|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New York Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
It's same sex marriage. This isn't a thread about same sex marriage. It's a thread about gay marriage. You can tell by looking at the top of the page where it says "New York Gay Marriage". You keep trying to relabel it, while jumping on a bandwagon full of people who are bitching and moaning about people relabeling stuff in ways they don't approve.
I think that if you want to discuss subjects like this, your English needs to be good enough to distinguish between phrases like "sexual orientation" and "sexual history". Well forgive me for missing one word in your post while trying to police for words you are changing in mine. Fine, I'll edit my response. You can sort everyone into two groups: Those who WANT to have sex with people with matching parts and those who don't. Happy?
No-one has to be gay in order to have a same sex marriage. I think you'll be surprised by how it plays out in practice. There are all sorts of normal marriages who are regularly questioned by the INS about their feelings and or sexual practices. I agree it shouldn't be that way, but it is what it is.
People are under no obligation to call their same sex marriages "gay marriages" because you want them to It's not about what I want. You make it sound like I'm the _only_ person in the entire world to use terms like "gay marriage" or "gay rights". I know you know that that isn't the case. Do I need to remind you of rule 8?
You seem to want to back up your desire to call bisexuals "gay" by deciding that all same sex marriages (the correct legal term) have to be called "gay marriages". Again. You seem to think that I somehow invented the term gay and that no bisexual anywhere at anytime used the word "gay" in an inclusive fashion. Could you please provide documentation that no bisexual anywhere at anytime ever used "gay" inclusively? Footnotes please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Those, 'one time at camp' stories seem to be similar or perhaps the emo boy fetish for kissing? Maybe, but I haven't heard any "one time at camp" stories about straight guys experimenting. I've heard plenty about girls.I've heard plenty about gay guys having their first experience. Just never hear about two straight guys who say "Boy, I'm super curious about being gay". Just never seems to happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I would agree that it is bad form, but you understand that is not something I am guilty of, right? Frankly, you are all starting to sound alike. I'm responding to a good 20+ messages in a row all either nitpicking vocab, accusing me of X-pobia, complaining that I don't have enough gay sex, or that I am secretly having a lot of gay sex but ashamed of it. That's not including the constant posts asking me to repeat myself. If you guys would pick one spokesman and not jump on each others bandwagons, I'd be able to keep you straight. But, as it stands, I'm responding to too many people about what other people said in response to things yet other people said about message I posted to other people. If you guys hadn't jumped on the "get the straight boy" bandwagon, none of this would have happened at all. Like I said before, I left the thread. I got brought back in by (what we now know was a drunk) and you guys jumped in when I dared to defend myself against him.
I do understand than combating negative stereotypes - even (and perhaps especially) those done casually - is actually part of the movement. Do you? You understand why the republicans kick the crap out of the democrat 99 times out of 100, right? It's because the democrats crawl up each others' asses every single time anyone says anything while the Republicans set an agenda and stick to it. It's been this way for decades. The political correctness of the 90s is a terrific example of a way to ruin any support you might have. "I support women's rights!""How dare you use the offensive womEn spelling. If you _really_ supported us, you would say womyn's rights!" You know what the next line of that conversation is?"Go F yourself bitch". You know why? Because when you are attacked by someone while trying to be supportive of them, you lose all respect for that group. If you guys would just worry about the big picture one time, you'd get something done. Instead, it's endless infighting over meaningless crap. No one on the other side of the debate cares if you are bi or gay or trans or whatever. For them it's all "Jesus hates fags!". And when you stop fighting the "Jesus hates fags!" people to take a swing at someone for not being sensitive enough about "bi-erasure", you just end up making an enemy of an ally. So what do we end up with? 10 pages of people complaining to an advocate of gay marriage that he's not enough of an advocate. Meanwhile the anti-gay people remain unopposed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
What about people who enjoy both? And the loop continues. Sigh. If the world is split into two groups:1) People who eat cheese 2) People who don't eat cheese And you ask, "what about people who sometimes eat cheese?" which group would they fit in? No where does it say that group 1 eats cheese exclusively. Nor does it say that group 1 doesn't have arms or legs, that they don't sleep, etc etc etc. The defining characteristic of group 1 is "eats cheese". If you eat cheese. AT ALL. You are in group one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
And YOU are proof positive as to why. A guy comes out and says it, you jump and label him gay. If he's having gay sex. He's gay. Whether or not I exist doesn't change that fact. If you have a problem, it should be with the fact that you seem to think there's something wrong with being gay or being labelled gay. I never said that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
When is the last time you heard a mega church raise millions of dollars to combat drug addiction? A mega church is a building/organization. Not a guy. If a guy makes it his life's work to spend a bunch of time with gay teens and talk extensively about their sexual desires, you have to admit that that smacks of motivations other than money.
I’m covered by medical marijuana legislation. Does that make me a pot smoker? If you smoke pot. Yes. I'm covered by gay rights legislation too, technically. But it doesn't really mean anything. I'm also covered by the 2nd amendment, but I don't have a gun. The point is that bisexuals are seeking protection under these laws. They aren't demanding a separate set of laws that specifically address them as being something other than "gay".
As gay is a preference and not simply an act, how can you not prefer men over woman and still be gay? You've lost me in your complex multiple negative. I'll state it again, though I suspect you've seen it before: If you want to have sex with people the same parts, you're gay. You can be other things too, doesn't make you not gay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
And that is NOT AT ALL how human sexuality works. But it is how binary categorization works.
for the record: this whole "woe is me. get the straight boy" shit is retarded. Bring it up with the gay guy who told me I couldn't have an opinion unless I had more gay sex.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
Me, personally? Nope. I DO, however, have a problem with non-gay people being labeled as gay. Which you seem to enjoy doing... Hardly. In fact, I only have two categories one ONE of them is for non-gay people. That's a pretty big portion of my two groups. Almost 50%
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
I think you might be guilty of hyperbole here, right? Well, duh. I'm always hyperbolic - except for right then when I wasn't. Look, you guys took what was a smirking remark to Stranger in response to his smirking remark to me and made it into a battleground. I don't care if I'm right or wrong on an issue. If I get attacked, I'm going to fight back. The more I get attacked, the more I'm going to fight back especially when people are condescending and snippy (not saying you in particular were). And this issue in particular wasn't one where there was a "hard fact" to be addressed. We're not talking about the answer to a math question. We're talking about the fact that many people in the gay community use the term "gay" to mean many different things. We're talking about the fact that many "bisexuals" simply aren't and admit to as much later on. These are issues where people should be able to have different opinions and those opinions should not require a certain amount of gay sex to be considered valid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
And I'm suggesting that bisexuals, those who identify as finding both sexes attractive, are not all full of themselves or self hating gays or attention seeking etc And if you had said that 4 days earlier, there wouldn't have been a problem. But instead you and Dr A and one or two others jumped on the "straight guys don't get to have an opinion" part of the thread. Coming to the defensive or, or joining sides with, the drunk gay guy who voiced this opinion. So I fought back because I _always_ fight back when someone makes this sort of a statement. I shouldn't have to fuck a guy in the ass to have an opinion about whether or not that person has the right to get married.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
You DO realize that Jaderis has since apologized for saying as much, doing so some 130 posts prior to this, and hasn't posted since, leaving only you saying anything remotley close to this. You DO realize that any time anyone jumps into an ongoing discussion on one side or the other, one has to assume that that person is in agreement with his side. None of the people in this debate had any problem with my post for the 4 days prior to Jaderis' comment. They didn't come in until he raised the issue of my not having the right to make comments. And they haven't left since. So, I'm still operating under the assumption that they are in agreement with the initial argument in which they are participating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
That was not in fact what he started off saying. That's correct, what I started off saying was that gay recruitment was a myth.
Dear me, did a self-confessed troll get a response? The only difference between us is that I'm willing to admit what I'm doing. You are doing the exact same stuff, but aren't man enough to own up to it.
If, in plain English, you mean "why disagree with someone who's wrong?" I think that that's a question that answers itself. How do you know it's wrong? Are you gay enough to make that call?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
* sighs deeply * Not exactly a response is it? Try again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Here's the thing: by you automatically trying to labelm that's the problem. What the fuck do you care what their sexual preference is? If they tell you they are bi, they are bi. if they say they are gay, they're gay. It's no business of yours otherwise. You can *think* a bisexual person is gay all you want, but if they tell you "no, I'm bi", who the hell are YOU to tell them they are gay? So, you are walking down the street and you see a black guy. You think that's a black guy. Who are you to make that call? What the fuck do you care if he's black? If he tells you he's a negro, if he says he's African American. It's not business of yours to make an observation of what you see. You shouldn't have looked. You should keep your eyes closed at all times lest you accidentally see someone and jump to a conclusion based on what you are seeing. You can *think* a negro is a black guy all you want, but you have to actually go up and confront them, demand that they identify themselves by race. Otherwise, who the hell are you to think they are black?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Your point? It's not hard at all to differenciate someone saying "I'm bisexual" and "I'm gay". They are two completely different sounding words. Ahh, I see. You are suggesting we draft legislation that requires all gay and bisexuals to publicly announce their preferences every time someone new walks by just to make sure everyone knows all the time. Excellent. Let's see what the gays have to see about this plan of yours.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024