You could just change your name again. 
As I see it, you go two choices:
-
Get a girl that you can have some fun with in bed. (something that some of the other guys here should do too)
-
Live in celibacy.
Nu Vo Da Da:
Apparently, you missed the point. Here it is again, restated in step-by-step language:
-
IMHO, homosexual behavior between/amongst consenting adults IS NOT a crime. Law enforcement agencies have no business squandering public dollars kicking in doors to arrest those engaged in such activity.
-
Otto/Esprix has been an active proponent on these message boards of what he calls ‘gay rights’-- translation: He wants special consideration given to him and those who practice deviant behavior. He wants legislation passed at all levels of government that would legitimize his lifestyle. But, there is a problem. Before such legislation can be passed, society at large must first recognize the need for it. For example, look at the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which represented then long overdue legislation to afford equal protection to minorities the rest of us enjoyed. It really should not have been necessary, but because of the actions and attitudes of a few toward minority races, society correctly recognized the need for enforcement of equal rights for all, regardless of skin color.
Now, along come the homosexual activists, looking back at how the blacks accomplished parity, and decide they’ll use the same tools. First, create ‘victim status’ for those who practice homosexuality. Create an image of a beleagured minority in the public mind. Put a socially acceptable face on deviant practices. Call it ‘gay’–harmless sounding. Make a point of high profiling any instances where an interpretation of victimhood can be made. Gain social acceptance; in short, exploit those who have truly been the object of discrimination.
- I sumbit that the possibility exists that Otto/Esprix/Orion are one and the same person-Orion taking a contra position for the purpose of eliciting favor.
Thanks Bill.(I got him trained)(kidding). But thanks for sticking up for me, Bill…
You’re very welcome, schmoopie!
Boomer, glad to see you making reasoned arguments. I do not see the “special rights” question as you do. IMHO, they are asking for effectively the same rights as you and I possess (or in some cases should possess). For example:[ul][li]The right to have one’s sex life not the subject of legal harassment. In the state I live in, having oral sex with my wife is a felony. Living with a woman outside of marriage is a “serious misdemeanor.” Granted that neither law is enforced to any significant extent, they are still invasive, horrible laws.[]The right to marry the person you love. You and I have that right; I’m 39 days short of 25 years of happy marriage with her. They do not, simply because people who cannot conceive of themselves as living in lifelong intimacy with someone of the same sex refuse to allow that for someone else, it may be the answer to a dream.[]Prosecution of verbal and physical assaults resulting from sexual orientation. This is, speaking frankly, a “special right.” And I’m not totally sure I completely agree with hate crime legislation. But the alternative to me would be strict enforcement of severe crimes for any assault, for whatever cause, not the “well, he asked for it” mentality that seems to be prevalent in many areas.Protection from losing one’s job, one’s home, etc., on account of who one is. No doubt in my mind that this is a totally reasonable expectation.[/ul][/li]
I don’t know what I missed in that list, and I’d welcome your views on where you see my points as being in error.
While I have not read all of Esprix’s posts, what I am a proponent of is equal rights. The word “special” is code used by the radical right wing, because they figure if they can falsely paint gay people as asking for more than “equality” then people will be less likely to support equality. Since you are claiming I’ve been a “proponent” of “special consideration” for gay people, you will of course be able to provide quotes and links to any number of examples. I’ll ask for one. Please post a link and quote in which I have asked for gay people to be protected to any degree greater than str8 people, or asked for a right which str8 people either don’t already have or would also receive were it extended to gay people. Additionally, please list off those “special” rights (same definition) for which gay people ask.
Are you claiming that gay people have not been subjected to discrimination?
“Eliciting favor” from whom exactly? For the record, Esprix and I are different people, and OrionexcessivestarsOrion and I are different people.
David B wrote:
Actually, the name change was the result of a mistake on my part. I really liked the name “Snark,” but now that I’m posting as “Flinx,” I’ll keep the latter name.
Flinx, getting away from your personal life, what’s your stance on these questions? I figure that you have a unique perspective on the subject, and may have some insight that the cast of thousands here has missed. I know you oppose gay marriage based on your Prophet’s Proclamation on the Family, and I can respect your point of view (without, mind you, agreeing with it!). Whazzabout the other issues?
Polycarp, here are my opinions on the issues you raised (eliminating gay marriage, which I’ve already discussed in another thread):
Oral sex: It should definitely NOT be a felony (!), or legislated against at all, IMHO. I don’t want to have it and I believe it’s a sin (especially between two unmarrieds), but it’s none of my business what other people do behind closed doors, and it’s not the government’s business either.
Hate crime legislation: I think we should just legislate against assault and battery, no matter why it occurred. This is a fuzzy issue for me, though; I tend to sympathize with victims of hate crimes simply because I am a potential victim of such crimes myself.
Losing/not getting a job/apartment because you’re homosexual: Definitely should be legislated against. I don’t think it’s your boss’s or your landlord’s business what your sexual orientation is. It should be illegal even to ask on applications or in interviews.
The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)
Polycarp, also, on the issues CalifBoomer raised regarding gays wanting special rights for themselves (i.e., the right to marry others of their sex), I don’t believe the government should sanction such marriagees. If individuals want to cohabitate, that’s their business, but the government shouldn’t endorse deviant behavior by sanctioning gay marriage.
I also agree with Boomer when he said that gay activists
Just look at Otto’s “Mormons claim a victim” thread in the BBQ Pit for an example of this item of his agenda being exercised.
Oops, that should be “marriages,” not “marriagees.”
Ok, Otto, here are a just a few of your remarks on this subject:
Here you are equating your homosexual lifestyle with women, blacks, Jews and the mentally and physcially handicapped. That’s exploitation. There is a very significant difference between the conditionvis-a-vis thebehaviour of an individual. Your rights include whatever sexual orientation you prefer. It’s your choice, your own business. I would not agree with those who would discriminate against you solely on that basis. My objection is with your overall dishonesty, your attempt to have the rest of the world endorse your lifestyle, and the government to legitimize your behavior through legislation.
Otto, again:
Another play for ‘victim status’. And it goes on and on. Many of your remarks are not appropriate in this forum, as they originated in the Pit.
I see my boyfriend didn’t get my little joke:
but still, thanks again, hon, for sticking up for me! Keep it up!..heh heh
What could you expect, Rosie, from a young man of such 'rectitude? 
Heheheh.
I see I’ll be having a nice time in April…
CalifBoomer, Otto never said he’s never tried to paint homosexuals as “victims”. He said he has never called for special rights or special treatment of homosexuals. You still haven’t shown one instance of Otto asking for special rights or special treatment for homosexuals.
Do you understand how completely contradictory this statement is with your stance on SSM? You believe oral sex is a sin, yet you would not legislate against it. So why would you legislate against another supposed sin, that of SSM? If both are sins, shouldn’t you be in favor of legislating against either both or neither?
Let’s take each of these in turn:
-
Overall dishonesty - please post an example of my being dishonest. Post a lie I’ve told.
-
Endorsing my lifestyle - First off, there is no such thing as a “gay lifestyle.” You of course disagree, and so are able to list off the components of a “gay lifestyle,” those lifestyle components that every gay person on the planet has in common. Second, I couldn’t care less if someone likes gay people or not. My only concern is that I am not treated as an inferior because of it.
-
Legitimizing my behaviour - I don’t really see this phrase as all that different from “endorsing my lifestyle,” except that possibly you meant it to include gay sex. Again, I don’t give a hoot in hell what you think about gay sex. Don’t like it? Don’t have it, and don’t concern yourself with others who do.
Sorry if it upsets your delicate sensibilities that I point out the fact that I have been the victim of discrimination and bigotry because of my sexual orientation. It’s not a “play” for anything on my part, just a simple statement of fact, which if you truly believe what you say about believing discrimination is wrong, shouldn’t cause you to become so exercised. I don’t go through life wallowing in my “victimhood.” But being victimized has affected who I am as a person, and it’s no “play” to note it and to declare it to be wrong.