Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8950 total)
34 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (5 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,376 Year: 22,412/19,786 Month: 975/1,834 Week: 45/430 Day: 0/45 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New York Gay Marriage
Trae
Member (Idle past 2651 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 241 of 284 (627565)
08-02-2011 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 5:38 PM


Re: Go back to the start
Come on. Let's assume for a second that you have a 12 year old son.
You discover that there is a minister in your neighborhood who runs a special class for young boys focusing on indepth discussion about their gay desires.
Your conclusion is: "Wow, that guy must be making tons of money"?

Given we know that these groups raise money from religious donors and given we know that churches themselves often help fund these organizations what is so unreasonable. When is the last time you heard a mega church raise millions of dollars to combat drug addiction?
They are covered by "gay rights" legislation. That makes them gay.

I’m covered by medical marijuana legislation. Does that make me a pot smoker? I’m covered by immigration laws, does that make me an immigrant? More on point, there are straight people who are covered by ‘gay rights’ legislation. How does that make them gay?
Saying that they aren't "gay" because sometimes they want to be "gay" and sometimes they don't is just silly.

As gay is a preference and not simply an act, how can you not prefer men over woman and still be gay?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 5:38 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 9:13 PM Trae has acknowledged this reply

Modulous
Member (Idle past 449 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 242 of 284 (627566)
08-02-2011 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 8:27 PM


moving towards some understanding
Yes.

Thanks.

Can you understand that discounting a persons opinion because they haven't had enough same sex sex is just as much condescension, needling, goading and monkey poking as anything I'm doing?

I would agree that it is bad form, but you understand that is not something I am guilty of, right? That if anyone is guilty of doing what you describe it is Jaderis and that an apology for so doing has been issued? That I shouldn't be subjected to 'tit for tat' retaliation goading etc for something I didn't actually do?

Can you understand that being nitpicky about terminology derails the entire movement?

I don't think being nitpicky is threatening to derail the entire movement, no. I do understand than combating negative stereotypes - even (and perhaps especially) those done casually - is actually part of the movement. Do you?

Why on Earth would anyone want to help you if the first thing you do is beat them up for not using your particular term when you yourself switch off terms whenever you feel it applies?

I should point out that I don't 'switch off terms'. A person is gay, bi or hetero. If they are monogamous, they may be in a gay, or hetero relationship. There is a difference, as bluegenes expressed so well, between sexual orientation and sexual history.

And really, thanks for the civil response.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 8:27 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 9:03 PM Modulous has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 838 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 243 of 284 (627567)
08-02-2011 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by bluegenes
08-02-2011 7:55 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2011 7:55 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by hooah212002, posted 08-02-2011 8:50 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 283 by bluegenes, posted 08-03-2011 4:42 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 838 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 244 of 284 (627568)
08-02-2011 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Trae
08-02-2011 8:09 PM


Re: Go back to the start
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Trae, posted 08-02-2011 8:09 PM Trae has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by hooah212002, posted 08-02-2011 8:52 PM Nuggin has responded

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 245 of 284 (627569)
08-02-2011 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 8:46 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
You can sort everyone into two groups: Those who WANT to have sex with people with matching parts and those who don't.

What about people who enjoy both?


"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 8:46 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 9:06 PM hooah212002 has responded

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 246 of 284 (627570)
08-02-2011 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 8:48 PM


Re: Go back to the start
Maybe, but I haven't heard any "one time at camp" stories about straight guys experimenting.

Of course not, because for girls it's sexy. For guys.....it's demasculating. If a guy talks about how, over the summer, he experimented with another guy, he gets mocked and ridiculed. A girl does the same and it's seen as sexy by guys and "meh" by her female friends. It comes as no surprise that there are FAR fewer "this one time, at band camp" stories told by dudes.

{abe} And YOU are proof positive as to why. A guy comes out and says it, you jump and label him gay.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 8:48 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 9:07 PM hooah212002 has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 838 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 247 of 284 (627572)
08-02-2011 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Modulous
08-02-2011 8:42 PM


Re: moving towards some understanding
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2011 8:42 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2011 9:45 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 258 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 9:59 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 838 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 248 of 284 (627573)
08-02-2011 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by hooah212002
08-02-2011 8:50 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by hooah212002, posted 08-02-2011 8:50 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by hooah212002, posted 08-02-2011 9:22 PM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 838 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 249 of 284 (627574)
08-02-2011 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by hooah212002
08-02-2011 8:52 PM


Re: Go back to the start
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by hooah212002, posted 08-02-2011 8:52 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by hooah212002, posted 08-02-2011 9:23 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 256 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2011 9:49 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 838 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 250 of 284 (627575)
08-02-2011 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Trae
08-02-2011 8:39 PM


Re: Go back to the start
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Trae, posted 08-02-2011 8:39 PM Trae has acknowledged this reply

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 251 of 284 (627577)
08-02-2011 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 9:06 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
And that is NOT AT ALL how human sexuality works. However, if you would like to wallow in ignorance, that's fine. Just stop being a fag about it when people correct you.

for the record: this whole "woe is me. get the straight boy" shit is retarded. ONE person has identified as being BI. I am straight as they cum, you sexy beast.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 9:06 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 9:24 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 252 of 284 (627578)
08-02-2011 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 9:07 PM


Re: Go back to the start
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.

Me, personally? Nope. I DO, however, have a problem with non-gay people being labeled as gay. Which you seem to enjoy doing...


"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 9:07 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 9:26 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 838 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 253 of 284 (627579)
08-02-2011 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by hooah212002
08-02-2011 9:22 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by hooah212002, posted 08-02-2011 9:22 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 838 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 254 of 284 (627580)
08-02-2011 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by hooah212002
08-02-2011 9:23 PM


Re: Go back to the start
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%


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by hooah212002, posted 08-02-2011 9:23 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Modulous
Member (Idle past 449 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 255 of 284 (627586)
08-02-2011 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 9:03 PM


Re: moving towards some understanding
If you guys hadn't jumped on the "get the straight boy" bandwagon, none of this would have happened at all.

If it helps, I reacted the same way when a gay person did it in Message 3 of You're either straight, gay, or lying?. Your sexuality is irrelevant.

But I'll accept your implicit apology that you got confused over who was saying what to 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.

I understand how bickering can paralyse politics. But I'm not bickering over political policy here. I'm objecting to the characterisation of bisexual people as being full of themselves, self involved and attention starved as you have painted them. If objecting to these stereotypes isn't part of the gay rights movement, I've been sorely misled.

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.

I can fight both. The bonus is that you are more likely to change your mind than the "Jesus hates fags!" people.

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.

No, we were objecting to your stereotyping a certain sexuality. Or as you prefer it 'a subset of a sexuailty'. We weren't complaining that your advocacy for gay marriage was insufficient for 10 pages.

Meanwhile the anti-gay people remain unopposed.

Which is not true. They remain opposed. I didn't avoid tackling anti-gay people just to write twenty posts explaining why I find your stereotyping to be problematic. No gay advocates had to spend any valuable time in here. I think you might be guilty of hyperbole here, right?

Furthermore, some people had their consciousness raised regarding the stigmas, stereotypes and the like that bisexual have to deal with. If bisexuals are gay, then that sounds like a successful advocacy of gay rights awareness to me. What else can a thread on EvC hope to achieve?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 9:03 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 9:53 PM Modulous has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019