The Gay Fray

Are you afraid to answer the question, Max?

Other than hetero- and homosexuals, how many of those preferences, perversions, deviations, affinities, or otherwise fall along gender lines?​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All in due time. For once, we need to get Max to actually answer a question. So far, he's compared homosexuality to zoophilia and pedophilia, but only obliquely by responding to someone else's post. It would be interesting to see him enumerate these so-called perversions and speculate as to how they might go about seeking whatever legal status he's afraid of.

And that's the thing with this sort of bigotry. If you ask people how their wild-eyed comparisons are accurate, they can't answer. It's enough for them to repeatedly compare homosexuality to child and animal rape, which only reinforces that the bigots are the ones who shouldn't be allowed around children, since they profess to not understand the idea of sexual consent. Even the most benign of their repugnant comparisons--polygamy--does not appear to have the same constitutional argument. Remember, it's not their job to think things through. It's just their job to define by their actions the phrase "scared senseless". A good dose of sense would actually break their fear, but they would find such a condition inconvenient.

One of these days, I intend to get an answer from the hatemongers. As it is, they seem quite cowardly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What question?? I've never seen sado-masochists or any other such groups out marching in the streets trying to force others to accept their weird, strange, odd, ...., sexual perversions.

Is that the question you're asking?

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, not comparing them ....hell, nothing's worse than homosexuality, especially in "men" (and I used that term very, very loosely!).

I merely point out that homosexuality is a sexual perversion as is such things a goat/sheep fucking, fucking dead bodies, fucking holes in trees, ...., or any and all kinds of other strange, odd, weird sexual perversions.

A 15-year old girl has the intelligence to consent to sex, yet you've stated many times that it's illegal or wrong ....and you give long, long, involved bullshit explanations as if it's okay to prevent one group from having consentual sex, yet you use the same consent argument to give validity to homosexual sex.

A masochist can and does give his/her consent to be whipped, beaten, sexually abused in every way, yet society has laws against giving consent to the very things that she enjoys. Odd, huh?

I don't know why you continue to use that "fear" phrase? It's not about fear, it's about the same thing that prevents society from allowing abortion or sado-masochist abuse or the consent of underage people, etc, ...we in society simply don't think it's "right" to allow it. Ain't got nothin' to do with fear.

I think it's so funny ....all these homosexuals who get caught in the act, then try to claim that they're not gay ......as if gay is the worst disease known to man. Oopps, wait a minute, ...maybe it is the worse disease known to man!

Baron Max

 

For some people it IS the worst thing. With homophobes running about making an issue out of how wrong it is.

~String

 

i am bi sexual, and i have many homosexual friends female and male, and i love them all has friends, but i have spoken with them about homosexual marrage and they all say, "it is a slap in the face of hetrosexual marrage" and i agree with them.

also they say that homosexual people should not be able to adopt because "they're lifestyle goes against procreation" and they feal the few homosexuals who do ahve children have them has a "fashion statement"

 

Well, if they'd keep their sexual exploits in the home and the bedroom, out of the public view, then they could do and be most anything they want.

Baron Max

 

That's a cheap answer, Baron. You're not comparing them ... (chortle!) You'll throw them all into the same category, suggest the idea of zoophiles and pedophiles marching or parading like gays, but you're not comparing them?

Such hateful comparisons also refuse to acknowledge consent.

Don't try to crucify me with your opinion, Max. I've long acknowledged the fact of age of consent, and, frankly, find sixteen a better notion than, say, ten. Perhaps you'd like to propose a new age of consent? Maybe throw it all the way back to ten?

Your argument is so narrowly-construed, Max, that it overlooks other correlations. You don't get to drive until you're 16 at least. You don't get to vote until you're eighteen. You can't consume liquor until you're twenty-one. In fact, you can't be sentenced to death for a crime you committed under the age of eighteen. The U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the Missouri State Supreme Court, recognized the assertion that decision-making processes in children are different from those in adults. This was one of its key criteria for overturning itself on the death-penalty issue. Now, at what point do those processes evolve from one classification to another? That's a hard thing to pinpoint, and won't be uniform among people. So a line is drawn that is not entirely arbitrary.

The idea that you're invoking children in order to justify persecution of adults is a little ridiculous.

See, that's the weird thing. Bowers v. Hardwick, the infamous Georgia decision in the 1980s, came about because a police officer happened to find himself in a situation in which he suspected that two men were having sexual contact within the privacy of a home. If a police officer in similar circumstances chooses to arrest someone for the appearance of S&M, we'll have that one out in court.

The only thing that's odd about it is that you think it has anything to do with an issue of gender discrimination and equal protection.

Because that's about the only thing that explains it. I've put up with this bullshit comparison of homosexuality to bestiality and even necrozoophiliac rape for ... at least fifteen years. In all that time, I've yet to hear someone give a proper explanation for the comparison and its refusal to acknowledge consent. Though you get half-credit for trying, complaining that we can't have sex with fifteen year-old girls just doesn't meet the standard.

It's not up to superstition to declare right and wrong. The fact that homophobes continue to cling to superstition and demand the right to decide what's right and wrong for other people is the kind of "equality" that has yet to be properly explained. You know, the whole, "We're not equal unless I'm superior!" argument?

I don't think it's "right" to warp children's minds with religious superstitions, but others disagree. You can throw the Constitution in there, but that's the point in the gay fray, too: the Constitution demands equal protection under the laws, and the question of gender may finally be settled by the homophobes' rush to demand the right to approve of who gets to be married.

Got everything to do with fear, Max. If it had nothing to do with fear, the argument against would be rational. Instead, all it comes down to is ridiculous comparisons of homosexuality and various forms of rape (pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia), the occasional invocation of incest (which there are scientific arguments against), and polygamy (a matter of numbers, not any fundamental human condition like gender). It comes down to superstition (e.g., what "God" says). It comes down to supremacist assertions (e.g. "We get to decide what's 'right' for everyone."). On the one hand, I would say it's about ignorance, but these issues have been afoot long enough that anyone who's paying attention has no excuse save will for not knowing what's going on.

There's a humorous aspect to it, yes. But, mostly, it's sad. (Recall that the majority of humor is invested in cruelty.) The closet compels people to behave strangely at best. When you happen to be a social-conservative Republican homosexual, though, it seems exponentially tougher. These people not only build their own walls, but chip away at them at the same time. It's not like they think they're fooling God, right? I mean, maybe, but I figured the believers would at least believe. But for many, there comes a point where they realize they're trapped: everything they have is contingent on a set of principles that rejects what one realizes they are. Other conflicts of this sort don't necessarily have the same impact; if one day a rich, heartless capitalist realizes he's been looking at the poor wrongly, it's easy to change, and if his friends don't like his new conscience, it's not the end of the world. But if a staunch moralist homophobe realizes he's gay ... for some reason, it really does look like the end of the world.

I mean, think about it. "Gay" is now an all-purpose insult and condemnation. It would be one thing to accuse someone of being gay for enjoying the movie their girlfriend wanted to see. At least there's a thin correlation there: feminine = effeminate = gay. But the idea that a casino is charging too much for the house's share at a poker table is also "gay". There is no real correlation: high rate = bad = gay. Facism, terrorism, taxes ... gay, gay, and really gay. The height of this colloquialism is embodied in an old Simpsons joke when Nelson kisses Lisa (#4F01, "Lisa's Date With Density"):

Dolph: (to Nelson) Oh, man! You kissed a girl!
Jimbo: That is so gay!​

I feel badly for the guy. Years of self-loathing, and in the end, ironically, it is the closet itself that finally brings him down. I'm starting to think he can save his political reputation, although probably not his career as an Idaho politician. But we'll have to see whether he undergoes reconditioning, or finally decides to give the love and respect he owes himself. Either way, it will be difficult, but only one way will be honest.

 

Maybe Europeans are weird? Or is it just your friends?

Well, maybe that's the way it is in the UK. Few in the US would deny the fact that the issue does seem to be a slap in the face of traditionalists, but that's not the intent. I recall, from my college days, a gay friend's angry response to an evangelist's assertion that "gay relationships just can't work". That response was, "Bullshit! Fifteen years? Survived cancer? I'm raising his son? And it just can't work?" Tell you what ... hop on over to Dan Savage's column and email him. Even though he's already written a book about it, he may well choose to respond to you anyway. Because, while you may have gay friends who think children are a "fashion statement", that says more about your friends than it does homosexuals in general. Really, I'd be interested to read his response.

Seriously ... your characterization sounds a little bit off to me. There are plenty of American homosexuals who would rather give the whole marriage thing two fingers and just get on with life, but I don't think I've ever heard from them the "lifestyle goes against procreation" argument. Maybe it's a European thing?

Then again, I know Christians who don't believe in the Bible. I also know at least one who doesn't see a problem with getting it on with children. (After all, he said he never did anything wrong.) So anything is possible. But neither do I write any of these people as the end-all characterization of Christendom in the United States.

 

Remember how you argued against the idea of consent in the "Duel" thread? But now you're arguing exactly the opposite way. Why?

And, as usual for your long, long, tedious replies, all the rest of your post is nothing more than veiled slams at me personally ....which I refuse to acknowledge, much less read it all.

Baron Max

 

There is a difference between consenting to kill and die, and consenting to get laid. I would think that's fairly obvious.

That's right, Max. Run away, run away. What's new about that, eh?

 

Arguing homosexuality again? It's not even an issue anymore. It's dead and gone and worth little more than a yawn.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Folks in Iowa, at the very least, might disagree.

 

Chuck lives

Stereotype pop quiz: Which band member is gay?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Styx: (l-r) Dennis, John, JY, Chuck, Tommy​

I mean, what, with Dennis' pants, John's collar, and check out JY's cuffs ....

In truth, we probably could have guessed, but as I mentioned once a couple of years ago, at the time we would have guessed guitarist James Young to be the gay Stygian. He had the parachute pants and eye shadow (Caught in the Act), the doll-bangs haircut, and even wrote creepy, gay-sounding songs ("Double Life") as well as derisive heterosexual songs ("Miss America"). Looking back, though, Chuck's mustache should have been the giveaway. At least, as stereotypes go.

At 59, though, Chuck is as healthy as one with HIV can be, and has joined the band on a 43-city tour with Def Leppard that has run through the summer. An aging rocker, he finds the rock and roll world a different place.

But with Freddie Mercury's coming out shortly before his death in 1991, and revelations by Rob Halford, Husker Du's Bob Mould and Grant Hart, Faith No More's Roddy Bottum, as well as the inclusion of Pansy Division on Green Day's 1994 tour, rock and roll has become a necessarily more tolerant place. And Chuck is finding himself once more at home onstage.

Funny thing is, when people said Styx was gay, this isn't what they meant.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As healthy as one with HIV can be: Chuck Panozzo lives ....​

____________________

Notes:

Hartlaub, Peter. "Styx bassist happily out of underworld". San Francisco Chronicle, September 12, 2007; page E-1. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/12/DDEDS196T.DTL ​

See Also:

Tiassa. "Untitled post". 12 reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Sciforums.com, March 29, 2004. See http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=543166 ​

 

Update: Iowa

Update: Iowa

GOP presidential candidate Senator Sam Brownback (Kansas) has made the expected statement. Let me be clear: whether from Brownback or any other individual specifically, we could not reasonably predict; in general, though, it was predictable that some prominent Republican would make the point.

I love that phrase, "legislate from the bench". It is the term of choice for conservatives denouncing "judicial activism", and as I wrote earlier:

I love this "activist court" bit. I suppose, once I get my hands on the ruling, we can see just how activist the ruling is, but so often the phrase is just a buzzword for "something conservatives don't like". For many who don't see such outcomes as the result of untoward activism, the accusation seems a little like calling someone activist for obeying the speed limit. (#102)​

The decision is available, and I'm reading through it. Analysis, of course, will be forthcoming, but I encourage people to take time to read it for themselves; there are some striking aspects about the court's view of the defense, namely in the rejection of expert witnesses. (Both sides had witnesses struck, but the rejection of the heterosupremacist witnesses is much more entertaining, and considerably less sympathetic.)

As to the rest, I'm getting through it, but figured I ought to share the link first. The decision for Varnum et al. v. Brien is available in .pdf, via the Lambda Legal Foundation.

• http://data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/legal/varnum/varnum-d-08302007-ia-district.pdf ​

 

Country Tricia and the Fist

Republican slaps Democrat with endorsement
Being gay a reason for others to be ashamed of you?

According to The Shad Plank:

Reminder: stay the f@ck out of Virginia, where family values include bigotry.

See, it's not the fact that they're Republicans that causes people to regard them so poorly. It's the fact that they advocate such crap.

When the so-called decent Republicans get some stones and take their party back, they can have a party.

(Actually, what's really kind of sick is that I keep wanting to call that blog "The Shad Fist", after a Mother Love Bone song, "Country Shad and the Fist". Irony is generally not pretty.)
____________________

Notes:

The Shad Plank. "Stall and Miller, when the cameras were turned off". November 2, 2007. See http://hrblogs.typepad.com/the_shad_plank/2007/11/interesting-mor.html ​

 

So both the Republican and the Democrat are opposed to gay marriage?

 

Both are idiots.

I just wanted to say how amazed I was that by the poll there are 130 people who've actually posted on this site.

 

Yeah. So it would seem.

 

Hey Tiassa,

Just wanted to thank you for creating this thread. I'm hoping it will be just as active as it was a few years back! Thanks!