Sex Sells, but why advertise?

[Omniscient]

Now this is probably going to be a loaded question with worms everywhere, but I'll try my best to be as PC, and unoffensive as possible. Also the correct forum for this question is not clear, and the word general is the best I could do. Here goes.

Now a question similar to this has been asked before, and it focused on why some (I suspect most, but thats unfounded speculation) Homosexuals flame, i.e. act obviously gay reinforcing every stereotype. My question is less about mannerisms, but more about straight forward actions. I admit that the issues may not be able to be seperated.

Here's the question. Why do homosexuals seem to have a need/desire to advertise that fact and in general scream to be noticed? This is obviously not all inclusive, but it certainly seems quite common. The question was prompted by matt_mcl's and a few other of our resident gays' comments to unrelated topics (I'd dig up references, but under the new format its more of a pain in the ass that I feel is worthwhile). Some examples to help explain my point. Matt's thread about his desire to wear male skirts seems to me to fit my description. I see this as a trend that is used by homos (excuse the abbr., it merely for speed) to make others aware of their orientation. Others in the bumper sticker thread have mentioned they have bumper stickers (buttons) that promote their preference. The rainbow bumper stickers are extremely common, and the strange enthusiasm that surrounds the gay pride/awareness parades in most cities (the name even proves my point). Many gays I've met and corresponded with online always seem to go out of their way to share their preference, and are quite proud of the fact (not to imply they should be shameful, but proud is not healthy in my opinion). I understand that this is frequently needed to give context to certain opinions, but I've noticed it when it serves no purpose.

Does anyone have a idea, opinion or out and out (no pun intended) fact that explains this. I am curious about the homo. contingent's (male and female) ideas and opinions.

Is it a useful tool that gays use to locate potential mates? It seems to me that it is kinda unhealthy and I relate it to the detestable trend of gays to out unwilling public figure to "further" the awareness movement. It strikes me as a sign that even gays have a unhealthy political opinion on the way they want to be treated. In other words, shouldn't gay's, blacks, of any other minority strive to be seen as simply people, no more, no less, no different than their other human counterparts. I see the gay, feminist and black "movements" as detestable not because of the people they represent, but because of the seperatist and punative ideals I see them creating. Now I may be making more of this than it is, but the entire concept of gays wearing the badge that professes their orientation to the world is a step back in the goal of equality and tolerance.

Please note that all opinions i've shared are not intended to be insulting, confrontational, or otherwise inappropriate.

------------------
The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is
yours to draw...

Omniscient; BAG

[mr john]

I dunno , and it seems like an over generalization. Why do so many heteros take every opportunity to announce their anti homosexual views? Sometimes, well,often,in the most inappropriate places.Try reading the letters to the editor in the Dallas paper after a short artical about some artistic performance or exhibit.Or any article showing gays in any way other than derogatory.A recent artcle about 'country living had a line 'Mr soanso and his partner Mr suchandsuch,recently purcahsed their home and..." must have been 20 25 letters over the next week 'flaming' gays in general.( yeh yeh I saw it before I typed it, that's why I did type it).I guess the answer is that some people act one way others act another way. We notice the more Flamboyant. (saw that one too)

[threemae]

Don't at all be ashamed to ask this sort of question. I hate to be stereotypical but quite a few organizations seem to thrive upon martyrdom such as Christianity, just look at the fish bumper emblems and ARG220's posts.

------------------
"The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie."

--Joseph A. Schempeter

[Omniscient]

Heteros take every opportunity to bash gays because they are scared, closeminded, and generally ignorant people, but how does that explain the need to make the world aware of your preference. I don't think I could wear a "I'm Straight as an arrow" (I tried to think of a creative, funny slogan, but gave up) button, and not be labeled a queer hating homophobe, and why would i need to say that unless I was afraid of my latent homosexuality. It just doesn't add up.

What do they possibly hope to gain or prove by alerting the world instantly to their preference.

[NanoByte]

Well, I would admit that it has appeared to me that both male and female gays seemed to, on average, have more overt political natures than would seem to arise simply as a result of the fact of their being, or having been, part of an oppressed minority group. I would simply assign such behavior proclivity to the neurobiological component of such individuals, in contrast to that of the average heterosexually oriented person. I don't know why the original poster here referred to this characteristic as "unhealthy". That seems an outsider's misuse of that adjective for an ulterior purpose. I suppose one might claim that it causes more friction with the rest of society, i.e., is socially unhealthy in a way. However, there are certainly characteristics of all kinds that are predominant in certain ethnic or otherwise differentiated groups of people, some of which the original poster mentioned, which can, under a minority circumstance of the particular group, act against them in the context of a majority societal faction that tends to behave otherwise. Highly sexed heterosexuals tend to drum up a fair amount of friction with the more numerous less horny majority sometimes, as do the minority of overdriven economic zealots, e.g., Bill Gates, or the religious extremists, etc., etc.

Ray

Ray

[Cowboy Greg]

Yes, Omniscient, that question is loaded. Careful where you point it. :)

Anyway, you asked:
What do they possibly hope to gain or prove by alerting the world instantly to their preference.

There are probably as many reasons as there are out gays, but the big two (IMHO, natch) are:

First, it says "Yes, there are gays among you; we're not going away, and we sure as hell ain't gonna be invisible".

Second, it's a reminder to other gays that "You're not alone", which it can sometimes seem like when you're bombarded by hetero-centric media images and hateful televangelists and loons of all stripes constantly telling you you're unfit to walk among "decent" folk and should just be glad you're still allowed to breathe.

I'm sure it seems weird to hets to "advertise", but if homosexuality was the norm and heterosexuality was considered by many to be immoral and perverse, hets would likely do the same thing.

If, by some chance, being gay was no big deal and the entire subject of one's orientation were met with yawns, then you probably wouldn't see many overt signs of anybody's orientation. Alas, that doesn't seem likely any time soon.

------------------
Who knew the Grail wasn't dishwasher safe? -- MST3K

[cmkeller]

My guess is that the ones who advertise are the politically active ones who are attempting to promote equal rights through assertiveness...something that would be pointless if people didn't know in what way they were considered "unequal" (unlike blacks or women, whose differences are obvious).

------------------
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com

"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

[Keeves]

There are some people who say, "I am not anti-gay. I just think that sexual orientation is a private matter which no one should publicize, neither gays nor straights."

That sounds really nice until you notice that when a straight mentions his/her spouse, that is considered to be casual conversation, and is not generally considered to constitute "publicizing one's personal orientation." The problem is that gays do not have the luxury of referring to their partner in such a non-inflammatory fashion.

[Big Iron]

[[I don't think I could wear a "I'm Straight as an arrow" (I tried to think of a creative, funny slogan, but gave up) button, and not be labeled a queer hating homophobe, and why would i need to say that unless I was afraid of my latent homosexuality.]] Omnicient


Yeah, probably not, although you could try the "Straight but not narrow" slogan I've seen here and there. Even then, though, as you note, I dunno why one would need to emphasize their straightness (maybe in Provincetown or Key West, I dunno).

Personally, it seems to me that it is only a relative minority of gays who are true flamers. What motivates them is unclear, probably a mixture of things personal to each, but, well ... they ARE different. <g>

[Nickrz]

I see this as a trend that is used by homos (excuse the abbr., it merely for speed) I think it took you longer to type out your excuse than it would have to use the proper word. I'll write that off to maybe you didn't know how to spell it.

Oh, wait. What's this? two instances of "homosexual" typed out all good and proper earlier in the post.

I hate to say it, but your use of this word soured me to your question and left me with the feeling you've an axe to grind. The rest of your post left me with no doubt.

[hansel]

My loudly gay friends, when asked this question, usually respond something like Cowboy Greg. However, one friend gave me what I think is a more honest answer: before gay people come out to the world, they have to come out to themselves. Having done that, the next step is admitting it publicly, at which point it becomes a much larger part of one's consciousness than it is for a straight person who never questions being heterosexual.

Being loud about being gay, then, is a kind of self-confirmation. It's not so much insecurity about being gay, as a determinedly pro-gay attitude that manifests itself in speech and acts. A lot of homosexuals have to overcome self-doubt and self-hatred, and very often that's an act of will, an act of constantly saying to oneself "I'm gay, and I'm happy this way." It sounds very Stuart Smallyish, until you remember that gay people live with incidents like Matthew Shepherd [sp?] throughout their lives.

[Omniscient]

Well Nick, I noticed the irony of that excuse after I had typed it, and then left it in order to act as both a fun goof, and also because I had anticipated using the abbreviation again, along side saying hetero. As the OP was a work in progress it didn't quite end up that way, and had I though that the content and tone of my post (decidedly uninflamitory IMHO) would be so frowned upon by the powers that be I would had scowered it for unPCisms or better yet not posted it.

If you are secretly trying to call me a troll then I damn well am going to call you on it, because I sure as hell never have before.

[Satan]

During the Gay parade in NYC when I lived there, I made a joke that I was gonna get a shirt that read, "I'm straight - That's great!" and wear it around.

I made this comment to a bisexual friend of mine, and even though he knew I did not mean this as a political statement, merely an attempt at some witty social commentary, he busted my chops about it bug time!

He explained that the reason homosexuals are open about their sexuality is the same reason that during the '60s civil rights movement, many black americans were outspoken about their black heritage.

To wit - Living a life which is a lie, and always being made to feel like an oucast, sinner, punching bag to homophobe, misunderstood by friends and even close family, makes a lot of people react by glorifying the thing that made them different.

It's simple human nature...

------------------
Brian O'Neill
CMC International Records
rockuniverse.com/cmc/cmc.html (http://rockuniverse.com/cmc/cmc.html)

ICQ 35294890
AIM Scrabble1
Yahoo Messenger Brian_ONeill

[the first supraliminal]

A lot of times I'm drinking in some bar and get into conversation with some dude. Suddenly, out of context, he will say, "Hey, check out the butt on that chick." Either he is trying to advertise his heterosexuality or is just commenting on what he likes. For the former, maybe we can take issue, but for the latter, perfectly, uh, normal?

I used to be a homophobe, but now, nothing scares me.




------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ

[SanibelMan]

Okay beeruser, I've been patient for a long time, but I can't take it anymore - what is that string of letters supposed to mean, if anything, in your signature???

[Nickrz]

Well Nick, I noticed the irony of that excuse after I had typed it, and then left it in order to act as both a fun goof, and also because I had anticipated using the abbreviation again, along side saying hetero. As the OP was a work in progress it didn't quite end up that way, and had I though that the content and tone of my post (decidedly uninflamitory IMHO) would be so frowned upon by the powers that be I would had scowered it for unPCisms or better yet not posted it. Maybe you thought your use of the term "homo" would be a "fun goof", but I didn't view it that way. I find that word derogatory in the extreme and I would suggest that anyone who uses it is not posting in a "decidedly uniflamitory" (sic) manner whether they think so or not.

But let us not quibble over mere words, let's examine the tone of the post in general.the strange enthusiasm that surrounds the gay pride/awareness parades in most cities andnot to imply they should be shameful, but proud is not healthy in my opinion andIt strikes me as a sign that even gays have a unhealthy political opinion and, lastly but not leastlyI see the gay, feminist and black "movements" as detestable not because of the people they represent, but because of the seperatist and punative ideals I see them creating. Now I may be making more of this than it is, but the entire concept of gays wearing the badge that professes their orientation to the world is a step back in the goal of equality and tolerance. So. The entire tenor of your post is decidedly intolerant, and you even went so far as to say you detest the gay, feminist and black "movements" for creating "seperatist (sic) and punative ideals" (Whatever the heck that means).

In spite of your denial and the disclaimer,Please note that all opinions i've shared are not intended to be insulting, confrontational, or otherwise inappropriate. you have quite handily managed to insult me and demand from me a confrontation with what I view to be bigoted, intolerant sentiments. You have not fooled me; what you really mean to say is "Why don't all these people shut up already."

I've been through all this before, in the pit with a member named Old E in a thread entitled "Gay pride - WTF." Your post differs from his only in your somewhat more erudite style; the underlying sentiments are identical. In regard to those sentiments, I will say only this - people who have a clear idea of what tolerance is and who practice this most noble (and most rare) of human ethics do not make statements like those of yours quoted above. I abhor gay-bashing no matter what mantle of camouflage it wears.

I would not declare your remarks innappropriate, no. You are free to post your views along with the rest of us. I have never discouraged the free exchange of ideas on this board, much less called anyone a troll, secretly or otherwise, so I don't know where that's coming from. You can "call me on it" all you like - because I'll stand on my record, it's all there in plain view.

[furt]

nickrz--does it say anything to you that nobody else has appeared even close to upset?

Some of my gay friends have talked about how when someone comes out, they often come "way out;" making up for lost time, or releasing all the frustration, and then later (months, years) they sort of mellow. Many people are like this with religion, too; often the loudest people are new converts.

------------------
"It all started with marbles in school..."

[Omniscient]

Nick, damn it, I don't know if your taking things out of context to piss me off, or if you are really that short sighted.

First, the fun goof is not the use of the term homo., but the irony that the excuse is longer than the actual word.

I have no interest in being PC, or afraid to speak my mind because I am confortable with who I am, and that my opinions and views are not malicious in any way. I have no quarrel with gay people, I am not religious in any way, and am not uncomfortable in their company, and I stongly support capital punishment in hate crmes (a point I believe we shared in that thread). If you don't see your implication that I'm a troll then your backpedalling. The last thing I want is this thread to deviate to a arguement of my intentions, i just want the question answered. I do not however apologize for your sensitivity to my use of words, thats a cross you chose to bear and it will not govern my actions.

Now I shouldn't get into the context of my posts, because as it has been pointed out no one else feels irritated by my post, but what the hell.

The strange enthusiasm I refer to is the fact that gay pride parades were designed and originally intended to bring political awareness and action to conservative and oppressinve local governments. Now they have morphed into a wild Mardi Gras like party where its partcipants dress in the most expressive, and revealing clothing possible and get generally rowdy and lewd under the guise of political action. Now I'm all for a good party, and have no problem with the nudity and rowdiness (just wish I had one I could participate in), but it seems odd that the gay community as a whole has not frowned on these acts that cast a negative light on the validity of these parades.

not to imply they should be shameful, but proud is not healthy in my opinion
I'm note sure what your implying is malicious, but pride is considered a deadly sin for a reason. It is destructive and promotes an us versus them attitude that serves no positive influence. I imagine the gay community would perfer they were seen as a person and not "that gay person". This pride seems to encourage the labeling of the gays as different, and people who need to be noticed and treated differenty. I see this as counter productive.

And yes I see political movements as destestable in general because they are disingenuous and unjust. Politics are ugly, and I singled out the gay, black and feminist movements because they seem to be fair comparisons. I do not understand why you chose to interperet this as anti-gay, and not anti-political movement. Movements such as the Black Panthers preached seperatism and violence against their "oppressors", this is wrong and no less detestable than the Neo-Nazis. The gay movements are non-violent, but they also preach a us vs them attitude, and call for supporters to be politically michievious to enact change beyond equality. The practice of outing gays in public view is a quasi-violent act that I see as detestable. The sentiments I have are not anti-gay in any way, but they seem to allow unjust acts to be perpetrated in their name, and the motivation seems to parallel the ideal of sexual-orientaion publicity.

By your defintion I can't speak negatively of any groups' action whether wrong or not with out being a intolerant and inflamitory person. This is total bullshit, I do not need to bury my head in the sand and accept any actions of minority groups and accept their terms for fear of being labeled intolerant. I suppose in your home the simple discussion of ideas and views is totally unacceptable if they rub you the wrong way, and if you allow your emotions to overcome any semblance of balance and logic. My points have been well supported, carefully phrased, and directed at facts and opinions. I never broached the topic of ethics and morality because those topics serve no purpose here and can do nothing but incite a fight, this isn't even implying that i have a moral concern, but the topic was intentionally avoided, you however chose to bring it up.

I am insulted by your false paraphrasing of my sentiments that I see as much more inflamitory than anything I have stated. I never remotely voiced the sentiment of "Why don't these people shut up already?". I argued that the act of advertising their orientation is politically and persoanlly couterproductive to the supposed desire to be treated as equals. Most certainly do desire equality and no more, but i think they contradict that sentiment unknowingly by literally labeling themselves. I never voiced the any opinion that it bothered me, and never suggested that they are violating my rights by practicing or advertising in front of me. I am aware of this senitment by some and i see it a ricockulous. The implication that I want them in the closet is absolutely unacceptable.

If you abhor my comments thats fine, but I happen to feel that a frank, open discussion of the issues by all interests involved is the only way to solve the problem, and that my friend is noble and most rare.

And finally I quote:people who have a clear idea of what tolerance is and who practice this most noble (and most rare) of human ethics do not make statements like those of yours quoted above. I abhor gay-bashing no matter what mantle of camouflage it wears. You state that I am gay-bashing under some sort of erudite camouflage. You the state:I have never discouraged the free exchange of ideas on this board, much less called anyone a troll, secretly or otherwise, so I don't know where that's coming from. The first statement, by most members, is understood to be the precise definition of calling a poster a troll, and in such you contradict your false statement in the second quote. I think you are choosing mere semantics to place yourself on a higher pedastal than other who simply wear there feelings on their sleeve. You, my friend, called me a troll not once but twice, and i take exception to that.

[Big Iron]

Omni, I didn't get experience the visceral reaction Nick did, largely because (inter alia) I mostly skimmed that post and just answered the question as posed. I hope you can see that describing the black, women's, and gay movements as "detestable" (a label I missed on first reading) would be rather offensive. Regardless of the flaws of each, without them there would be no equal rights under the law for such people (and that day is not quite here for gays). I assume you don't find Title VII detestable, too.

[Omniscient]

So misunderstood.

Well to be honest Title VII doesn't ring a bell, Title IX I know.

I tried to be a clear as possible when I wrote the gay, black and feminist "movements", as to best illustrate that the flaw is in the movement and not the change enacted by them, nor the parties they represent. I just think that Malcolm X was a sad, and negative replacement for MLK Jr. and that type of emotion stirred by his type alienate both sides of the issue. I wish that movements were not needed, and that he common sense that the bulk of people can easily employ would be all that was needed to enact positive change. Seems the self serving leaders of the respective movements are a necessary evil, but I wonder if the people whom they represent see he apparent flaws in their logic.

[Nickrz]

I stand by my statements as posted. You are all free to read them and think what you wish.

However, I'm still unclear on this "troll" thing. The only one flinging this dreadful term around is you, my friend. Which statement of mine is it that is "understood by most members" to be "the precise definition of calling a poster a troll"?

I looked around, but I didn't happen to find
"You're a troll" anywhere in my text.

I suggest you're accusing me in such wise to deflect attention from the real issue at hand here: Whether or not your original post was a thinly vieled rant against homosexuals. I submit that it was, no more no less. Keep the imagined insults out of it, please.

[Quarterat]

I bet you didn't buy the Malcom X postage stamps. Of course he was born poor of a despised class in the rule of the most powerful nation the world had ever seen. He was annointed as a preacher by a strange fellow on the fringe of socitey. He preached and drew great multitudes mostly from the outcasts and poor to his sermons. This upset the poweres that be. He traveled to the dessert and had a epiphany that all men are brothers, this became one of his more frequent topics. He sought justice for all. He was betrayed and killed by former followers while noone in the ruling class shed a tear. He is one of the two folks that folks might figure mean if you write "He is an Xian" . What if he came back and wasn't treated any better.

[Falcon]

Omni -

Off topic, but what's your problem with the feminist movement? The feminist, black, and gay movements won't end until there is equality. And to call those movements "detestable" is an insult to anyone that's a part of them. I have my thoughts on Malcolm X vs. MLK Jr. too, but I'll pass on that until I hear your comments on feminism. One rant at a time.

And another note: perhaps this topic should get moved to GD? Just a thought...

[Omniscient]

Dear God, I am trying my best to keep this out of Great Debates, i really want to stay on the original topic in that I actually think that there is an answer to this. The side debates of MLK Jr. vs. Malcolm X, whether "movements" led by radicals are a good thing and so on are endless answerless debates that I have no desire to argue. If someone wants to discuss 'em feel free, but that was not my goal, and I pray I can get back to topic at hand. I made the dire error of making off handed comparisons to illustrate a point and those comments are developing into a beast of their own.

Falcon, I really don't want to get into this can o'worms, but lemme try and clarify succinctly. I have no issue with womens rights, equality, Title IX, or women in general (I'm actually quite fond of them). I am trying desperately to say that I have no issue with the peoples involved in the movements, just the dangerous momentum and ill feelings they cause. An example that applies to the feminist movement, the more radical leaders while promoting womens rights and ambitions also take a decidedly ain't male stance and treat men indescriminantly as the enemy. This type of thing is just as wrong and destructive creating animosity as the initial injustice. Two wrongs don't make a right. I hope this clarifies once and for all the intention of my statement.

I do not feel that my statement disparages the parties involved in any of the movements by simply critisizing their methods, and the tone of their actions. Their goals are just, but the ends do not justify the means.

[Omniscient]

check that, it should say "...an anti-male stance..."

[the first supraliminal]

Okay beeruser, I've been patient for a long time, but I can't take it anymore - what is that string of letters supposed to mean, if anything, in your signature???

And I thought all this time nobody cared.

It's my name in Korean. If you download Korean Language Support from Microsoft, you can see the Korean characters. Otherwise, it's just gobbledeegook.

No big mystery. :)



------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ

[Sue Duhnym]

I may be off here, but I'll throw in my $.02 anyhoo..

Some people may be more sensitive to "advertising" one's sexuality, well no. Some may just be more aware of homosexuals being homosexual.

For instance...I hold my husband's hand in public, but no one notices. Had I been holding my girlfriend's hand, everyone would notice.

I don't think most homosexuals are doing anything out of the norm, it just happens to be with someone of the same sex.

Off my soapbox...

[Sassy]

http://www.sfweekly.com/1998/060999/pride1.html

An article by the well-known advice columnist Dan Savage on the sin of pride and the gay community... I think it fits in this discussion

------------------
The reason gentlemen prefer blondes is that there are not enough redheads to go around.

[Omniscient]

Dear God Sassy, that article is exactly what I was trying to say, without pissing everyone off, and avoiding all the silly side fights. Thank you for posting it, everyone please read it and let me know if I'm more clear now!!!

Here it is for emphasis:

<blink><big>Please Read This Link, a PC way of what I wanted to say (http://www.sfweekly.com/1998/060999/pride1.html)</big></blink>

[Nickrz]

So you've managed to turn your rant into a religious rant. I find that even more despicable than the garden variety you espoused before. You're digging the hole deeper. Keep posting!

One question - Do you agree with the phrase "I'm proud of my country."?

[Omniscient]

I would slap the taste out of your mouth if I could. You know god damn well that there is not a single religious implication in my point. IGNORE the religious crap that sets up the article I am not passing commentary on the 7 deadly sins or anything of the sort. I have no interest in anyones sins, I am merely echoing the authors opinion (a gay author mind you) that the pride shown is misplaced and destructive.

And if your intentionally trying to piss me off and distract me from the topic at hand (curiously you haven't even commented on it yet) then go fuck yourself.

If you proceed to muckrake irrelavent issues I have no intention of responding to any more of your posts.

[Nickrz]

Well wait, now. Didn't you just post a link and say:that article is exactly what I was trying to say

And now you come back and say that article was not exactly what you were trying to say? Why make the declaration, then. Don't blame me for your inability to communicate your ideas.

You've put me in the unfortunate position of being a moderator who has the duty to warn against personal attacks and abusive language, but since I'm on the receiving end and would not take unfair advantage, I'll simply ask you if you'd like this thread transferred to the pit, or can you discuss this in a calmer manner?

[Nickrz]

Ps. You did not answer my question.

[Omniscient]

I'm done with you, you choose to be the abusive moderator if you like, but you are the sole reason anything within the content of this thread has gotten confrontational. I am going to share no more contact with you and I am going to restrict any further comments to the question i have posed and its discussion. Your perception of my intentions are irrelavant, and unless any other members share a negative opinion of the content i posted I am going to maintain the opinion that this confict is entirely of your making. I no longer intend to propogate the conflict, and nothing inherent in this thread bolongs in the pit, only your outburst and accusations. My tolerance level is at its peak and anything further will be driven by anger on my part and serve no positive influence.

[Nickrz]

So be it.

Just for the record, for those of you who did not open the link, here is the headline and the first paragraph of the article in question. This is what I'm supposed to ignore:

"The Sin of Pride

For a group of people long labeled sinners --and understandably sensitive to a charge that's still made -- it's more than a little ironic that gays and lesbians should select a sin as our annual rallying cry. And not just any sin, but the sin Pope Gregory the Great called "the queen of them all." "

[Omniscient]

Nickrz, please check your e-mail.

[Sassy]

I was hoping for some discussion of the original question... **sigh**

------------------
The reason gentlemen prefer blondes is that there are not enough redheads to go around.

[Nickrz]

The original question is still open for discussion.

[According to Pliny]

I think Nickrz has just made the strongest arguement for faceless moderators that I have yet seen on the SDMB.

Just my opinion. Not that it counts for anything.

[Big Iron]

[[I am trying desperately to say that I have no issue with the peoples involved in the movements, just the dangerous momentum and ill feelings they cause. An example that applies to the feminist movement, the more radical leaders while promoting womens rights and ambitions also take a decidedly ain't male stance and treat men indescriminantly as the enemy. This type of thing is just as wrong and destructive creating animosity as the initial injustice.]] Omniscient


One problem with that -- such people are a distinctly tiny minority in these movements. Using a handful of extremists to characterize a broad-based movement is not an appropriate rhetorical device.

[David B]

PapaBear said:I think Nickrz has just made the strongest arguement for faceless moderators that I have yet seen on the SDMB.
Just my opinion. Not that it counts for anything.Sure it counts for something. It's counted every one of the million or so times you've said it. And, in fact, it's been discussed in at least one thread in "About This Message Board" -- and elsewhere as well. Each time, the reasons against that idea have been explained. So it's not that your opinion doesn't count, it's simply that it's been outweighed by others with better reasons. But if you want to discuss it some more, I'd be happy to go over it yet again in "About This Message Board," and you can even use your perceptions about this case to explain your reasoning if you'd like.