I had pretty much determined not to post on this thread anymore, and just follow the argument. however, within the hail storm of epithets and emotions flying back and forth, I see some truths and solid points on either side. I contributed to the inflammatory remarks flying around, and once more I apologize.
Although my basic anti-homosexual position has not changed, a very special lady helped me to calm down, and be willing to acknowledge the side of the issue not my own.
On my last post I let a very piece of personal history become known, and then held my breath, waiting to get shredded; that didn’t happen.
This thread has given me a chance to start healing a 32 year old wound, and has caused me to do some deeper thinking on a subject I habitually haved reacted to in a knee-jerk fashion.
Thank you all, on both sides, and most especially, thank you Phouka.
VB
I could never eat a mouse raw…their little feet are probably real cold going down. :rolleyes:
Buddy, you are about 2 hours late, and thousands short. I posted what evidence you would attempt to use, hours ago. Not to mention that you attempt to make my AD HOMINEM jab (yes I admit it) into an attack on the group as a whole. Sad. False. Disingenuous.
HAVE A NICE DAY INDEED!
DOnt you read before you post? I was cleared of YOUR charges, before you even came to court.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. "
Jonathan Swift
You were pretty bright for a ten year old. Too bad you didn’t get any brighter.
Of course I’m not ignoring anyone, seeing as how I’m responding to posts in this thread with some regularity. Can you explain how responding in detail to a wide variety of people and viewpoints within this thread and this forum is “burying my head in the sand” and “ignoring everybody”?
This isn’t the goddamn United States of America?
Because of my “lifestyle”? The term is without meaning in this context (although it was ever so darling for you to type it in all caps as if that would prove something). Because of my sexual orientation I am denied First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment protections.
It’s a sexual orientation. The term has specific psychological, sociological and legal meanings. If you’re going to pop off about gay issues, you might want to familiarize yourself with them.
Source? I think I’ve read just a tiny bit more queer theory than you have, and the overwhelming concensus of opinion among those who actually think about this stuff outside message boards is that “lifestyle” is not an accurate or descriptive term. But hey, let’s go with “lifestyle” for a minute. What are the components of the “gay lifestyle”? What lifestyle elements were shared by Danny Kaye, Magnus Hirschfeld and Roberta Achtenberg (just to name three more or less at random)?
Um…no? How the hell did you come up with that one?
You can of course provide examples, other than my bitchslapping Diamond for complaining about how tough it is to make it through life as a member of the planet’s most privileged class.
Oh look, here I am in your face again. BTW, you can provide examples of my supposed hypocrisy, right?
Esprix & Otto:
Why the hell do you people describe yourselves as “gay”? More descriptive (and honest) to call yourselves ‘fellators and sodomites’. BTW, I fully support your right to have a stiff dick shoved up your shitty asses.
Actually, no, it’s not. This is the Straight Dope Message Board, specifically the BBQ Pit. We are international, though most of our posters do seem to live in the USA.
I’d also like to note that the U.S. Constitution says that the GOVERNMENT shall not restrict speech. The SD can restrict speech on its own site as much as it wants.
And finally (this goes out to everyone), just use ONE handle per person. If you continue using more than one handle after being warned, you are subject to banishment from TSD.
There is some difference of opinion as to the origin of the term “gay” as applied to homosexuality. If you’re really interested, as opposed to just asking in a “why did you ruin this word” asshole bigot context, I’d be happy to dig up some research for you.
Not all gay people engage in the acts which would be indicated by the descriptors above. Very few gay females, for example, engage in fellatio. “Sodomite” is historically inaccurate as well, as it derives from the Biblical story of Sodom, which the Bible clearly states was destroyed for inhospitality and hardness of heart toward the poor. So, given the long history of the term “gay,” I have a feeling we’ll stick with it, thanks.
Then how do you explain that the medical community disagrees with you?
If a family were to object, do you think it would easier for a husband to make decisions for his wife when she becomes incapacitated than the same-sex partner of an incapacitated person?
No one is arguing history, and I agree with the above. However, do you still feel that today’s laws are based soley or predominantly on Christian beliefs? Do you feel they should be?
I do my part in the ways most ordinary citizens would - I vote my conscience, I contribute time and money to causes in which I believe, and I post happy messages in public forums such as The Straight Dope. Am I going to be running for Congress any time soon? No, but I’m going to continue to be vilgilant about who I put there to represent me. I should note that I have often, and am again, considered devoting my life to the ministry to, in some small way, make the world a slightly better place.
The armed forces I already conceded wasn’t comparable to SSM’s, but how does it not relate to the integration of schools? Both are civil rights issues, revolving around equal treatment of every person in the US under the law. Once again, I’ll ask what part of “with liberty and justice for all” you don’t understand.
How would same-sex marriages screw over or defraud businesses?
Then we’re reading very, very different studies - the ones I’ve read document homosexuality among higher primates in their natural habitat. I will endeavor to find some research when I have the time. (Dammit, I hate when I actually have to work at work…)
My sincerest condolences - that is too brutal for words. I hope, in time, you get whatever help you need and your wounds heal.
Well, I wouldn’t have put it quite like that, but I agree, Otto. I put a picture of my boyfriend on my desk at work, and I risk losing my job, being harassed, and accused of “flaunting it.” Don’t you just love this “choice” we’ve made?
Well, the Supreme Court has been known to make non-majority popular decisions in its time (i.e., separation of church and state, “separate but equal” being unconstitutional, etc.), but in general, yes, I’d say you’re right. And, as you say, I don’t think either side is going to give up the fight on this one no matter what majority opinion might be - what a boring world it would be if we did!
But does that make it right to discriminate? Do you think this shouldn’t change?
Well, in the long-run, yes, but I rather enjoy this kind of banter from time to time…
Evidently you are not familiar with the Bob and the Church of the Sub-Genius. Slacker.
Actually, no, only you do. I’m rather enjoying chatting with Rousseau, but then, he has more brain cells to rub together than you do.
Now you’re seeing conspiracies? Yeah, there’s an effective argumentative ploy… :rolleyes:
Sounds familiar, only I was in love with my high school senior class president. Since the psychological profession seems to agree that sexual orientation is determined at a very, very young age, and it seems to be such a complex combination of genetics, biology, physiology, environment, neurology, ad nauseum, it’s an argument that really doesn’t count much towards civil rights in the US… yet it keeps coming back into the argument.
Oh, a Tom Lehrer fan?
[quote]
Esprix is gay; [StarvinMarvin] accuse[s] him of “lusting after youth,” and without evidence, of c
I meant to say that the integration of the armed forces doesn’t relate to SSM’s, but that SSM’s relate to school integration. Sorry if there was any confusion.
Funny, you go through all that trouble to correct that, and you end up calling me Dain.
This is why I don’t point out S&G errors unless they’re funny. There’s some sort of unwritten law of posting that says that any post correcting someone else’s S&G has at least one error of its own.
You may now carry on with your regularly scheduled flame war.
Okay, this has spilled over onto the “Derrick Thomas” thread. And I admit I did the spilling. But I did so to let anyone who read that thread and not this one what kind of a bigot StarvinMarvin truly is. And I think SM is someone else’s sock puppet. Why? He claimed I have a long track record of failure (which isn’t true), and yet his profile says he registered only 8 days ago, whereas I’ve been here since last September and have NEVER posted under any other name. (Of course, you’ll all have to take my word on that one.)
Now, I do not think SM is Phaedrus, but he did invoke the lunatic’s name earlier, so I thought I’d share with y’all something:
On the “flat Earth” thread, the Shining One claimed to live in Ohio. (No way to verify this, but we don’t need to.)
KGB posted there in Ken’s defense and in one post, claimed to be male.
In the “psychosis” thread, KGB claimed to be Ken’s female cousin.
“She” also claimed to be sharing the Faded One’s email address.
According to the profile, KGB claimed to live in California.
It has been speculated that Otto has more than one screen name. Methinks the adverse is true: there must be more than one person behind the Otto screen name. How else to explain the fact that he keeps forgetting things that he posted yesterday???
Ah, but replying to a post doesn’t mean that you’ve considered it. Allow me to refresh your memory:
“Asshole shit-for-brain idiot whoresons?” “Blather away endlessly?” It doesn’t sound to me like you’ve considered his point of view. Shalt I continue? Soitanly!
Oh, this reflects a high level of consideration on your part. I get the impression from these posts that you aren’t really interested in what the other side of the argument has to say, as much as you are interested in slinging profanities at them.
Somehow, in my heart of hearts, I knew that you weren’t bright enough to catch what I was trying to say without me explaining every word to you. Your face-value assessment of what I said reflects, at best, a mediocre junior high education. What I meant was that being in America doesn’t give you the right to say what you want when you want. Selfish, self-righteous egomaniacs (like, oh, I don’t know, you) often hold that they can say whatever they please, whenever they please, to whomever they please. No. Yes, you are guaranteed the right to free speech by the written laws of the nation. But as a (presumably) functional member of a functional society, you have the responsibility to not go around saying things that deliberately offend people. I could give you an example of what I might say to you if I wanted to hurt your feelings, but I’m not going to lower myself to your level.
That’s a new one. I will assume that by “First Amendment,” you are referring to instances in which homosexuals have not been allowed to, say, march in parades. You see this as a violation of your freedom of assembly. Once again, you demonstrate very shallow and self-centered thinking. Homosexuals were not prohibited from marching in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade. If they wanted to get in line and march with the 4H club or something, they could go right ahead. Besides, your freedom of assembly does not give you the right to flaunt your views in front of others, especially if it is believed that it might cause some civil disobedience (see the infamous Skokie case). I’m not equating gays in the St. Patrick’s Day parade with Nazis in Skokie, but homosexuals + drunk Irishmen = trouble. That’s a natural fact. But I’ve digressed.
Fourth Amendment? Hrm. Your protections against illegal search and seizure are denied? You’ll have to explain this one to me. Five? I’m guessing you’re referring to “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and you think that “liberty” refers to your right to get hitched. Sorry, but you’re wrong. “Liberty” in the context of the Amendment (which, as we all know, refers to the due process of the law–you don’t have to bear witness against yourself, no double jeopardy, etc) means “the state of not being in jail.” So, unless you’ve been incarcerated for being gay without due process, I’m gonna need some further clarification here.
Fourteenth? You’re wrong right off the bat, since only Amendments 1-10 constitute the “Bill of Rights.” Fourteen is not between one and ten, and therefore, it does not describe a “Constitutional right,” in the commonly accepted sense. But anyway, you’d still be wrong. Let’s examine:
If someone wants to go out and find the definition of “marriage,” as it appears in any state’s law books, they can go ahead. But my guess is that it specifies that the partners must be of opposite genders. Therefore, laws against SSMs are not abridging your priveledge to get married, in the legal definition of the word. Let’s not dignify this drivel about your Constitutional rights any longer.
Hahahahaha. “It’s not a lifestyle, but it has psychological, sociological, and legal ramifications.” You are, as my grandfather would say, “a numbskull in the first degree.”
Sexual/life partners are chosen from within your own gender.
I said:
Otto said:
Because when I accused you of ignoring the situations of people who are members of other groups besides for your own, you said:
So, if you have the right to ignore the hardships of other people on account of your “righteous rage,” then so do I.
I feel no need to post the same quotes again. If you examine your “bitch-slappings” of Diamond, you’ll find that you say things like “like you,” and “of your ilk.” This implies that it’s not an isolated incident. I’m sorry, maybe I need to dumb that down for you: it’s happened more than once. By the way, Diamond was not “complaining about how tough it is to make it through life as a member of the planet’s most privileged class.” He was pointing out to you that straight white males have problems too. I’ve also tried to get this concept through your thick skull, but it doesn’t seem to be working.
I think I’ve done a sufficient job of that, hypocrite.
I have read from this board since November. I registered just recently. I said that in my first post. I even said that I could have chosen a much better place to make my first post, but I chose here.
So smarty pants what now? Go home and rethink a new conspiracy (realizing that this heckler reminds me of many RECENT trolls and may be trying to divert attention by blaming the innocent so that no one stops to see how many SOCK PUPPETS HE MAY HAVE??)
Er, huh? Can you expand on that one a little, {b]Rousseau**? I was under the impression that the Constitution is the Constitution. One Amendment to the original document is as valid as any other Amendment. Or are you saying that universal sufferage, say, or freedom from slavery aren’t rights?
I was cleared of YOUR charges, before you even came to court.
