unless we hear from a lesbian, I'm happy to leave my position on lesbians as written earlier in the thread. Moving on, You complained that
Pretending I don't exist isn't support. So, you are claiming that I am saying that bi-sexuals do not exist at all. Of course, this is a little ridiculous since the INITIAL complaint you voiced was that I was labeling bi-sexuals incorrectly. But hey, heaven forbid you stick to the point, right?
have made 29 posts using the word "gay", 5 using the word "homosexual", and (apart from this thread) exactly one post using the word "bisexual", Ummmm, okay. Thanks for that input. Seems like you are admitting that "gay" is a blanket term that covers "bisexual" as well. We could quibble about whether "gay" or "homosexual" is a better blanket term, but gay is shorter so I think it gets the edge. So, when I said:
If you just stuck to "straight sex" vs "everything else" and said "everything else gets rights too", you would already be done. You responded Hoorah, I'm already done. Good. You've conceded the point. I accept your defeat graciously. but wait.... you apparently aren't done...
you start telling offensive lies about them. So IMMEDIATELY after admitting that you could have just said "everything else", you go right back into claiming that I'm ***. And then... IamJoseph wrote:
Bible is correct here. Which I totally didn't see because I was just replying to email notifications. otherwise I would have jumped all over him. But that's neither here nor there. Your next point was:
Diversity just causes confusion in nuggin's noggin. So, AFTER ADMITTING that the movement can be best classified as "everything else deserves rights too" you are complaining that I'm trying to put all the groups under one banner. Sounds like you really can't make up your mind. They are gay in one post, not gay in another, then back to gay, then back to not.
it's you who has this strange obsession with bisexuals Uh huh. Some 10 posts from you asking me questions about bisexuals but I'm the one "obsessed". LOL. Seriously? Do I even need to point out how you are failing? Then you are back to claiming that I am denying that bisexuals exist. So, back to back arguments that I am obsessed with them and that I don't believe they exist. Nice. And that brings us back around to:
See, how would you stereotype bisexuals if you didn't have a word for them? I'm not stereotyping them. I'm merely saying as PRETTY MUCH ALL OF YOU HAVE ADMITTED, that they are a subset of gay. 8 pages of you guys bitching and moaning and FINALLY admitting I was right all along.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024