How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 It's that time again   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

It's that time again

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


50 posted 03-01-2007 07:14 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I guess I'll just keep playing dodge ball.

quote:
I'm a bit surprised I'm taking the "free will" side of the argument against Ron.  I'm also surprised that he doesn't see the conflict between his support of genetic determinism and his views on free will. AND I'm very surprised that he liken's changing one's seemingly natural tendencies as tantamount to leaping tall buildings with a single bound.


And yet, it's all about free will. I honestly don't think the nature/nurture debate is relevant. Is he gay because he decided to be gay, is he gay because he or she decided to be gay based on genetic proclivities?

As long as we see it as a choice, then that's no longer an issue, the issue becomes is it harmful to society. We talk about straight on gay violence, we talk about straights feeling uncomfortable when conventions are being tested. Which behaviour is the easier to modify? Which bahaviour creates more harm?

I think the choice is obvious.

But why is it not just obvious, why is it actually better for all parties involved?

Because if you asked someone,"Is it okay to beat someone up because of their sexual orientation?" most people would say no.

If you offered a way out of that uncomfortable moment at the mall or at a party, most people would take it and wouldn't care one way or the other about sexual orientation (What's in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom).

How many homosexuals would take a pill to 'cure' them?

Let those that take the pill, take the pill. Let those that don't, don't.

Of course, seeing it as a choice that does no discernible harm opens up other issues. But those are the issues that we should be talking about.

  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


51 posted 03-01-2007 09:11 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Sorry Ron. I've heard many people say that they were offended by a woman breast feeding her baby. The morality police even want to govern when, where, how, and for how long.

Sorry, Regina, but that's not morality either, and I think those people have every right to be offended if they wish. Lactating is not the same as breast feeding, any more than a full bladder is the same as urinating. One is a state of being, the other is a behavior.

I don't find a public display of breast offensive, but I respect the rights of those who do. Feed your kid and take your whizzes privately, please, without thrusting your own sensibilities onto others. If nothing else, ask first.

quote:
You and the people Ed colorfully decries would seem to have us believe that a homosexual person's genetic predisposition to "gayness" makes it too hard to expect the gay person to not act on their genetically-determined urges.


Okay, Jim, I think I better understand the source of our miscommunication. So, I'm going to dig for yet another analogy, albeit perhaps another flimsy one.

Man is born and exists as an omnivore. He can, if he wishes, become a vegetarian. He cannot, however, ever choose to be a herbivore.

I'm making a distinction between being and behaviors, but clearly not making it very well. With that in mind, let me try to answer your implied question.

If a man (or all men) is born a murderer that is a state of being for which he holds no responsibility. There is no free will. The actions that result from that state of being, however, what you want to call behavior, are a function of free will and do entail personal responsibility. I'll even go one better and advance the possibility that everything that happens to us is a result of our own actions, that we choose every event we ever have to face. And, still, I draw a distinct line between what happens to us and what or who we are, which is the same line I draw between what we do and who we are.

Back to the quote. No, I don't claim that a homosexual's state of being makes it "too hard" to not act on their urges. My claim is that there's no reason, beyond society's prejudice, for them to try. Well, at least not in any sense that isn't equally true for heterosexuals.

Put another way, Jim, you can't cure homosexuality and there's no legitimate justification for suppressing it. It's not like murder.

It's also not like shyness, aggression, or depression, all of which can be painful and even debilitating. Yea, I'm sure there are homosexuals who want to "be helped," but only in the same sense there are women who want to get down to seven percent body fat and fit into a size three dress. I think you're trying to fix something that isn't broken, and the "help" does far more harm to the individual than good.

quote:
And I think choices to extinguish certain traits should rest with the person living with those traits (unless, of course, the traits risk serious bodily harm to the person or others).  As I mentioned to Ron, we should resist the fatalistic notion that genetic predisposition removes the ability of a person to, by force of will, extinguish a trait they don't desire to have and replace it with one they do.  In some ways, the fatalist is as much a tyrant as the person who forces change or modification against the will of the individual who happens to present with a certain, socially stigmatized trait.

I completely agree, Jim. Completely.

At the same time, however, I think we should work to discourage anorexia and bulimia as inappropriate "choices to extinguish certain traits." Being skinny and heterosexual, I think, are goals imposed from without, not from within.

quote:
That much is obvious ... seeing that that's how children are born.

LOL. Is this going to turn into a treatise on the birds and bees, Stephen? Sorry, my friend, but marriage is NOT how children are born.

You might just as well link procreation to having a job as to being married. After all, most people who have kids have jobs. But not all people with jobs have kids. And you don't have to have a job before having a kid. The exceptions are equally rampant and the correlations just as tenuous. I'll go even further, Stephen, and suggest that people who get married to have children usually end up not doing either one very well.

quote:
My counter argument was that, like transvestism, homosexuality is a form of gender confusion.  For whether it is dressing like a woman, or sleeping with a man, it amounts to an "acting out" of a different gender than one actually possesses.

You mean like a woman wearing pants, Stephen?

Sorry, I don't mean to be flip, but I'm not quite willing to define gender by behavior choices. And in any event, who does it hurt?

quote:
And I was simply showing that homosexuality is very similar to the behavioral problem of transvestism.

What a person chooses to wear -- or who a person chooses to love -- is only a "problem" for the other person, Stephen, the one unwilling to accept differences. It's not a problem for the person making the choices unless they let themselves be drawn into it.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that gender confusion (a state of being) can't be a problem, in the same sense that any identity confusion can be painful. It shouldn't, however, be confused with cross dressing.

quote:
Coins may also be defaced or tarnished.  Homosexuality is a distortion of human sexuality.

Nope. Homosexuality is a reflection of human sexuality, Stephen, not a distortion. It's simply a different reflection than what you personally see.

quote:
And the term "love" certainly can't be used to justify homosexuality, any more than it can be used to justify adultery heterosexuality.



Adultery, Stephen, is a behavior that harms others, very unlike homosexuality and heterosexuality, both states of being that by themselves harm no one. No, love can't be used to justify adultery, but neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality require justification.

***

Okay, now we get to the meat. Let's see how homosexuality harms Stephen.

quote:
Well first of all, if homosexuality is a pathological expression of sexuality with resultant psychological and sociological problems ...


I don't believe it is pathological, Stephen, and all of the psychological and sociological problems are the result of society's reactions not the state of being. In any event, however, this brings no direct harm to you.

quote:
So homosexuality will increase with the public acceptance of it.

Good! Of course, what you really mean is that more people will be willing to "come out of the closet." And, of course, that brings no harm to you, either.

quote:
Others will also be forced (through changes in curriculum) to view homosexual marriage as a normal and healthy alternative. For many people, this amounts to indoctrination.

Forced? You mean like with a gun or similar threats?

I think you mean "encouraged." And that's a good thing, since marriage IS normal and healthy, not indoctrination, and in any event certainly brings no harm to Stephen.

quote:
The preaching of scripures such as Paul's denunciation of homosexuality, and the necessity of repentance in the homosexual population will be more easily interpreted as discriminatory hate crimes, slander and libel, on equal footing with slanderous racist remarks (even though the two are quite different).  As a lay preacher of the gospel myself, I would call that a form of "harm".

I'm not sure disagreeing with your morality qualifies, under our agreement, as personal harm, Stephen.

Still, from a personal perspective, I'd like to add that I wouldn't characterize scripture as discriminatory. But neither do I confuse scripture with interpretation, and I do think that many people's interpretation of scripture should indeed be viewed as discriminatory. From where I sit, if you're right that a greater acceptance of homosexuality will shine light on that discrimination, I think it's a good thing, not a harmful one.

And it appears, Stephen, that you still haven't told us how two people you don't know getting married is going to personally harm you?

quote:
And yet, it's all about free will. I honestly don't think the nature/nurture debate is relevant. Is he gay because he decided to be gay, is he gay because he or she decided to be gay based on genetic proclivities?

As long as we see it as a choice, then that's no longer an issue, the issue becomes is it harmful to society.

Brad, I think harm (not to society, which is a cop-out, but rather to individuals) is the greater concern, but I don't think it's necessarily the only concern.

What if there is no choice? What if he's gay for the same reason he has blue eyes and brown hair? I didn't "choose" to be heterosexual, it's simply what I am.

Even in the absence of harm, it's okay to disagree with a person's choices. But there is never a justification for disagreeing with a person's gender, color, or other happenstance of birth. Where there is no choice, there is no responsibility.


Geesh, guys, I think I could have written half a novel today instead ...

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


52 posted 03-01-2007 10:26 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I think it is shame to hang upon gender and sex when talking about almost anything.  But it is especially a shame when talking about something that goes so far beyond those as having a spiritual, loving, marital relationship with someone.  Gender and sex are bubbles compared to the fathoms and influences of love.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


53 posted 03-01-2007 10:38 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
Even in the absence of harm, it's okay to disagree with a person's choices. But there is never a justification for disagreeing with a person's gender, color, or other happenstance of birth. Where there is no choice, there is no responsibility


I agree that one can disagree with another person's choices even if no harm is involved, but do we, should we, therefore enforce our disagreement onto others?

What is our responsibility to others? I see your point, but what bothers me is that an emphasis on nature rather than choice still puts the burden on homosexuals as long as that argument is still on the table. If a homosexual decides not to take the pill, is vilification therefore okay?

Obviously not. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that we, the straight community, is also responsible for making choices and we shouldn't be left off the hook anymore than gay men and women.

You can be uncomfortable around homosexuals as much as you want (and I've had plenty of moments like that), but I can't justify to myself how that leads to discrimination or stigmatization any more than I can justify anti-Catholic bigotry.

How do we live in a society where people make different lifestyle choices?

I think the simplest way is the best way.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


54 posted 03-02-2007 12:52 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Ron: The procreative aspect can't be unimportant for heterosexuals if you want to make it important for homosexuals. That's pretty much classic discrimination.

Stephen: But Ron, it IS important for heterosexuals... That much is obvious ... seeing that that's how children are born.

Ron: LOL. Is this going to turn into a treatise on the birds and bees, Stephen? Sorry, my friend, but marriage is NOT how children are born.


Do you read each of my quotes unaware of what you said before it?  You really must stop misquoting me.  We were talking about heterosexuality.  And heterosexuality is how children are born.  I've never made the direct connection between marriage and children.  But now that you've mentioned it, it is pretty obvious to most people that the heterosexual orientation of marriage is vitally connected with having and raising children, even if procreation is not realized in every particular case.  And I don't see how any pedantic insistence on 100% childbearing in marriage changes the fact that reproduction is tied to directly to heterosexuality, and secondarily to marriage.  It ain't rocket science.  


quote:
Stephen:  My counter argument was that, like transvestism, homosexuality is a form of gender confusion.  For whether it is dressing like a woman, or sleeping with a man, it amounts to an "acting out" of a different gender than one actually possesses.


Ron: You mean like a woman wearing pants, Stephen?  Sorry, I don't mean to be flip, but I'm not quite willing to define gender by behavior choices.


Last time I checked wearing pants was a cross gender phenomenon.  The simple fact that pants come in ladies styles and men's styles indicates that this is quite different than what goes on with transvestism.  

But I was not asking you to define gender by behavior choices.  We both already agree that gender is a constant.  Behavioral choices may be either consistent or inconsistent with that gender (though there is much room for overlapping).  Extremes such as dressing drag, and sleeping with the same sex, however, cut to the very heart of what gender is.  Homosexuality is acting inconsistent with one's gender, and therefore a behavioral issue, not a normative constant, like one's gender itself.  

quote:
I'm not suggesting that gender confusion (a state of being) can't be a problem, in the same sense that any identity confusion can be painful. It shouldn't, however, be confused with cross dressing.


How is "cross dressing", unless we're talking Shakespearian plays or mere attention getting, not at least indicative of some kind of gender confusion?  Honestly I think you're so smart, you're trampling the obvious.


quote:
No, love can't be used to justify adultery, but neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality require justification.



Then why use love to justify it, as you have been?  My only point was to say that it was crafty of you to make people who disagree with homosexuality and gay marriage, appear unloving or in opposition to love, by equating homosexuality with it.


quote:
I don't believe it is pathological, Stephen, and all of the psychological and sociological problems are the result of society's reactions not the state of being.


That seems like propaganda ... "Yes, we know that homosexuals appear to have real issues, but they are unrelated to the homosexuality itself, only society's backward and intolerant bigotry."  Physician heal thyself.  I suppose you interpret data like you do biblical texts?  


quote:
In any event, however, this brings no direct harm to you.


I don't necessarily agree with you here.  But even if I did, it isn't all about me.

quote:
Good! Of course, what you really mean is that more people will be willing to "come out of the closet." And, of course, that brings no harm to you, either.


No, I didn't mean that.  Someone wavering in their sexual orientation is not "coming out of the closet", they are struggling with temptation, and a serious confusion of identity.  Homosexuality has not been shown to be inborn.  Public sanctioning will result in unchecked propagation, as it would with many other issues that we disagree on.

quote:
Forced? You mean like with a gun or similar threats?

I think you mean "encouraged." And that's a good thing, since marriage IS normal and healthy, not indoctrination, and in any event certainly brings no harm to Stephen.


Whoa, don't get ahead of yourself, we're still defining marriage here Ron ... or at least you are.     Mandatory education, and rigid determination of curriculums is not "encouragement".  It does bring harm to anyone I happen to have in schools, since it amounts to false information.  Again, it's not all about me.

quote:
Still, from a personal perspective, I'd like to add that I wouldn't characterize scripture as discriminatory. But neither do I confuse scripture with interpretation, and I do think that many people's interpretation of scripture should indeed be viewed as discriminatory. From where I sit, if you're right that a greater acceptance of homosexuality will shine light on that discrimination, I think it's a good thing, not a harmful one.


You are discriminating against those who do not want to change the definition of marriage, and who believe homosexuality (in accordance with scripture) is sinful.  What's the difference?  When someone tells me I can't teach my children, or my congregation, or can't share my views publically, then they are violating my freedom.  At least you can see how that might be felt as harm.  

We're just in complete disagreement about whether or not disagreeing with homosexuality and gay marriage amounts to discrimination in the same sense of racial discrimination.  And as long as we do, we'll never be able to agree upon what constitutes harm.

quote:
But there is never a justification for disagreeing with a person's gender, color, or other happenstance of birth. Where there is no choice, there is no responsibility.


Why do you keep speaking of homosexuality as if it surely inborn.  Why are you so sure?  Forget the harm issue ... How do you know homosexuality is so very different from other things we view as sexually pathological like pedophila?  No one just "decides" to be sexually attracted to children either.  Give me something besides opinion.  We're talking about changing something that would radically affect society.  Therefore I think we'd like to hear more than a hunch.  


Stephen.    
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


55 posted 03-02-2007 01:06 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron you mentioned interpretation, and brought God into the discussion first.  If I were reading "Ron's commentary on the Book of Romans" what would be under this verse?  I'm curious what you do with this?


"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
" (Romans 1:24-28, NIV)


Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-02-2007 08:22 AM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


56 posted 03-02-2007 09:18 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Just to throw a little levity into this thread, Ron's comments remind me of an old North Carolina joke..

Hiram, the farmer, decides that with more education, he can get a better job so he goes to the college in the next town to speak to a councelor.

"Alright, Hiram, I'm gping to enroll you in classes of science, biology and logic", said the councelor. "What in blazes is logic?", replied Hiram.

"Well, let me explain", said the councelor. "You have a weedeater?"

....yep...

"Then logic tells me you have a yard".

....Gotta big yard....

"Good. The logic tells me you have a house."

....Real nice house. Built it myself....

"Ok, the logic tells me that, with a nice house, there's a good chance you are married."

....Been married 35 years!...

"Then logic tells me that, being married that long, odds are you have children."

....Three boys, all grown up....

Well, then, logic tells me that, having children, you are probably not homosexual."

....Heck no, I ain't!!!!...

That, Hiram, is the way logic works."

So Hiram goes back to his little town and meets Harley at the feed store. "Hey, Harley, I'm a-headed back to college and get me some more education, gonna take classes in science, biology and logic."

"What the heck's logic?", asks Harley. Hiram smiles. "Let me explain it to you. You got a weedeater?" Harley says "no".

Hiram screams out, "You danged queer!!!"  


Funny how we all have our own interpretations of logic sometimes...
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


57 posted 03-02-2007 10:00 AM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

Oops, you muffed it up there Mike.

"Well, let me explain", said the councelor. "You have a weedeater?"

....Nope..."

I think that should have been
....Yep...

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


58 posted 03-02-2007 11:16 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

quote:
There is no moral responsibly because it's a personal choice. Lactating hurts no one.


It seems you linked morality/personal choice/lactating, but I misunderstood.

quote:
Sorry, Regina, but that's not morality either, and I think those people have every right to be offended if they wish. Lactating is not the same as breast feeding, any more than a full bladder is the same as urinating. One is a state of being, the other is a behavior.


I know the difference between lactating and nursing, as well as discretion and flopping rudeness. I think there's a huge difference between breast milk and waste material. I know these differences, but some people don't care how discrete you are or that's it's none of their business, they will force feed their thoughts on the issue as if you are trying to breast feed them or their kids. This sounds very similar to how homosexuality is viewed. No matter how private they are, some still condemn them and try to control what they can and cannot do beyond sense and sensibility.

Aside from the natural act of breastfeeding, the female body is splayed out for sexual value, profit, and kinks without permission. Nobody asked me if I wanted a Victoria's Secret catalog in my mailbox. Though I was interested in their buy one get one free. I think every heterosexual male would have a problem getting a similar catalog in their malebox (haha) if it were males on display. Women don't ask to wear skirts so short you can see their liver, NOR do they care if they sit on public stools and benches in those skirts with no panties on! Good gracious, they need to get some home training!

My point is that morality and behaviors tend to model trends in what's accepted and what's not.

Currently, studies show a huge gap in male acceptance between male homosexuality and female homosexuality.

Why?

Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


59 posted 03-02-2007 11:17 AM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

lol
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


60 posted 03-02-2007 11:32 AM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

I came back here to see if you people were still fighting about this, only to my surprise... You've all gone off the deep end.

Do you know what my original post was about? I'll give you a hint. Not about homosexuality being right or wrong, not about gay people's rights, or the morality of being gay; not even whether or not I'm for or against it (I said I didn't care about that matter). Do you know what it was about? Obviously not. It was about how the rights group conducts itself and how it treats people. Essentially, it was about people forcing one's ways onto another. You've all just missed it.

I'm not even going to attempt to read all of this because frankly I don't want to. But I'm seeing things like "You and the people Ed colorfully decries" and other things in that order. That shows me that you've all missed my point in such an overwhelming way I can't even really say anything. Wow...

Oh and Ron, for a topic that's "nobody's damn business", you sure do have a lot to say about it. Too bad you can't focus on the real topic.

"Boy Ed sure likes to start fires and run doesn't he?"

LOL, I don't think so Steph. I pulled a box of matches out of my pocket for show-and-tell. Ya'll started the flame throwing. Besides, this isn't my topic anymore, it got off the point a longgg time ago.     Peace

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 03-07-2001
Posts 19652
British Columbia, Canada


61 posted 03-02-2007 11:44 AM       View Profile for Mysteria   Email Mysteria   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Mysteria

lol        
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


62 posted 03-02-2007 11:57 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

'Actually, Ron, your example proves my point much more than yours.  Not all children get to draw social security, just a few.  Discriminatory isn't it? '

Well, Stephen, if you consider providing money to children of dead or disabled parents who cannot provide for them discriminatory... I guess so. But I would have preferred the healthy parents, thanks very much.

Just to interject here- I haven't read the entire thread thoroughly... as I don't really see the point... I agree with Karen... such a ruckus, big brew-ha-ha every time...

I pretty much echo Ron's thought's, except that I'm not entirely convinced sexuality is a completely biological determination. I also don't think it should matter... is my preference for, say, tall dark and handsome biological? Does it matter? Apparently only if it's a preference for tall dark and handsome women.

Say what you want, but to me, all this commotion has fear on the backburner, the same kind of fear that kept blacks out of white institutions and women out of the boys' clubs is now keeping gays away from the rights straight people enjoy. But that's okay, I have faith that with time, that too will change, regardless of how much arguing goes on on an internet message board.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


63 posted 03-02-2007 06:26 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thanks, Pete... I hate when that happens!
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


64 posted 03-03-2007 12:30 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

I recall another story that may be a wee bit graphic but sure seems to fit in here. It was a Saturday Night Live skit several years ago with Kathleen Turner when she was at her hottest and one of the SNL men although I don't remember which one.

I also don't remember the exact setting but Kathleen was making a move on the man who showed no interest in her. Finally he explained "I'm just not interested because I'm gay."

With that, she pushed him back and down onto a table top then climbed on top of him. After a few seconds, she climbed off, smiled and, as she straightened her clothes, said "Well, you're not all queer, are you? I like that in a man."

I guess you had to actually see it to get the whole feel.
Sphinxen
Junior Member
since 03-03-2007
Posts 38
U.S.


65 posted 03-03-2007 02:29 PM       View Profile for Sphinxen   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Sphinxen

((This is a reply to the original post))

I agree about the whole "Nazi liberal" thing, but I feel I should interject that not all homosexuals are like that. I have a brother who is gay and he would agree that the in your face "im a homosexual, or im a whatever" is ridiculous. Like any group you find a wide variety of types, and the crass in your face types are the ones on the news.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


66 posted 03-03-2007 03:57 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Good ones, guys! Maybe you'd like to tell some jokes about niggers or Jews next?

In the meantime, here's one you might like.

How do you get a little boy out of a tree? Give an American a gun.

How do you get a hundred little boys out of a hundred different trees? Give the American a bigger gun.

Not funny? Strange how humor works, don't you think? I suspect the queers all laughed like hell.

Stephen, Jim, I still think you're wrong, but I nonetheless respect your honestly about how you feel. Clearly, it's rare. Unfortunately, I suddenly find I've lost interest in this thread. It started badly and ended worse.


Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


67 posted 03-03-2007 05:02 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

lol, Ron lost "interest."

Boy he sure does like to mangle a post's meaning then run. lol

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


68 posted 03-03-2007 07:20 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
Derb still wants to know how I square my desire for homosexual civil equality and my support for gay love with Catholicism as it is now authoritatively defined by the Vatican. The short answer is: I don't. The long answer is the first chapter of "Virtually Normal". The fact of the matter as a spiritual issue is that I know I am a sinner in many ways. But being gay isn't one of them.


--Andrew Sullivan

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


69 posted 03-03-2007 10:00 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

An interesting, but not unexpected reaction to my levity which did not include one derrogatory remark against gays, unless you are referring to the word "queer", in which case we should petition Hollywood to remove Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, which must also be derrogatory even though it has become immensely popular among gays and straights alike.

Add me to the "interest lost" list....
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


70 posted 03-03-2007 10:49 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
... which did not include one derrogatory remark against gays.

Change the punch line to, "You delightfully sexy homosexual," Mike, and see how often you still tell the joke. Jim and Stephen say homosexuality is bad, and that can be countered with contentions that it's not. Your implication is just as clear but far more insidious. It's a lot harder to counter, "Ah, it's just a joke" with reasoned arguments. Unfortunately, that leaves the PC Police with no counter except denouncement. Everyone gets mad, everyone loses, and the negative sentiments continue to spread.

Pete's replay of an SNL sketch is even more offensive, I think, which is pretty evident if you simply reverse the gender roles. The implication is that if a person -- man OR woman -- shows any signs of arousal, which is often an involuntary body response for both genders, that should automatically qualify as acquiescence. "You know you really wanted it, Babe," is an all too common excuse for rape. Having the woman make the excuse as a perpetrator instead of a victim shouldn't really be all that funny. One has to wonder, I think, how many would still laugh if the victim in the skit was a respected clergy or a too-young teen instead of an unrespected homosexual?

This is good, though.

It more directly explores Ed's original rant, I think, against people (like me, it seems) who believe words have power and shouldn't be used to denigrate whole groups of people. Not directly and especially not indirectly.


Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


71 posted 03-03-2007 11:21 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

You're ignoring the fact that I was "ranting" against how the GLAAD organization treats people. NOT AN ANTI-GAY POST OR A PRO-GAY POST! This really had nothing to do with gay people, just the organization. God... what is wrong with you?  Ok, so I wasn't 1000% precise in my wording about the "everyone and everything" matter but you completely trashed it.

You say I shoot from the hip, which is true. Well Ronny, you constantly have your gun at my head ready to fire the moment I speak.

"Ed's original rant, I think, against people (like me, it seems)"

Look man, I'm not targeting gay people, get that through your head. And if I knew you were gay I still would've posted it because it has nothing to do with homosexuality, just an organization that treats non-members poorly.

Loosen up and get the hell off my back.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


72 posted 03-04-2007 12:08 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

LOL. Someone else here want to explain this to Ed, please? He clearly doesn't like it much when I point out his mistakes to him.
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


73 posted 03-04-2007 02:49 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Though I should have learned by now to keep my fingers off the keyboard when it comes to these posts, I just can't stew on this any longer.  Along with Ron's challenge to all of us to write more clearly and to appreciate the power of the word in our writing, I think we need to spend a little time working on our reading comprehension.  

I truly am a little baffled that I did not see what almost everyone else does here, namely that this was a post to bash gays or to discuss the rights and wrongs of being gay.  I just didn't see it.  Going back and reading the original post several times, I am still completely mystified how I could have possibly seen this as a post addressing an aggressive attitude of a minority activist group.  (Sarcasm added for emphasis.)

In my book, it could have been any activist group; e.g., PETA, MAAD, Green Peace, KKK, Black Panthers, etc.  Oh yes, I remember the Black Panters....they used to come into my college and set off smoke bombs, disrupt our classes, and threaten us.  I also went to school with some boys who were KKK and, well, quite frankly, I deplored their behavior, too.  Gosh, what was I thinking?  Why on earth would I have ever thought negative things about these agressive minority groups' behaviors?  

This is the interpretation I had of Ed's post and I just want to apologize to everyone if I didn't get it.  I guess I was really off and his post was really about gay bashing -- is that it?  Sorry, I just don't see it.  He has repeatedly tried to point that out to people and yet almost everyone is still on a completely different kind of topic.  

And then there's this communication problem where Ed doesn't see what Ron's been saying.  In fact, now Ed thinks Ron is of a particular type of persuasion because of his interpretation of Ron's last post.  In fact, Ed, (if I understand correctly) Ron was addressing people who use words in a powerful manner and how that can be abusive if extreme care is not exercised -- he was not outting himself....lol....just one more example of the power of words and the misinterpretation thereof.  

With a topic this provocative, I would have to agree, we must be extremely careful in the way we word things.  But, I also think we need to read carefully, too.  

And, someone, please explain to me exactly how I misinterpreted Ed's intent.  *smile*  


[This message has been edited by iliana (03-04-2007 03:46 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


74 posted 03-04-2007 09:10 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Ed

Don't take it personally.  Almost every discussion thread deviates from the original intention.  
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> It's that time again   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors