The Gay Fray

It doesn't matter what Baron thinks really. I think it is false to say that the MAJORITY of ppl are fine with the homosexual lifestyle. We are only looking at a fraction of opinions on this forum. If you opened the question worldwide, I do not think the MAJORITY would be all for it.

Married no, won't do that again. Long term relationship of 6 yrs now.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But just because a majority doesn't like something that people do privately is not a reason to legislate against it, is it? A lifestyle is a lifestyle; it may or may not be a lifestyle that you want to persue but does the fact that others do really bother anyone other than those directly concerned with it? And really what is the big problem with two people of the same sex who love each other wanting to get married? I just don't get why some people have such a big issue with it. Chill out!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Personally I don't care, if they want to get married or not. It doesn't really affect me.
The point I am making is, it seems just because someone doesn't agree with this lifestyle just because you or others do, automatically makes them idiots, bigots, clueless etc.
Then the words THE MAJORITY of ppl have accepted it, gets thrown in to justify their own opinions. I would like to see the statistics that the Majority of ppl are all for the lifestyle and the marriage between homosexuals. Everyone has their own views on the subject and just because some of you are cool with it doesn't mean everybody has to be. Why does that automatically make them close minded, old grouchy fuckers. Maybe they look at you and think of you as too accepting and just encouraging more fucked up behavior like that Pregnant Man scenario.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79337

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well I don't think people should be allowed to have sex without being married but that's just my fucked up opinion. So Shorty should my opinion have any legislative effect on your lifestyle because I don't happen to agree with it?

 

No, but it doesn't mean that just because a law is passed, it should have been. It also doesn't mean that ppl have to agree with it just because a few ppl said it is ok now.

 

So where possible it's best to keep the law out of people's sex lives do you think, maybe? And before you jump in with both feet I'm NOT advocating incest or child rape I'm talking about consenting adults 'kay.

 

I haven't read the entire 19 pages of posts in this thread, but would like to inject something that is usually not examined too closely during this type of discussion.

The moral aspects of homosexual activities and rights to those sexual activities are covered under two separate areas of discussion.

Legal

Moral

Marriage can be looked at from the same two separate angles.

Legal

Moral

The laws that involve persons who are homosexual and how I feel about them are something quite different in meaning and issues than what I feel about the morality of homosexualism.

I often see a total blending of Legal AND Moral meanings and issues.

Some believe that two people, who have joined together in a household to become life partners, should have full legal rights as those who do so as persons who happen to be of opposite sex.

These same persons may also believe that the physical acts of sexual nature experienced by the two people sharing a household as I described above, are for reasons that they have in detail, nasty or disgusting to them.

The same is true from the entirely opposite positions.

Some people may believe that the physical acts of sexual nature experienced by the two people sharing a household as I described above, are perfectly fine, morally and are nothing but their private business and expression of their own desires and feelings, not a protest against other beliefs. They believe that as such, their sexual acts are frankly no one else's fucking business.

I've seen that there are many mixes of belief within this one vague examination.

Let's hear some more detailed expressions of how both legal and moral viewpoints are mixed.

"Fucking Faggots" type remarks aren't discussion and should be kept where they belong in dark men's restrooms at redneck taverns.

If someone feels disgusted by the manner in which two lovers of the same sex react to each other as a result of their attraction, then I would be interested in hearing precisely what it is about this act of self expression that is so negatively emotionally explosive to you.

Be intelligent in your descriptions of your feelings. Be specific in detail.

How can anyone argue something that is not explained accurately, or expressed so vaguely, that only a surface understanding can be extracted?

Ask me anything you wish and I'll explain exactly what I feel, in all regards, to what you've asked. Being specific in the detail of your questions will enable me to be more brief in my replies.

I would hope that each of you would do the same.

 

So how do you feel when you see two people of the same sex making out?

 

This is a common question and one that brings a point I made below to the surface.

My answer is that I've found it depends largely on the appearance of the persons kissing and to what depth, (unintended pun), they are doing so.

If we are at a concert among formally dressed and acting people, and two, same sex lovers were to start pushing their tongues down each others throats while dry humping each others legs, then I would think it terribly out of place and rude of them to the point of crudeness.

If one man were to fondly kiss his partner after telling him he was being a very nice person, then it would make me feel good inside that two people could share the same type of feeling I experienced with my lover of 17 years before her death from cancer.

Feelings that make a person feel loved and appreciated shouldn't have gender barriers. To impose that learned barrier is unfair to yourself as a thinking, loving person and certainly unfair to those who are simply and appropriately expressing that feeling.

The type of incident that you ask me about has happened many times in my life. I've seen women-women and men-men touching, kissing and fond verbal interactions hundreds of times. Quite often, it makes me wish I could enjoy that closeness again with my wife. I envy them.

 

“ If someone feels disgusted by the manner in which two lovers of opposite sex react to each other as a result of their attraction, then I would be interested in hearing precisely what it is about this act of self expression that is so negatively emotionally explosive to you. ” <EDIT> I returned and edited this remark I made. I meant to say "same sex lovers".

The statement of mine that you quoted was a question to you and others. You avoided that question of mine and asked one of your own.

Will you now tell me if you would feel disgusted by the manner in which two lovers of the same sex react to each other as a result of their attraction?

Then I would be interested in hearing precisely what it is about this act of self expression that is so negatively emotionally explosive to you.

 

(Insert title here)

Well, it meant enough to some when the Bush administration wanted to go into Iraq that many war supporters claimed that the United States already had UN authorization.

Now, whether or not you support the war is irrelevant. The larger point is that part of the way the world works right now is that yes, when people get together and "draw up a silly little paper", often it does mean something.

What "special rights" are you referring to?

Two aspects of this question are important. In the first place, the People of Canada elected representatives who voted to legalize gay marriage. According to Wikipedia, "Court decisions, starting in 2003, each already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada's population." According to the International Herald Tribune, though, in an article published at the time of the Canadian legalization, gay marriage was legal in seven provinces. Nonetheless, according to the IHT article, "According to most polls, a majority of Canadians supports the right for gays and lesbians to marry."

The second aspect, though, pertains to Bells' question: "Why do you think it is never put to a vote ...?"

The answer is that it has been put to a vote. As you're aware, Max, we don't have a national referendum process in the United States, owing to concerns about States Rights and the Tenth Amendment.

In 2004, twelve states voted to define marriage as something that occurs between a man and woman, effectively limiting the right of certain partners to marry on the basis of their sex. Some of these laws are now facing constitutional challenges, and are not expected to fare well. Indeed, a ban on gay marriage was struck down last year in Iowa, of all places. How this sort of thing happens pertains to the various state constitutions and, in the longer view, the idea of equal protection. That latter is an issue I've already made note of, although you have yet to offer any substantial consideration of the point.

Indeed, as the argument moves forward and more states strike down intentionally-discriminatory laws barring gay marriage, there will come a point when it is time to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act. DoMA is something that "they", as in the United States Congress passed. Do you protest this outcome? Would you demand a vote by the People?

Which brings us back to the problem. In the United States, the People cannot simply vote on whatever damn issue they want and expect the law to stand. There is the matter of the Constitution, which is, according to Article VI, the "supreme law of the land".

Between Article VI, which binds judges "in every state", with "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding", and Article III, which assigns to authority that "shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution", DoMA will inevitably fall. It is intended to exclude a specific class of people, thus violating the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Connecticut decision was inevitable. The first section of the state's constitution is prohibits exclusive privileges to any group, and the last is an equal protection clause. As noted, the decision in Connecticut was based on that equal protection clause:

And, indeed, the court majority addressed the dissent's complaint that the decision "short-circuited the democratic process". If the state's equal protection clause is insufficient, they also appropriately cited the United States Supreme Court (Fronterio v. Richardson) and constructed an argument from that outcome, as well. (See footnotes 59 and 83 of the decision linked above.)

In the end, members of society only have so much say. If they choose to transgress the supreme law of the land, they will, eventually, be stopped.
____________________

Notes:

Wikipedia. "Same-sex marriage in Canada". Updated October 15, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada

"Canada passes bill to legalize gay marriage". International Herald Tribune. June 29, 2005. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/29/america/web.0629canada.php

United States Constitution. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

Constitution of the State of Connecticut. http://www.harbornet.com/rights/connecti.txt

Kerrigan et al. v. Commissioner of Public Health et al. (SC 17716). October 28, 2008. http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152.pdf

 

That's the same thing as saying that blacks could go to the bathroom and go to school just like whites could during segregation. But we all know there was a major difference.

Again, segregation mentality. Did you agree that blacks should have been kept separate from whites? Because your utter lack of understanding on this issue is mind-boggling.

Not even remotely funny, bigot.

Ah, the truth comes out. See, you had argued before that heterosexuals were not flaunting their sexuality, which is what your problem with homosexuals was. But that's not it at all, now by your own admission.

First, homosexuality is not any more disease-spreading than heterosexuality. Second, gay and straight men alike enjoy stuffing a good butthole. It belonging to a female makes it less gross to you? Third, homosexuality is in fact normal in this society. Just because the least-populated parts of this country don't agree with it doesn't mean society doesn't. The South does not represent the country. The Midwest does not represent the country. Your kind are dying out.

And by the way, Baron...are you going to get a divorce now? I mean, you already said it's a sham because three states have legalized it...so how are you going to break it to your wife that your marriage is meaningless now?

 

Mod Hat - Splinter notice and general warnings

Mod Hat — Splinter notice and various warnings

Several posts have been removed to a splinter thread that will remain open until midnight PST (GMT -8), and then relocated appropriately. Frustrations and arguments relevant to the "armpit of the nation" should be posted there, and not here.

• • •​

Warnings: General and Specific

Part of the problem at present is the repeated posting of denigrating and dehumanizing arguments without any attempt to reasonably support them. This sort of behavior constitutes a form of hate speech. Thus:

• Baron Max — If you insist on comparing homosexuality to bestiality and rape, support the argument. Baselessly comparing a group of people you don't like to animals is not an acceptable argument. And come up with something better than the inanity of sexual consent. If you are unwilling to do these things, drop the points. You're entitled to believe whatever the hell you want, but if you have any genuine intention beyond denigrating and offending people, make the point.​

Certain responses to this provocation, however, have transgressed the limits of acceptability for debate at Sciforums. Specific warnings will be issued if the primary response by those offended by such provocation is to join the instigator in the muck.

Additionally, regionalist stereotyping is unacceptable for at least two reasons: First and foremost, it constitutes a form of bigotry. Secondly, it is, quite simply, irrelevant.

• JDawg & NGM — I have removed the question of the "armpit of the nation" to another thread that will, in a matter of hours, be locked and filed away as an example of how embarrassing discussions around here can get. If you have anything more to say to each other on the issue, do so in that thread, and soon. While it is true that "daddy-cousin" sometimes makes for a good joke, it is one best reserved for frat parties, taverns, and the haze of the "conversation pit".​

There are other parties that I have addressed privately regarding certain aspects of this and other discussions taking place in EM&J. Please give those points decent and substantial consideration.

The mudslinging and idiocy taking place in this discussion will not continue. It seems as if some people believe that the passionate and reasonable are mutually exclusive. I assure you that this is not the case. Quite clearly, passionate and even furious argument has long been a part of this website's culture. We do not believe it too much to ask that people do more with their passions than simply sling shite at one another.

The right to offend and be offended remains intact here at Sciforums. However, posts primarily designed to offend and denigrate are not acceptable. If one is offended by an arguable and supported thesis, address the alleged validation of that thesis. Nobody is saying you can't be offended, and nobody is saying you cannot express that offense. But it does need to be addressed rationally. If one is offended by empty rhetoric with no semblance of support, make the rational repudiation. Moderators do not always notice right away, and the broad-spectrum insistence on working from the gutter only makes the challenge harder.

There are new policies coming to EM&J that have been under consideration for a couple of weeks now; among these will be a more direct recourse for those offended by the appearance of hate speech, irrationality as provocation, and other symptoms of a lack of good faith. Remember, people, abandoning your dignity for a few seconds of superficial satisfaction is not helpful, and it is not appreciated.

Now then, carry on—like intelligent human beings, please.

• • •​

Update: Members are reminded that Sciforums has an established protocol for complaint. See #1761971/5 and #1793897/1 for more information. Posting your complaints within a thread is not appropriate.

 

So much for, "'Til death do us part"; or maybe they were just dead inside

Source: Ex-Gay Watch
Link: http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2008/10/wife-divorces-ex-gay-activist-greg-quinlan/
Title: "Wife Divorces Ex-Gay Activist Greg Quinlan", by David Roberts
Date: October 21, 2008

I can't say I understand why this is important. I can certainly invent some reasons, but there is enough missing from the story—namely, juicy, scandalous stories of gay adultery—that it lacks the necessary punch.

Yes, I understand the argument that, "People deserve to know that this did not work". It is important to note that the phrase "sanctity of marriage", so often bandied about in the gay fray, really is devoid of any meaning. But, to the other, sex columnist Dan Savage asked at Slog, "If you and your ex-lesbian wife hold your marriage up as 'living proof' that gays and lesbians ... can change, that we can 'marry and be happy,' then what does your divorce prove?" Commenter Buffy aptly noted, "It proves that they can fuck up a marriage just like any hetero can."

Life goes on. Perhaps this is just God's way of telling them to not get married simply to make a political point.

Or something.
____________________

Notes:

Savage, Dan. "Ex-Gay Ex-Married". Slog. October 21, 2008. http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/10/exgay_exmarried

 

i have an habit of tapping them on the shoulder and say "theres a time and place for everything" and i would say that the same to hetrosexual couples aswell, i mean we were taking my young son to the cinema last year and there was these 2 guys kissing each other in the ticket line, and they were basically cleaning each others faces and that was not the time or the place, the place was full of young kids, and they dont need to see it, however if you go into a gay bar then you cannot expect them to stop kissing and being with each other, and neither would i want to.

 

Which sex and how hot are they?
Are we talking kissing, groping, full monty?
Can I have fun or do I have to be "respectful?"

My experience is kids who are too young don't care or are grossed out.
Older kids get to ask questions and have answers.
Its a win-win either way.

 

The Unger Report — Silver tranny ferocia

Source: Day to Day
Link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96175839
Title: "What 'No' On Gay Marriage Ban Means For Kids", by Brian Unger
Date: October 27, 2008


Today's "Unger Report" examines the implications of rejecting California's Proposition 8, which seeks to amend the state Constitution in order to discriminate against homosexuals.

Listen. Enjoy. Think.

 

Tiassa,
Proffessor peterson,
that wouldnt be Candida Peterson would it?

If so i think i need to have a word to my psychology lecturer about why we are using textbooks written by a gay hatter.

At least that is if i read your quote correctly

 

Asguard,

It's Professor Richard Peterson, Pepperdine University.