Homosexuality, predudice and society

[Holst]

This is going to be a messup post regardless...

(im a little drunk, but this should not alter my oppinion)

Today.. I my friend was asked if he and myself were gay....

This has been a subject of conversation between the two of us for some time, and this woman* asking us if we were infact gay was both most hillarious and poiniant at the same time..

In the past few weeks ive been pretty messed up by a certain girl, and this has made me thing if another woman is what I really need... (to quote tyler badly)

I was also called "darling" by a barman earlyer thisevening... I think I may be giving off a gay vibe (this is not the first time ive been approached)

But this total stranger asking if we were gay was a shock.. and has left a lasting impression...
I am not gay (at least im pretty sure im not) yet I must seem gay to other people...

Where I live you could quite easily be beaten up or worse for being gay (hinckley the home of the national front)
But I do enjoy being different although usualy in a fairly passive way........ this is not quite what I had in mind.

The gay people I know (from university) are pretty ordinary, nothing particually supprising...

Im sort of forgetting why I posted this now... probably to spur a discution on homosexuality.. so I give a few questions as a get out clause..

Do you know anybody who is gay?

Does this affect your relationship?, if so how?

If you do not know anybody who is gay, do you want to? if so/not why?

Do you think that two men (or women) can/should have a meaningfull relationshi?

What about gay marrage/adoption?

Ok, thats enough for me for now, im truly sorry for getting into this mess/state.



*woman = big fat loud drunk irritanting woman. (no offence intended to large loud woment, only drunk irritating ones)

[Holst]

spelling mistakes left for comic effect and authenticity. (wrong word but what can one do?)

[sjohnson]

I've had many gay friends over the course of my life.

Once they know I'm straight, we proceed like any friendship between guys, we drink, go to ball games, work together, NP.

I had one gay acquaintance - never a friend, he just didn't have anything near the personality I like - who developed an attraction to me. Made it really akward to be around him, he was really blatant about what he wanted. I avoided him, eventually he got the clue and moved on.

Gay men and women can develop the same kind of deep affection and long-lasting bonds heteros do. It's a human thing, not a gay or straight thing.

They can also be hurt just as that "certain girl" messed you up.

I'm a single Dad, raising my kids alone. I really think it takes men AND women to raise kids. Just ask my daughter what she thinks of our family and how much she currently hates her ma. She really NEEDS a female role model in her life.

Oh yeah - don't worry about being mistaken for being gay. It's their problem, not yours :toast:

I'm done now :)

[Keeper]

Yes, I know gay people (can’t for the life of me figure out why they are, and am quite sure I don’t want to).

Yes, I am not particularly fond of guy’s telling me my$$ is cute, and absolutely annoyed by being come on to by a man.

Chances are good we all know someone who is gay (we might not know they are though).

Those relationships are obviously going on, but statistically they seem to carry a heavier load of unhealthy consequences.

Doesn’t seem very practical to me.

[eddy]

I am not gay (at least im pretty sure im not) yet I must seem gay to other people... that's what you call being a metrosexual. in other words, you're a gay straight man.

[docah]

I've known and been friends with several gay guys.
Known and been freinds with one or two lesbians as well.

As far as my relationships go, I've never really been more than friends with anyone. ever.

[sjohnson]

As bad as gays can have it, I think that (at least) some Lesbians have a really hard life.

Had a young, plain but somewhat attractive gay woman live next door. Took her in like a sister, since she was always sad, often suicidal. Her parents hated her, men scorned her and she wasn't brave enough to go it alone or openly with another woman.

Spent many an evening trying to help her work it out, talking and advising.

She ended up being committed to a state hospital, don't know what happened to her after that, I moved to another town.

[Penguin4x4]

Originally posted by Holst

Do you know anybody who is gay?

Does this affect your relationship?, if so how?

If you do not know anybody who is gay, do you want to? if so/not why?

Do you think that two men (or women) can/should have a meaningfull relationshi?

What about gay marrage/adoption?


No
N/A
If they share similar interest like me and my friends do, then yes.
Yes
Fine by me

:)

[sandman]

Originally posted by Holst

Do you know anybody who is gay?

Does this affect your relationship?, if so how?

If you do not know anybody who is gay, do you want to? if so/not why?

Do you think that two men (or women) can/should have a meaningfull relationshi?

What about gay marrage/adoption?

Ok, thats enough for me for now, im truly sorry for getting into this mess/state.


Not openly, but I have my suspicions.

Doesn't matter to me, as long as they don't try to come onto me or anything. They'd get punched.

Slightly nervous.

They probably could have, I don't care really, I'm not so I don't worry about it.

Gay marriage, to me is disgusting. And Adoption is cruel, thier kids will be ridicueled to no end. then, if the kid isn't gay, what's it supposed to think?

[XtremepH]

only thing im against is gay marriage. marriage is a sacred relationship between a man and woman. if you're gay and want

to share your life with your partner fine i have no problem with it (even though i find it sick and disgusting) :sick: just please let it be

known as somethig else like a like a parternship committment but not the term marriage. just my 2cents

[Holst]

Originally posted by XtremepH
only thing im against is gay marriage. marriage is a sacred relationship between a man and woman. if you're gay and want

to share your life with your partner fine i have no problem with it (even though i find it sick and disgusting) :sick: just please let it be

known as somethig else like a like a parternship committment but not the term marriage. just my 2cents

I think gay people should be allowed to legaly marry... but term it as "legal partnership" or something as marrage does infer a religous side..

I suppose allot of this is down to where you live..
In hinckley where Im living atm its a small town, with allot of predudice. Nobody would dare to be openly gay.... and even if they did there is nowhere (I know of) to go.
Where as when I was at uni in Birmingham... being gay wasnt an issue at all...
You would never see two guys kissing in hinckley... people would have heart attacks.. yet at uni nobody bats an eyelid..

Maybee I shouldt post when im pissed....

[XtremepH]

Originally posted by Holst
I think gay people should be allowed to legaly marry... but term it as "legal partnership" or something as marrage does infer a religous side..



I totally agree

[RuKK]

A couple of my good friends are gay and it doesnt bother me at all.. They know I'm straight and taken and sexuality isnt a issue. We even joke about it sometimes.

I dont see whats wrong with gay marriage, but then again I'm not religous in the least so I dont really understand that aspect of it.

[Slickthellama]

i dont know any gay people personally. But i do know that gay people whenever I meet them seem to be very friendly.

[kokoro_kara]

Originally posted by Jeff

IMHO though, gay isn't natural. If it were, gay's would be able to procreate. To me, this is nature's way of stopping a gene that is flawed(otherwise, they'd be able to pass whatever makes them gay on). I know this sounds harsh, but I'm not meaning it to. I'm just giving the Reader's Digest of what many long, drunken, & deep weekends came up with when I was younger. ;)



Ironically, past socially prejudices have kept homosexuality from dying off. Pardon me as I go Darwinistic and genetic with homosexuality. If you believe Homosexuality is genetic, then every generation of homosexuality would end untill that gene was no longer present (simplified). The irony comes in that so many cultures place such high disdain for Homosexuality (as can be illustrated by some comments on the thread about it being disgusting) that many past homosexuals actual have denied their seuxality or at least publicly did so, that they would marry and procreate.

The funny part is now as our culture begins to be more accepting that technology for homosexuals to procreate has become a reality.

Amazing!

[kokoro_kara]

Hey Holst,

Please don't beat yourself up for other people's narrow minded view of the world.

Some important clarifications on this topic:

OUR CULTURE SEPARATES SEXUALITY AND GENDER IDENTITY WAY TOO MUCH.

clarification: Gender identity does not equal sexual identity

What our culture likes to do?

Rough, macho, aggressive = heterosexual male or Lesbian Female
Soft, demure, passive = Heterosexual female or Gay male

This is such bull. Those of you who have gay/lesbian friends may be able to support me on this. There are Harley riding, beer chugging, leather wearing, macho Gay Men out there that would like nothing better than to tie you up holst and bend you over their bikes :eek: Like wise there are women like this that would do the same (thank god :slobber: :D :D ;) Also, there are men and women like this that would not touch us guys with even JBELL's Pole (:toast: couldn't resist).

And to take this even a step farther, there are men out there with thick 5 o'clock shadows and body hair that love to dress up as women and bang their wives :eek: :eek: :D

Are they gay???

And who cares as long as the wife enjoys it too!

The point is, reflect and discover what you are attracted to. If you find you are atracted to women and women and oh yah baby women. Then know you are absolutely heterosexual.

That's it!

Don't buy into that western socialized BS we grew up with



:toast:
K

[Jeff]

[deleted my post 'cause I really don't care ... ;)]

[zakelwe]

"im a little drunk, but this should not alter my oppinion)"

Nooooo xtremedrinking never did anyone no harm and let the vocal chords sing

Me myself and I have already been posting about women on CCW's what women fancy thread and no doubt by now CCW and Jbell and hardass have banned me for being Ben elton style "topical"

Anhow, god I am pisdddd bring on the volt mod baby

[zakelwe]

Now I have reads this thread and it is far too seroius

Hoslt wass obvisoulsdy pissed when he werote it as i am now and ther fore we shopuld reallty consider it as a

hmm i have kost track of the donversation



by the way

[CCW]

Originally posted by zakelwe
Me myself and I have already been posting about women on CCW's what women fancy thread and no doubt by now CCW and Jbell and hardass have banned me for being Ben elton style "topical"

I can't ban people ;) JBELL is too inebriated at the weekends to even find the forums, besides you wouldnt get banned for what you said anyway.

[kokoro_kara]

:wierd: :wierd: :with: :with: :slap: :welcome: :welcome:

Wow, I think the party crew hit this thread....

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

Sing Along:

Y M C Aaaaa


Y M C Aaaa

:toast: :p:

[chilly1]

Homosexualaity is a sexual orientation, If you are about with a group of friends be they male or female you are not there for your sexaul orentation or theirs only as friends with common likes and dislikes. So what is the big deal?
I have a couple of cousins who are gay, One is openly gay, he believes that there seven sexes Straight male, straight female, decidely gay male or gay female, bi male, bi female and tri sexual, tir anything once and maybe keep it that way. the other left the state and moved to other environs.
Agian what is the big deal, if you are a homopobe that is also a sexual orentation be it only a facet of your orentation. There has in the states always been a fear of homosexauality, growing up it may be a fear passed on by our parents or society as a whole that propagates that fear. Personally I could care less you do what you do. I am married and monogamous. I have friends of unknown sexual orentation and perferr to keep it that way. I am not going to turn gay. And I don't think anyone ever will. And what your orentation is is ultimatly your own business.
I have always been disturbed by prejudice of any form. Prejudice always results in a suitation where people are blinded by their own beliefs and prejudice pushed to it's extreme becomes the driving force of the mob. Look at the dark ages and the religous persecutions or WWII and the german solution these are all symptoms of a diesease left untreated. What is worse is that in the schools of today children are allowed to be prejudiced without ever having a chance to develop a deeper understanding. Bullied into conformance because it is easier to control them. In this society or benevolent society as we like to call ourselves, we make the fundemental mistake of letting the youth run rampart in their intolerance of the fundemental differances of us all, in it's stead maybe we should promulgate a deeper understanding of the differences of us all. To learn and understand Is the greatest thing we can ever achieve . After all this is what makes un human.
The only thing required for you to be human is to be humane.
Otherwise you would not understand.

[st0nedpenguin]

To be honest, I'm pretty unimpressed by some of the opinions expressed in this thread.

I have a few gay friends, both male and female, and was engaged to a bisexual girl for 2 years, so I can honestly speak from experience on the matter.

I personally couldn't give a flying hoot whether someone is gay, straight, white, black, yellow or purple, and I honestly don't see why anyone else should.

If I go out drinking with friends, to be honest I would be more shocked if I didn't have a guy or two hitting one me, admittedly I would prefer if it was women, especially since they don't seem as interested as the men, but it's hardly a cause for concern, and I'm certainly not going to start arguing and/or fighting over it.

Pulling the "unnatural" card is a ridiculous argument, if it's not natural, then can someone explain where exactly homeosexuality came from? I seriously doubt that God (not that I believe in one) would create homosexuality, so if it didn't develop naturally, then where did it develop? If it was a random genetic mutation, then that itself was natural right?

As for the whole marriage thing, again, I see no problem with it whatsoever, the only reason it seems to cause such a fuss is that marriage is still a religious ceremony, and religion does have a tendency to be bigoted and smallminded, no offence intended to anyone who is religious, but that's my opinion, and this is clearly a thread for opinions. Why, exactly, should a man and a woman be allowed to marry, yet not two people of the same sex? Are they not people? For crying out loud, in some countries/states you can marry a cow or a pig.

Some of you really need to get rid of this unneccessary prejudice and get on with your lives, rather than worrying about other peoples.

[docah]

st0nedpenguin: I wanted to say that, but i couldn't find my flame retardant suit.

[RuKK]

well said st0nedpenguin :toast: :toast:

[Johnny Knoxvill]

Originally posted by kokoro_kara
:wierd: :wierd: :with: :with: :slap: :welcome: :welcome:

Wow, I think the party crew hit this thread....

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

Sing Along:

Y M C Aaaaa


Y M C Aaaa

:toast: :p:

Young Man there's no need to get down
I say Young man cause you're in a new town......................
:eleph: :eleph: :cord:

[kokoro_kara]

Originally posted by st0nedpenguin
To be honest, I'm pretty unimpressed by some of the opinions expressed in this thread.

I have a few gay friends, both male and female, and was engaged to a bisexual girl for 2 years, so I can honestly speak from experience on the matter.

I personally couldn't give a flying hoot whether someone is gay, straight, white, black, yellow or purple, and I honestly don't see why anyone else should.

If I go out drinking with friends, to be honest I would be more shocked if I didn't have a guy or two hitting one me, admittedly I would prefer if it was women, especially since they don't seem as interested as the men, but it's hardly a cause for concern, and I'm certainly not going to start arguing and/or fighting over it.

Pulling the "unnatural" card is a ridiculous argument, if it's not natural, then can someone explain where exactly homeosexuality came from? I seriously doubt that God (not that I believe in one) would create homosexuality, so if it didn't develop naturally, then where did it develop? If it was a random genetic mutation, then that itself was natural right?

As for the whole marriage thing, again, I see no problem with it whatsoever, the only reason it seems to cause such a fuss is that marriage is still a religious ceremony, and religion does have a tendency to be bigoted and smallminded, no offence intended to anyone who is religious, but that's my opinion, and this is clearly a thread for opinions. Why, exactly, should a man and a woman be allowed to marry, yet not two people of the same sex? Are they not people? For crying out loud, in some countries/states you can marry a cow or a pig.

Some of you really need to get rid of this unneccessary prejudice and get on with your lives, rather than worrying about other peoples.

Worth Repeating *INSERTS HANDS CLAPPING EMOTIONCON*

[sjohnson]

Marriage often implies children. While I have no problem with the establishment of legal partnerships (for the purpose of probate, visitation rights, etc) between any two consenting adults, I do have problems with

a) children being raised without the benefit of both sexes as parents. My opinion is that both mother and father are vital for the healthy upbringing of children. As a single father raising two boys and one girl I'm seeing my lack first-hand.

b) the can of worms opened up by making marriage open to other than heterosexual unions for the reason - where do we stop? Marriage between Bill, Jill and Jane? Bob, John and Ed? Marvin and a goat? Where and when can and DO we draw the line?

[kokoro_kara]

Hmmmmm?

Boy this thread is going everywhere, I hope Holst is getting what he needs from this thread.

What is obvious from this thread is that homosexuality is a loaded issue in our society. I think there are basically two perspectives butting heads together on this thread. Is homosexuality acceptable or not. It seems any other divergence from this general question is just smoke where a larger bias lays.

Simply put, two adults or more for that matter can do whatever the hell they like behind doors as long as it is consenting. IMO

So, who cares if they are married to goats.

But, as Sjohnson points out, what if there are kids involved (to SJ: though you were pointing to gender role models specifically I am taking my Moore editing abilities here to simplify :p: ... ) ????

Kids are never consenting adults... So if you are banging a goat at home and claiming he/she is your soulmate, I think it is fair for society to jump in and yank the kids to protect them.

However does this apply to same sex marriages. I personally don't think so. There is no data I'm aware of that shows any proof that same sex marriages are harmful to children. And, there are plenty of single parent homes that would in fact lack the opposite sex role model and have half of the parental support. Do we yank those kids? After all they would be much worse off from a single parent home. And if we start yanking all of these kids where the yell are we going to put them? Where, maybe the Neverland Ranch:rolleyes:

However, to be fair and balanced, I don't know of any research that shows Goat and Human marriages are harmful to children either. So there still stands SJ's point, "where do we draw the line."

I personally draw it with marriages with different species... I think that is very acceptable, do you?



:toast:

[sjohnson]

I'm with you kokoro_kara - but what happens when "equal protection under the law" starts us down a slippery slope.

Gay marriage is great as a concept but opens the door to NAMBLA, incest, bestiality and all types of "orientation" ad nauseum when the creeps start pounding the courts.

Tender hearts are everywhere, regardless of sexual orientation.

But, so are the hardened hearts and worse.

[Keeper]

Regardless of what camp you adhere to, Darwinist or religious, homosexuality is deviant behavior, and it is not the only deviant behavior society deals with by a long shot. Alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling addiction, hardware addiction to name a few; the list could go on and on and on and does. Society tends to place a heavier cost on deviant behavior that tends to intrude on accepted norms, and so each group attempts to add itself to the norm and is only accepted after proving its benign influence.

Privacy is a precious commodity to the individual who practices deviant behavior that falls in a category that tips the norms of society. Sadly enough those people would be all alone if they did not intrude, and so they have little choice but to intrude, and without guidelines to direct them, they far too often appear predatory and raise the bar of acceptance.

In my 51 years of life I have had occasion to associate with quite a number of homosexuals, my first wife was bisexual and I even had a homosexual roommate in the mid 70’s, I am a far cry from homophobic and have even cared for one until his death because of AIDS.

Without a doubt, the biggest obstacle to the homosexual community becoming accepted into the norms of society is the predatory behavior practiced by what probably amounts to a small percentage of their numbers.

The homosexual community has done great damage to their cause in an attempt to redefine Marriage. Marriage is specific in that it is a union between a man and a woman, to further complicate their cause they have offended countless people in the religious community who regard Marriage as a divine union that join a man and a woman together as one and is a Sacred Sacrament.

In order to be accepted into the norms of society, proof of benign influence is required, better PR is in order.

[chris4521]

Do you know anybody who is gay?
friend since beginning of highschool.
came out of the closet in grade 11.
he used to be the "porn supplier" for alot of the guys in my school, burning porn CD's. pretty big shock when i found out he was gay, other friends say they knew all along.

Does this affect your relationship?, if so how?
yes.
he recently asked me to "come party" with him. i questioned this for obvious reasons and didnt go.


If you do not know anybody who is gay, do you want to? if so/not why?

Do you think that two men (or women) can/should have a meaningfull relationshi?
two men? no.
two women-> hell yeah :D~

What about gay marrage/adoption?
gay marriage is wrong imo, yet i live in lovely toronto where in fact it IS legal.
gay adoption--> very wrong. i wonder how it would feel to be accused of having "two dads" and it to be truthful. ouch.

Ok, thats enough for me for now, im truly sorry for getting into this mess/state.

[kokoro_kara]

Originally posted by Keeper
Regardless of what camp you adhere to, Darwinist or religious, homosexuality is deviant behavior, and it is not the only deviant behavior society deals with by a long shot.

Hi Keeper,

Can't agree with you any less with this one. On a darwinistic level there has been studies where overcrowding of social mammals have produced homosexual behavior. In sum, the thought is this behavior begins to be a "natural" method of population control.

Also, according to what religion. I bet yours??? Not my camp :D


Originally posted by Keeper
Privacy is a precious commodity to the individual who practices deviant behavior that falls in a category that tips the norms of society.

There has always been a tough balance of privacy and deviance. However, if you are all alone who are you hurting???? And this seems very similar to such taboos as masturbation of our past that are best kept in the past.

Also privacy has been a precious commodity for those who are oppressed by any qualtiy whether it be sexual orientation, religious orientation, race, ethnic or even christian beliefs.

These issues have way too many grays. And as far as people being offended because of the word marriage being used, I guess that maybe something looked into. as a prior posts have inferred we can call it something like Legal Partnership.

My understanding is the reason for the "Mariiage" part is the legal nature of the bond. Marrieage is used in our laws not anyother term. So, I guess if the "religous" groups don't want their big toes stepped on. Then they should help get another term in there and protect their own "Brand Label." If they don't help, then that aint very Christian of them now is it? :D

And is the Big Picture, "Marriage" is just a damn word. Words don't squabble about themselves its the people that hold something sacred to them that do.:eek:

[sjohnson]

Originally posted by kokoro_kara
...
And is the Big Picture, "Marriage" is just a damn word. Words don't squabble about themselves its the people that hold something sacred to them that do.:eek: "Marriage" is not just a damn word.

We, humans, invented our language to describe our emotions, thoughts, social and religious practices. Most basic words have a long history, reaching back to pre-history. "Marriage" is one of those words.

You can't simplify an extremely complex human need, like marriage, by attempting to reduce it's meaning. That meaning is big, deep and immutable.

Marriage was one of the major steps from anarchy to civilization. 90+ percent of the world need not and should not have to change the meaning of the word to suit a 10 percent or less minority. The concept of marriage transcends any civil endeavor.

Means exist already for anyone to establish a legal partnership. Why a few politically active homosexuals feel that they must force the majority to their ends is beyond understanding, and is perverse in it's nature to the remainder of the world.

[Keeper]

Originally posted by kokoro_kara
Hi Keeper,

Can't agree with you any less with this one. On a darwinistic level there has been studies where overcrowding of social mammals have produced homosexual behavior. In sum, the thought is this behavior begins to be a "natural" method of population control.

Also, according to what religion. I bet yours??? Not my camp :D





Like I said, either camp. It matters not what the catalysts for the deviance are, they are what they are.

How they gain acceptance is significant, equal rights is fair, but it is still presently impossible for a man to be a woman.

Words also still mean what they mean, to claim they mean something else is to promote ignorance.

[kokoro_kara]

Originally posted by sjohnson
"Marriage" is not just a damn word.

We, humans, invented our language to describe our emotions, thoughts, social and religious practices. Most basic words have a long history, reaching back to pre-history. "Marriage" is one of those words.

Thanks for etymolgy lesson, though incomplete. Words are just words and its meaning is based upon the person, group, ect that use them. If you wish to push your values of that word on all others than I say, yes you are right in regards to opressing your view. Face it, I marry all the time. I marry ideas with oneaother. I marry my profession with an employer, etc. You can blow the self righteous rhetoric all you want, it is still in the end, just a word.

So, I do agree that words are about civility and law. So, like I said before, if a certain group wishes to have a Brand on the word, "marriage," then they need to help create another word for others. If not, screw their word, which I bet the etymology goes way beyond "their history" (e.g., greek), and let them suffer sharing that word with everyone else.

Please, to take such a serious issue and make a word sacred! Please.

You make the word sacred, not the word (period).

[kokoro_kara]

Originally posted by Keeper
Like I said, either camp. It matters not what the catalysts for the deviance are, they are what they are.


I guess I misunderstood you. The way you said it sounded more like in either camp homosexuality is considered devinat behavior.

If you did mean that than I disagree and I think its based on more of cultural truisms (aka, personal fogs).

K
:toast:

[sjohnson]

Self righteous? Good thing I now leave this thread to the always correct and all-knowing KK. GG in taking this to a personal level, once again...

[kokoro_kara]

Originally posted by sjohnson
Self righteous? Good thing I now leave this thread to the always correct and all-knowing KK. GG in taking this to a personal level, once again...

Jump while the water is hot!

This whole thread is about personal topics. You don't think you saying "marriage isn't a DAMN word," and then going off about how your majority shouldn't bend to their minority wouldn't be personally offensive to anyone???

And, by saying that, I do feel that is being self righteous.

Sorry if I offended you, however, maybe we both can be more careful on what we say and how we say it.

Cheers from one all knowing KK to another

:D

[Keeper]

I have been watching literacy decline for years, and the dumbing down of society, but I am shocked to hear you promoting it kokoro_kara.

To remove the color of language is to render blind and deceive those that use it.

[kokoro_kara]

Originally posted by Keeper
I have been watching literacy decline for years, and the dumbing down of society, but I am shocked to hear you promoting it kokoro_kara.

To remove the color of language is to render blind and deceive those that use it.

Hmmmmm, I feel so misunderstood :confused: :confused:


In no way am I supporting, from my perspective, the dumbing down or the decline of our society.

Letting a word adapt to social changes is in no way is a decline, in fact is progression.

Could you imagine if we still only used words of 1000 years ago to describe the reality we live in today. Of course not, it would be ludicrous. As such, if a term was used in a creation of a law hundreds of years ago where same sex relationships were taboo and lynchable wouldn't it be a decline in our society to have the word "not adapt?"

So, if a group wants to have special priviledges with a single stupid word, then that group should help others find a similar legal word for their relationship.

I think that's smart and that's progress. Not a dumbing down of society, but a society that is growing in understanding and enlightenment of our fellow humans.

Afterall isn't that what this country was founded on?

A quick example, my fellow psychology guy: You know the root of the word hysteria?

It came from the greeks and it meant the loss of a woman's womb. The basic belief was that when a woman was "hysterical" that it was because she had lost her womb.

Now isn't it a progression we have a "NEW COLOR" (as you put it) on this word.

Or would you rather still have lost wombs out there?

I hope my perspective makes better sense now.

[Keeper]

To remove the significance of the history of language is like going back to black and white television after seeing color. If progress means the destruction of history, truth can not be expressed nor understood, education would be meaningless, and there would be no standards, no substance to anything.

A spade is a spade, changing the rules to meet political correctness is absurd. If some new thing comes along, you define it and create a new word; you don’t change the definition of an existing word.

You can not be what you are not………..period.

[kokoro_kara]

Originally posted by Keeper
To remove the significance of the history of language is like going back to black and white television after seeing color. If progress means the destruction of history, truth can not be expressed nor understood, education would be meaningless, and there would be no standards, no substance to anything.

A spade is a spade, changing the rules to meet political correctness is absurd. If some new thing comes along, you define it and create a new word; you don’t change the definition of an existing word.

You can not be what you are not………..period.

Well keeper, we will disagree then because I think what you just said is ridiculous. Just to point my perspective:

If what you say is true than you view women as property and not a marriage as a holly union. After all isn't that its History.

So either you have a changed definition of that word or you misogynistic, which is it?

Here is a quote from another forum where she said it much better than I:

As for marriage and its original definition, that's a load of crap. Marriage as it existed in the ancient middle east, the standard upon which our western conception of marriage is based, was a means by which a father (or brother or guardian) sold his daughter (sister, ward) to a man who took her as a wife (primary or otherwise) in exchange for currency or livestock. It was literally about ownership. The fact that our current conception of the institution of marriage is different proves that the institution is able to evolve. As for the institution being based in religion and therefore untouchable, that is similarly a load of crap so long as marriage exists in a civil context. We have this little thing in America called the first amendment which forbids the government from endorsing religion in general and *especially* from endorsing one religion over another. There are religious sects which condone, sanction, and bless same-sex marriages, including two of the movements of Judaism. If you think that there should be no such thing as civil marriage at all, that's fine. But then, all that's left is the various religious institutional understandings of marriage, in which law and government has no place.

BTW it is an excellent discussion that has more people of my view than the ones that are dominant on this forum. For those of you interested, I thought it was a great read and please check it out:

http://www.fruhead.com/mod/poll/view.php?poll_id=529#19232

[kokoro_kara]

Oh and this is addressed to Sjohsnon,

I have reread our posts a few times and I do think I was in the wrong for saying "self righteous rhetoric." Even though it is my opinion that is what it is, I could have definitely phrased it better and more suitable for a general conversation and not, as you said SJ, "taking it to a personal level."

Sorry
K :toast:

[lalPOOO]

While homosexuality bothers me purly because of the sexual act, I don't see why people really care what others do in their spare time. If some people like to spend their time dancing with men instead of women, thats cool, just don't bother me about it. Why does the rest of the world have to know how proud they are? should hetrosexuals throw a parade? I am sorry if I offend anyone, but this is my veiwpoint on the matter. If you let me keep mine I'll let you keep yours ;).
The marriage thing is a bit silly though. If you want to play in the sandbox, you play by the sandbox rules. If you want to be a part of the chruch you should either play by their rules, or not be a part of them. I'm not saying gays should be banned from the chruchs, just that if their choice is to be gay, then they shouldn't try to force their way in. The whole thing about gay marraiges is excatly that, forcing the chruch that doesn't even think what they're doing is right to not only "accept" them, but to bind them in a sacred bond that was ment for man and women. Seems a little unfair to the chruch if you ask me.
However thats just the way I feel about things, and if you think I'm wrong you can go ahead and tell me.

[kokoro_kara]

lalPooo,

I don't think anything you said was wrong and it is a well thought out opinion. In fact, many Gays (I think) would think the same in regards to leaving the church alone.

Where I hear the chief arguement is about the legal issue of marriage. That marriage does give certain powers that a nonmarried couple do not get (whether hetero or homo). Such powers are no taxation on estates when one dies and the other takes over. Benefit packages at work like health insurance for a spouse or even in the private sector when you get a "family rate" somewhere.

These are the main issues. Issues that may seem silly in the little picture, but if you look over the lifetime and the estate, could cost a couple 100,000 of dollars if not even Millions.

That's a lot of Mula and a lot of priviledges that "married" couples receive.

And since "marriage" is a legal term of our government, it should be held separate from the church.

K

:toast:

[st0nedpenguin]

Marriage often implies children. While I have no problem with the establishment of legal partnerships (for the purpose of probate, visitation rights, etc) between any two consenting adults, I do have problems with

a) children being raised without the benefit of both sexes as parents. My opinion is that both mother and father are vital for the healthy upbringing of children. As a single father raising two boys and one girl I'm seeing my lack first-hand.

b) the can of worms opened up by making marriage open to other than heterosexual unions for the reason - where do we stop? Marriage between Bill, Jill and Jane? Bob, John and Ed? Marvin and a goat? Where and when can and DO we draw the line?

In no way does marriage imply children, perhaps your interpretation of marriage implies children, but marriage is simply the bringing together of two people, no more no less.

With regards to the parenting thing, I was raised by my mother, I saw my father once or twice during my childhood, and in no way have I turned out to fit any of the social prejudices cast upon children from single parent families.

Considering that my father was a wife beating alcoholic drug addict, I would say that growing up without his influence was the better option.

And opening marriage up to two people of the same sex is vastly different from opening marriage up to 3 people, and also to animals, which, I might add, already happens anyway.


Gay marriage is great as a concept but opens the door to NAMBLA, incest, bestiality and all types of "orientation" ad nauseum when the creeps start pounding the courts.

So, what you are saying here is that by opening marriage to single sex couples, it would be opening the door to incest, bestiality and all types of orientation? That's the most ridiculous knee jerk reaction I have ever heard, and to be honest, one of the primary reasons why single sex couples are still suffering persecution in our so called "civilized society".

[st0nedpenguin]

Regardless of what camp you adhere to, Darwinist or religious, homosexuality is deviant behavior, and it is not the only deviant behavior society deals with by a long shot.

The term "deviant behaviour" is a product of society, not the other way around, the only reason that homosexuality is regarded as being deviant behaviour in any way is because our society has labelled it so, there are plenty of so called "uncivilized" societies out there in which homosexuality wouldn't even cause the populace to bat an eyelid, never mind restrict the basic rights of homosexuals.


To remove the significance of the history of language is like going back to black and white television after seeing color. If progress means the destruction of history, truth can not be expressed nor understood, education would be meaningless, and there would be no standards, no substance to anything.

In no way does the evoution of language stifle or hinder progress, and in no way does the evolution of language mean the destruction of history. But if I were offered the choice between destroying history, or destroying progress, and by doing so destroying the future, I would destroy history any day. Histroy is gone, the past has had it's day, and it wasn't particularly pleasant on the whole, I'm much more interested in righting the wrongs of the past than I am dwelling over their significance.

I am frequently shocked by peoples reaction to something so benign as homosexuality, let me put a question to anyone who is speaking out against it.

Would you react, think, and speak publicly in this way about people of another race/skin colour?

I suspect the answer is no.

But you are willing to persecute and push your bigoted beliefs onto homosexuals, because "it's not the norm", well years ago, being black wasn't the norm, being of asian origin wasn't the norm, and yet now it would be considered outrageous to be prejidiced against people of other races.

The simple fact is that in time, society will realise that the prevailing opinion is wrong, not everyone will realise, just as not everyone has managed to cast off their racial prejudices, but it will come, it's just a matter of time.

And I for one await it eagely.

[st0nedpenguin]

And kokoro_kara, I would just like to thank you for being, in my opinion, the voice of reason in this thread during my absence, and if you are ever unlucky enough to be in my neigbourhood, let me know, I think I owe you a beer.

:toast:

[Keeper]

I am a grandfather of five, having to explain that "mother" is not a derogatory term used to insult one another and start fights is not pleasant, and that F$%K is not an adjective or and adverb that belongs between every word in a sentence isn’t either. When my grandson is reading Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" and comes across “the faggots are reeking”, it leaves a picture in his mind that is clearly not the author’s intension. When our children hear songs providing images of people dressed in gay apparel, it is what image they should imagine in your world where a mother is a derogatory term?

I spend a lot of my time with educators, who all are appalled at our “progressive” language and as a public speaker I am equally appalled at what little regard people today hold for the rich lessons that can be had in understanding where the words we use come from and actually mean.

Language has always changed and will forever be changing in its use, but it is not healthy to accelerate it as we are doing today. It leaves no record of association and it has given media the honor of being the preferred educational source for everything.

Media education has created and extremely uninformed and deceived society, what we are seeing today is not progressive; it is a dismantling of everything that provided the substance that still exists.

Well, I‘ll be dead in about 30 years, I hope you’ll be happy with your new world.

[st0nedpenguin]

Originally posted by Keeper
Media education has created and extremely uninformed and deceived society, what we are seeing today is not progressive; it is a dismantling of everything that provided the substance that still exists.

First of all, I would like to point out that my last post frenzy wasn't intended as an attack on you directly Keeper, as it may have come across due to the number of your posts I quoted.

I agree with you entirely on the media point, but all I'm trying to say is that burying our heads in the sand and resisting change isn't going to solve any problems.

Trying to hide things from children very rarely works, instead of trying to protect them from things we don't agree with, we need to educate them so that they don't make the same mistakes themselves, I should add that I'm not trying to tell you how to raise your own children by the way, just putting forward my thoughts on the situation.

Language needs change, society needs change, we ourselves need to change, to be honest, pretty much everything needs to change, if it wasn't for change and evolution, none of us would be alive today.

[Keeper]

St0ned,

I can agree with your last post, education is the key and to correctly educate is how it needs to be done. I used the word deviant and automatically it is assumed I am bashing homosexuals without regard for the definition of the word (even though I was careful to include the hardware addict in its association which includes me).

Teaching there is no difference between a man and a woman is not only misleading, it is absurd. What hope can we give our children and what extreme prejudices will they develop being taught lies?

When our language evolves as a result of legislation and media saturation we are in bad shape, who then molds our thoughts and how can we pretend it is a process of natural progression?

Our progress in race equality hasn’t occur by convincing our children that black people are white, nor will we overcome poverty by teaching that poor people are rich. Teaching lies will never make anything better.

[kokoro_kara]

Originally posted by st0nedpenguin
And kokoro_kara, I would just like to thank you for being, in my opinion, the voice of reason in this thread during my absence, and if you are ever unlucky enough to be in my neigbourhood, let me know, I think I owe you a beer.

:toast:

Well hopefully Unluck will hit me some day!!! I don't think you OWE me a beer, but I'll gladly have one with you, at your expense of course ;)

And if your are ever in my neck of woods you can have one on me!!! Do you ski? If you do, I'm in the elitest hot bed here in Colorado where there's champagne powder and Mercede SUV's. Personally, I think I live in the land of pretensious BS, so I see much humor here :D

:toast: :toast:

[kokoro_kara]

Hi Keeper,

I think I'm starting to understand where you are coming from. I am in total agreement that the TV medium is the worse device to handle the education of us and our children. But I also think it is topics like these that don't get the benefit of education in our system and are left to the demise of media. Therefore, I also think media is at fault not the actually issue being addressed.

I'm sure there are groups out there that have little reasoning to what they are trying to get changed in our society (e.g. radical groups of Feminism, radical groups of homosexuality and radical groups of religious sextors ) *note please emphasize the word radical*

Unfortunately media is in the business to get attention and sell goods for advertisers, so they go with the 60 second hit on a subject that is going to grab our attention and elicit an emotional response. Unfortunately, education does not sell in entertainment and the discussion we have been having is left out. Hence forth the radical groups get the most attention and the practical reasonable groups these discussions affect the most, GET LEFT OUT. Leaving a percetpion that they ALL are radical idiots and are trying to bend the world to their view.

What gripes me is that does not mean we shouldn't be having this discussion and those who would benefit from this discussion should just bow to the majority.

So, we are stuck in a cycle of media BS where I take a personal responsibility to set the record straight when I am in a form of discourse such as this one. ;)

I think this is similar to what you are saying. I'm not sure, I actually find your posts kind of hard to understand at times. I am trying though, please feel free to explain more if I am missing it.

Now to my diatribe :)



[i]Originally posted by Keeper

Teaching there is no difference between a man and a woman is not only misleading, it is absurd. What hope can we give our children and what extreme prejudices will they develop being taught lies?


This is where you and I are on the other side of the fence.

Please let me explain:

I believe our culture separates and CREATES differences in the sexes so much that there needs to be education and discourse about how similar the sexes are. To some they may view that discourse as there are no differences. Here, it is a matter of the pendulum swinging in our society. In order to get a perception moved down a spectrum you must push farther than "the Happy Medium you wish to achieve." If you Push farther and harder society naturally pulls back to that happy medium.

It's kind of like the feminist movement of the 70's and 80's. It was so far pushed Men were actually playing the "sensitive man," and crying on the first date. Talk about a pendulum swing. Now, women aren't looking for it so much so men don't feel compelled to cry, but feel more open about crying if they need to. It has shifted to a better balance. (I wish I had a better example, but that's the one that popped into my head :sofa: )

So, going back to the differences in Sexes, I feel our society over the years has over exagerated the differences so much there needs to be a pull to even it out a bit.

For example:

Take two minutes and write down the differences between a man and woman and then do the same for similarities.

I have done this exact experiment while teaching gender indentitiy in college, except I pulled up volunteers from the class (one man and one woman).

It's amazing the differences listed out. It usually is about 3 times more than the similarity.

Then I point out in class that we are socialized to see the differences between the sexes. I then go here is a simple list of similarities.

They both have: legs, arms, hands, feet, clothes, hair, eyes, teeth, lips, cheeks, ears, necks, shoulders, etc.

The list is huge!!!!!!

IMO, we separate the sexes way too much.

I'm sure keeper being a psych guy you know of all those new born studies where adults are presented the same exact infant but told it is one sex or another and then asked to describe the infant.

So, when told its a female the participants, in general, would say things like... she is so soft, gentle, etc.

And when told its a male (remember same exact infant): He is so strong, his hand grip is amazing, etc.

That's the BS in our society that needs education! IMO

[Keeper]

I have no problem teaching the similarities, the differences are much more significant in light of all the material being made available on any subject.

Limiting the material is wrong in my view, and here will lie another argument; being we cannot provide the time to present all the material, who gets to choose the curriculum?

Not the media or its benefactors!!

[kokoro_kara]

Originally posted by Keeper
I have no problem teaching the similarities, the differences are much more significant in light of all the material being made available on any subject.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :shrug:

[Keeper]

I don’t buy the pendulum theory, it has worked in the past, but when it fails we get fanatics. Fanatics are dangerous, and there is no amount of reason that can move the fanatic back toward the happy medium. And when the fanatic plays with the pendulum truly outrageous perversions occur.

History is full of them, and they don’t discriminate: be they religious, political or social.

Saturation is a very effective method of manipulation; we live in a time that highlights its handiwork. In light of its track record it’s no wonder it is the preferred method, but it is not real education, and it is what prejudice is made of.

Real education provides all the material available, and lets minds develop. There are far too many know it alls in the soup already.

[kokoro_kara]

Keeper,

So after reading your post a few times and trying to understand where you are coming from I have to ask: Are you equating the movement for homosexual marriages in the same lot as the terrorism we faced and still do from 9-11?

I really do the believe there is a fundamental casm between two people who desire to legally bond their love for one another compared to a group who's belief is the murdering of nonbelievers is glorious under Alah.

You paint with too large of brush strokes for me. Though in some contexts you may well be right, but surely not all or even a majority of them.

K

:toast:

[Keeper]

No, but from your question you seem you have found some association.

Social change and how to achieve it is what are talking about here. How prejudice complicates that change has been labeled as an obstacle. Your position seems to indicate that in order to right the social prejudice that robs a homosexual couple of having the privilege of receiving the same marriage penalty that is so desirable to a heterosexual couple, an equal or greater prejudice on the other end of the equation is in order.

You seem to believe the same methods of persuasion you denounce in others is acceptable for your camp, selective education and saturation. What makes you think a healthier outcome will result?

[kokoro_kara]

Originally posted by Keeper
No, but from your question you seem you have found some association.

Social change and how to achieve it is what are talking about here. How prejudice complicates that change has been labeled as an obstacle. Your position seems to indicate that in order to right the social prejudice that robs a homosexual couple of having the privilege of receiving the same marriage penalty that is so desirable to a heterosexual couple, an equal or greater prejudice on the other end of the equation is in order.

You seem to believe the same methods of persuasion you denounce in others is acceptable for your camp, selective education and saturation. What makes you think a healthier outcome will result?

Ahhhhh, I finally understand where you are coming from. A great point and indeed totally correct if all other things are equal. But that's the problem -- they are not equal.

If the system is imbalanced -- a social wrong -- then an intervention must take place to right that balance. If you have equal sided intervention there is no change -- the balance stays the same -- unbalanced. Which is what the majority is comfortable with. Which is why there has to be a push. Why the hell would you want change, you got your privledges.

A great example is the equal rights movement of the 60's. Do you honestly believe change would have happened if Mt. L King did not try to saturate his message, if the media did not report it to the corners of America that were unaffected by race riots.

The problem with your perspective is, imo, you are not realizing what it is to be minority facing a unempathic majority. And being a counselor such as yourself, I would think you would be well aware of need for imbalanced interventions because of the resistance we face with clients on not wanting to change.

I could just see it now in the counseling office.

Patient: I can't stop drinking
Therapist: Well (equal time here) drinking can be fun and drinking can be not so fun
Patient: So why should I change
Therapist: Well if you stay the same it will be easy and if you change it will be a real :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:
Patient: F this, I aint stopping

Patient Leaves

Thereapist: huh, I was equal with my saturation, but I didn't do my job, I didn't solicit any change. Hmmm, go figure

;)

K
:toast:

[st0nedpenguin]

I'm not so much pushing for educating children that there is no difference between the sexes per se, I just think that children should be educated that it's not wrong for a couple to be together, whether they are of differing sexes, the same sex, or different races/colours, we need to educate children that a person should be judged by their actions and not by their race or sexual orientation.

The media is in a unique postion of power in modern society, in a lot of cases more powerful than world leaders themselves, and as mentioned, on the whole they aren't interested in presenting and promoting the right image, just one of sensationalism and on the whole, fiction. The media themselves are often one of the first to highlight problems within society, but then they themselves, even if not directly, often promote these problems, providing an incredibly hypocritical view.


Originally posted by Keeper
Limiting the material is wrong in my view, and here will lie another argument; being we cannot provide the time to present all the material, who gets to choose the curriculum?


Originally posted by Keeper
Real education provides all the material available, and lets minds develop. There are far too many know it alls in the soup already.

Again, a view I share wholeheartedly, many children today are being taught predominantly by television and the media in general, and that's one of the main problems. All the information needs to be available, but it should be up to the individual, or in the case of children, perhaps the parents, to choose what information they absorb, but of course it is also essential to educate people about the things that they don't want to know about, a balanced education is what is needed.

I'm glad this discussion has managed to reach a more stable equilibrium, once all the shouting and ranting (of which I of course am in no way innocent:)) is out if the way, the real discussion often follows.

kokoro_kara, never touched a pair of ski's in my life, unfortunately, but I would give my right leg to get somewhere I could snowboard, it's something that has appealed to me a lot as I used to skate quite frequently, and the disciplines are quite similar in many respects.

Unfortunately here the most snow we are lucky to get is a couple of inches, snowballing and sledging is about all we can manage. :D

I live more in the land of the narrow minded scally than the elitist, roaming groups of teenagers looking for trouble, or in my case, someone to ridicule for not dressing in the identical clone fashion favoured by them, again a problem that could perhaps be eased by better education.

Well, I better stop typing now or it looks like I'll be back on the soapbox again. :p:

[Keeper]

St0ned were I live ClonesVille is a norm as well, but because of push doctrine. Every little group that has been convinced that their quite weird behavior is an expression of their individuality clone themselves after popularized stereotypes, and are now robbed of their individuality and their imaginations.

A teacher in the public schools here must arrive at school with as many a ten teaching lessons for one class, so not to lose the child who requires special education.

Koro, while I do understand homosexuals are a legitimate group, equal rights under the law should suffice for all, but today’s special rights under the law have given every idiot with a grudge a right to shove it down the throats of all regardless of merit. This doctrine has promoted prejudice on countless other fronts and in our public schools our children are presently denied and education because of it.

Our public schools resemble zoos today, one group holds their crotches all day to express themselves, another wears women’s lingerie on their heads, while yet another wears their underwear on the outside of their clothing. Pants around the knees, midriffs showing, body mutilation and the list goes on and on, and each group comes with an attitude daring society to reject them so they can add their number to the list that gets special rights.

And they do get special rights, they don’t have do earn an education; they are damned to live in ignorance for the rest of their lives. Their majority will be lucky to graduate from high school with the reading skills of a third grade student, they will be the easiest manipulated block of society and eventually the largest voting block of society.

And does anyone wonder who will be pulling the strings of all these puppets?

Its crap Koro, and far more damage than good will result from it.

[kokoro_kara]

Originally posted by st0nedpenguin

kokoro_kara, never touched a pair of ski's in my life, unfortunately, but I would give my right leg to get somewhere I could snowboard, it's something that has appealed to me a lot as I used to skate quite frequently, and the disciplines are quite similar in many respects.

Unfortunately here the most snow we are lucky to get is a couple of inches, snowballing and sledging is about all we can manage. :D

There's tons of Boarders here. In fact of the two, I prefer Snow boarding. Though, I only get on the slopes an average of once every three years :D

Skiing has been a bit scetchy the last 3 years. We are in a drought cycle. Still, theres a good 3 ft. here and hopefully more on the way :D

Let me know if you are in my neck of woods. You must be very careful around here being a stranger. Never know when someone is going to look at you sideways through tinted windows here ;)

:toast:

[kokoro_kara]

Keeper,

It sounds like a crisis is happening in your neck of the woods. If so, I can fully understand a reluctance to look into change; stabalization is much more important during times of civil unrest.

I also totally agree the PC crap and fear of lawsuits are creating panzys out of our school systems. Our school system sucks because they have no balls. But that has nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing to do with our discussion. You and I can spin it either way (e.g., they are too wussy to place homosexuality in the curriculumn for sex education OR they are too wussy to put their foot down when a child presents his/her differences at the cost of the classroom) ETC. It is and simply is the fault of staff and authorities that be. In no way of what you described is the fault of gay or lesbian couples wanting to have their marriages recognized by the government. That is silly and that, Keeper, is crap.

Just because our school system is in crisis does not mean we should not be trying to progress in our society. I must admit, however, that if I had to choose between the two, the shool system would be it. Maybe this is why you are so reluctant on this topic. I perceive that you may think the acceptance of GLB marriages would be at the cost of our education system in its current state. If so, I can totally respect that. And the way you described your area, I believe it too. At least till the authorities get their CRAP together.

Good luck in your area, kids deserve a good education -- all kids, even the gay ones too :D