I’m glad that the sodomy laws got shot down in Texas, and therefore the rest of the country. I thought they were absurd to begin with. So now you can do what you like with impunity. That’s great. I’m happy for you, genuinely.
But…
The large minority of the country (according to Gallup, in this particular study) still disapproves of homosexuality in some manner. And yet, you (Mockingbird) immediately think to start something that is virtually guaranteed to piss people off. Why? You just won a big victory. Why jeopardize that? There are still a lot of people on the fence about this, and flaunting it would be a good way to change things back to what they were.
I think it’s the name that gets to me. Maybe it’s the lingering vestiges of my religious upbringing or something, but I still associate the word sodomy with bad. I found it to be extremely jarring. All I know is that I immediately had a visceral reaction to it. Also, I think that part of that reaction was the lack of discretion. It would be like me winning a public indecency case and then immediately going outside and whipping my dick out. I dunno. I’m sure somebody understands what I mean.
Flame me, agree with me, whatever. I just needed to say that. Maybe I’m way off base here, or maybe someone can say what I mean better than me. Either way, at this moment I just don’t get it.
Yawn. So you think the word and act of sodomy is offensive, and you don’t like people flaunting the word and what it stands for. Fine, turn off the computer and go read a book.
Well, given that 98% of individuals who have ever been sexually active in their lives committed sodomy at one time (most commonly heterosexual oral sex), I think the populace shouldn’t be too offended by the use of the word.
If you pick up the papers today, you’ll see that some of those in position to affect future laws are already using this as an excuse to block further progress.
People didn’t get this far by saying “Thank you so very much for giving us what should have been our right in the first place.” They won’t make any further gains by going off into their corners and quietly enjoying a crumb of victory.
I think the webiste idea is a little strange, but that’s just me. I do have a problem with this, though:
I think a more accurate statement would be to say, “It’s like a black man going to eat at what used to be an all white resturant the day that segragation was repealed.” Or, if you are uncomfortable equating blacks and gay folks, how about, “It’s like a guy drinking a case of beer in an hour on the day Prohibition was repealed.” Sure, it’s going to piss some people off, some people might find it tacky, but it’s legal. Your statement has someone breaking the law again, after getting away with it. And if some folks want to do a little public happy dance because a silly law was repealed, more power to 'em. Just MHO.
I don’t understand what you mean. I think the idea is fabulous. Maybe your lingering vestiges associate the word sodomy with bad, but the U.S. Supreme Court just blew those vestiges away. Did you check out the page in question? It’s an intro page, just like any other web page where people can put their pictures and a little bit of information about themselves (none of which couldn’t be read by the average 12-year-old).
Who would be pissed off about a page where gay people can list their favorite movies and their instant messaging ID’s? Because of the name? I just don’t get it.
I am really, genuinely saddened by the OP. You and I hung out at Jonathan Chance’s last Saturday. We hugged, we drank beer, you made an awesome steak and cheese snadwich. I have always counted you as a friend, so to find that you think this of me and folks like me really stings.
and how many hetero flirting threads have there been in MPSIMS? Did you call those “fluanting”? If gay people are required to be quiet and unobtrusive so as not to offend, if our rights as human beings depend on your whims (as your OP would seem to indicate, then we have won nothing.
“Sodomy” is just a word, and frankly it does cover what we do in bed. Moreover, “Stunning Sodomites of the SDMB” has an alliterative quality that “Gorgeous Gay Guys of the SDMB” doesn’t quite match.
That you have such a low opinion of gay people, and me in particular, that you compare us to “a public indecency case” really stings.
I doubt if most people are aware of this definition, erroneously equating “sodomy” with “gay sex”.
At any rate I think of myself as a libertarian about these sorts of things. I may not like the choices that people make. I may be guilty of an “ewww” reaction, but I stand by people’s rights to live their lives free of government intrusion as long as no one is being hurt by it. If you say “Ewww, not in my bedroom,” that’s fine. If you say “Ewwww, not in my city/state/country”, then you’re dangerous to the cause of Liberty.
I’m with Qadgop on this. I can see your squeamishness about the name, I guess, though I think it is an overreaction. It’s hardly that offensive. As Qadgop noted, by many definitions most of us have committed some version of sodomy some time in our lives and usually with great relish. It’s hardly worth a Pit thread.
But the rest of your discomfort simply mystifies me.
Why in the world would it do that? At the SDMB of all places? Does it piss you off?
All it is yet another addition to the list of “meet your fellow dopers” websites with pics and bios. Others such exist both on this board and others and the fact that it is themed ( in this case gay and transgendered themed ) isn’t particularly unusual either. I can scarcely imagine a more innocuous project.
QtM beat me to it - a number of the states affected by this defined “sodomy” to include oral sex, even between a heterosexual couple. The laws were just enforced to discriminate against gays and lesbians. I don’t have a problem with what Mockingbird posted.
All I have to say is that I’m disappointed that someone with nearly 2 thousand posts and multiple years on the SDMB would make a thread title so meaningless as “I just don’t get it.” For Christ’s sake, even in the pit you should be descriptive.
Speaking of not getting things, I’ll be scratching my head over this for awhile. On the fence? Do people really think, “well, I’m just undecided about whether or not to be a bigot?” Do they have two-column notepads to jot down things in “pro” and “con” columns to weigh how to view “this issue”?
I don’t think bad things of you. Not at all. I count you as one of my better friends anywhere.
I see your point. You’re absolutely right.
But that’s not what I’m getting at, not really. It’s the lack of discretion. By that, I mean…well, I don’t quite know what I mean.
Bill Frist is proposing a constitutional amendment that is anti-homosexual. He’s an ass. I hope it goes nowhere, but even you have to realize that your position right now is very tenuous, and it could concievably happen. Then something comes up (this) that is guaranteed to rile up the homophobes, and I know that because I jerked at it.
I know what they’re thinking. I do because in all honesty I used to be one. They’re thinking that now there’s gonna be gay sex all over the place, and ooooh, we mustn’t let our kids see this. Thery’re idiots, but that’s how it is.
I’ve come around to your perspective in the past few years, but I still flinched when I saw that. Maybe I’m still a little bit put off (obviously :rolleyes:), but I will support your right to do whatever you want until the day I die and hope that you get all the rights of everyone else (like marriage) soon.
My point is this: when you win a tenuous victory and people are still out to get you, doesn’t it make more sense to keep things on the down low instead of giving the kooks more ammo?
It’s obvious I’m way off base here, and it was a mistake to try to address this. For that, I’m genuinely sorry. I honestly didn’t mean to offend.
What’s the point of OpalCat’s People of the Straight Dope page? Some posters want a greater degree of intimacy than is provided by faceless postings under assumed names. This page just happens to have a tighter theme.
Glad to hear it.
I knew there was a “but” coming.
So what? A lot of people in this country disapprove of me not being a Christian. A lot of people in this country disapprove of me liking Star Wars better than Star Trek. A lot of people in other countries disapprove of me simply for being from this country. Bottom line: a lot of people make a lot of bad judgements based on stupid criteria. The clinical term for these people is “moron.” I’m not about to start editing myself to please a buncha morons. Why should Mockingbird or any other gay poster feel any different?
Not to be a dick, but why should anyone care about how this makes you feel? That thread has nothing to do with you. It’s not talking about anything you do, or think, or care about. That said, the idea that some uptight fundie homophobe out there (not talking about you, here, Airman) is going to get agita over just the name of the webpage is gravy.
That aside, what else is your problem with the page’s title? It’s factually accurate: Mockingbird is a sodomite. He engages in sodomy. So what? Assuming you don’t have a problem with his practicing sodomy, why are you bothered that he’s happy to admit to it? Is there a term you’d prefer he’d use? It’s not like there are a lot of more polite ways of talking about butt sex, after all.
And, as has already been mentioned, your analogy sucks donkey balls.
Well, somehow I don’t think that, out of the thousands of websites out there featuring explicit gay sex, a head shot of some geek on the internet (no offense, Mockingbird, but you do use Batman action figures as decorative wallhangings) calling himself a sodomite is going to get much notice.
Besides which, assholes like Frist and his supporters don’t need a pretext for crap like this. The fact that gay people even exsist is all the pretext they need. What gays actually do doesn’t even enter into the equation, as can be easily discerned by the way virtually all of the arguments against homosexuality are based on lies and slanders.
For centuries, gays tried the low profile thing and nothing ever changed. In the last thirty years or so, they’ve switched to high-profile, and they’ve got political representation, legal protection in many states, and even the right to marry in a handful of countries. It’s clear to me, at least, that the only way for homosexuals to finally get equality is to be as noisy as possible.
Besides, the more ammo you give a kook, the more likely they are to shoot themselves in the foot.
No in general ( as gobear noted, skulking in a corner does no one any good ) and a definite no in regards to this particular case.
I still fail to see the offensiveness of this little project. What lack of discretion ( other than the highly questionable one of the name ) does it represent anyway? The only way I can see anyone construing it as a lack of discretion is if you think homosexuals should be completely invisible.
I think that acting like you are ashamed, and trying to keep things hidden, would be what would be more likely to hurt your cause.
Acting like you have nothing to be ashamed of, which of course you don’t, is the right thing to do.
I do think, however, that calling yourself a sodomite is likely to hurt your cause. My guess is that calling yourself a sodomite is along the lines of taking a word that is used against you and making it your own, but I don’t think this is a good idea with “sodomite.” It is a word with lots of negative connotations, and it can be applied to straight people as well as gay people. Most straight people who have had sex have performed sodomy.
Sodomy basically means “sex acts that are deemed abnormal and unnatural.”
So why, after winning a case that helps prove that gay sex is NOT abnormal or unnatural, would you describe it with a word that specifically MEANS abnormal and unnatural?
Again, I realize that making a word your own is often a good strategy, but I think in this case it would be better to consistently say that gay sex is a good thing, not abnormal and unnatural, rather than emphasizing that even you call it abnormal and unnatural.