Don't worry, everyone under thirty is disgusted by this. Homophobic morons will mostly die out over the next few decades.
Besides, at least we've moved up from dragging gays behind cars.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It is. How silly. Folks need to get over the gay thing and focus on other things. As it's so outmoded and uncool to bug gay people all the time.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
How dare they interrupt the ability of the male students to see real life lesbians and see them cuddle and act all heartwarming!
Think of the male students!
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Do they really win?
They make fools of themselves. They face the wrath of millions. They get humiliated.
It feels more like a final twitch before death.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Besides, at least we've moved up from dragging gays behind cars.
I'm not sure if this is as encouraging as you intended it to be. And the kids in the district in question are going to be pissed at the girl regardless, no matter how under 30 they are.
But yeah, frustrating as it is I'm not too worried about gay rights. I'm pretty confident in another generation things'll will be significantly improved. People do need to keep fighting in the meantime but ultimately the bigots just need to be waited out.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I figured this would be about the Catholic School in Denver that is kicking out the children of a lesbian couple.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yes, please respond to the encroachment of THE GAY by doing ridiculous things and helping anti-homophobic causes.
Like the DC archdiocese.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
"Thanks for ruining my senior year."
This kid should be banned from prom precisely because they are taking it too seriously.
edit: Also I feel the thread title is misleading. I don't think either side "won" in this exchange. One side has the moral high ground, but that does not mean either side got what they wanted.
[ March 11, 2010, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
I'm confused about who you're referring to by "this kid", BB. Do you mean the lesbian girl, or the kid who said, "Thanks for ruining my senior year"?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
No, nobody wins here. The school's claim that cancelling the prom will stop "interference with the educational process" is baloney.
I guess no school can be FORCED to sponsor a dance though...it's like they're forbidding to educate the students and the dance is after school hours and not an academic class, so I guess they can.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sean: My comment follows a quotation, so it's in regards to the person making that statement. Sorry if I confused you.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Meh. I think the school is stupid for doing what they did. So the girl is a lesbian and wanted to go to prom. Who cares?
There was a club that started at my old High School called the Pride club that was a gay and lesbian club. Well, my brother thought he would start a "straight" club. He got a teacher to agree to be responsible for it. They met once and then were shut down. The meeting they had had nothing to do with being gay or straight, they actually just met and played Magic: The Gathering for an hour after school.
The principle shut them down and told them they couldn't have a straight club. My brother argued that there was nothing wrong with having one, and since there was a gay and lesbian club it would be unfair to shut him down for having a straight club. He said sexual preference should not be the basis for a public school club.
Long story short, the principle shut both of them down.
I don't agree with shutting down either of the clubs. If they want to have a gay and lesbian club, fine. Same with a straight club. As long as there was nothing going in either club that would cause animosity, I'm cool with it.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I just re-checked the article and apparently now the girl is suing the school to force them to hold the prom. Same link from the OP.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I was chatting about this on another message board and ran into a woman from that area who said it was "like going back in time 50 years....seriously."
I don't see how you can force a school to hold a prom. If I were a student from that school, I'd be pretty ticked off.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Geraine:A Magic: The Gathering club is in essence an "We are asexual in nature and will never get laid" club. So it is in fact a club founded on sexual preference. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: Don't worry, everyone under thirty is disgusted by this. Homophobic morons will mostly die out over the next few decades.
Besides, at least we've moved up from dragging gays behind cars.
I disagree. This stuff passes down through the generations. Just walk through a middle school hallway some day. Its all "f*g" this and your a "f*g" and she's a lesbian or d*ke. I have serious talks with my students about that talk but it goes right out of their heads when they leave my room.
It seems to be the last type of derogatory statement and discrimination fairly accepted by a majority of the population.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I thought the girl handled herself really well during that interview. That's got to be a nerve racking experience for a teenager.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Geraine:A Magic: The Gathering club is in essence an "We are asexual in nature and will never get laid" club. So it is in fact a club founded on sexual preference.
Hee.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: But yeah, frustrating as it is I'm not too worried about gay rights. I'm pretty confident in another generation things'll will be significantly improved. People do need to keep fighting in the meantime but ultimately the bigots just need to be waited out.
While I agree with and find it heartening, I can't imagine that this provides much consolation to those who are suffering from antigay bigotry now.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: But yeah, frustrating as it is I'm not too worried about gay rights. I'm pretty confident in another generation things'll will be significantly improved. People do need to keep fighting in the meantime but ultimately the bigots just need to be waited out.
While I agree with and find it heartening, I can't imagine that this provides much consolation to those who are suffering from antigay bigotry now.
Yeah, who can wait that long? Folks must get over the homosexuality thing and focus on something else!
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Geraine:A Magic: The Gathering club is in essence an "We are asexual in nature and will never get laid" club. So it is in fact a club founded on sexual preference.
I laughed so hard when I read this. Thank you for that! Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I figured this would be about the Catholic School in Denver that is kicking out the children of a lesbian couple.
This is another 'who are they kidding' moment for me.
quote:"The issue is not about our not accepting 'sinners,' " he said. "It is not about punishing the child for the sins of his or her parents. It is simply that the lesbian couple is saying that their relationship is a good one that should be accepted by everyone; and the Church cannot agree to that."
Who is he kidding? Does he actually believe that, and is simply not aware of the striking hypocrisy present in the (I'm pretty comfortable in believing) lack of a policy to screen children for adulterous parents, larcenous parents, blaspheming parents, and so on and so forth? If he does, this is almost Orwellian cognitive dissonance-freedom is slavery level stuff.
If he doesn't believe his own nonsense, though...well, there are a great many harsh words that could accurately be put to him.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Rak, that's pretty much why my daughter was rejected by two schools when we went to sign her up for kindergarten.
I'm not in any way trying to justify what that Catholic school did, but I think I understand their reasoning. It's possible that the parents changed the way they registered their child, crossing out "father" and putting "mother". It's possible that the women attempted to volunteer to do things for their children's class. Anything that draws attention to their being a lesbian couple to the extent that people can't ignore it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I agree with those who've said nobody wins here. Both sides have put politics ahead of the good of the students involved.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Both sides? How do you see the girl (or her lawyer) putting politics ahead of what's good for her?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It'd be nice to hear some of the students who were telling her that she ruined their senior year give her kudos for trying to save the prom.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Rak, that's pretty much why my daughter was rejected by two schools when we went to sign her up for kindergarten.
I'm not in any way trying to justify what that Catholic school did, but I think I understand their reasoning. It's possible that the parents changed the way they registered their child, crossing out "father" and putting "mother". It's possible that the women attempted to volunteer to do things for their children's class. Anything that draws attention to their being a lesbian couple to the extent that people can't ignore it.
I suspect that the part I italicized is significant and that the real sin in question is not the sex, it is the open and public defiance of the bishops.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:
I'm not in any way trying to justify what that Catholic school did, but I think I understand their reasoning. It's possible that the parents changed the way they registered their child, crossing out "father" and putting "mother". It's possible that the women attempted to volunteer to do things for their children's class. Anything that draws attention to their being a lesbian couple to the extent that people can't ignore it.
I suspect something along those lines is what happened too. But the reason it doesn't wash, as much as I understand their reasoning, it remains deeply and fundamentally hypocritical to say nothing of un-Christian so long as other sins aren't used as justification to screen out the children of those sinners as well. Which becomes especially problematic in Christianity, with everyone being a sinner and all.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Funny....while I don't agree with the school in Denver, I do think they have the the right to kick them out. There is a difference between being a sinner and struggling with something you consider a sin and taking part in a relationship that goes against church doctrine and being unrepentant about it.
Let me make this clear, as I am SURE I am going to get covered in egg for this post....I don't believe they are right. But I respect their right to have their own school, based on their own religious principals, and to screen their families based on their own clearly stated values and beliefs.
Last time I checked freedom of religion was a protected right as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Having a right and being right are not the same thing. Sure, they have the right; they are still wrong.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Both sides? How do you see the girl (or her lawyer) putting politics ahead of what's good for her?
Involving the ACLU and threatening lawsuits over a prom is putting politics ahead of what's good for the students. There are ways the student could have taken a stand that would not have turned the whole thing into a national news story and disrupted everything to the degree it did. Both parties are responsible for that.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Funny....while I don't agree with the school in Denver, I do think they have the the right to kick them out. There is a difference between being a sinner and struggling with something you consider a sin and taking part in a relationship that goes against church doctrine and being unrepentant about it.
Let me make this clear, as I am SURE I am going to get covered in egg for this post....I don't believe they are right. But I respect their right to have their own school, based on their own religious principals, and to screen their families based on their own clearly stated values and beliefs.
Last time I checked freedom of religion was a protected right as well.
True... but this doesn't mean banning people from having ham sandwiches or banning people from drinking alcohol and coffee if your religion doesnt' agree with it. People do have religious rights, but I think civil rights kind of trump those sometimes. Like not being allowed to fire someone because they are opening gay.
Then again, I'm not sure I'd want to send a future child of mine to a school like that, especially if I were to end up with a woman. They seem kind of... not polite.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Funny....while I don't agree with the school in Denver, I do think they have the the right to kick them out. There is a difference between being a sinner and struggling with something you consider a sin and taking part in a relationship that goes against church doctrine and being unrepentant about it.
Let me make this clear, as I am SURE I am going to get covered in egg for this post....I don't believe they are right. But I respect their right to have their own school, based on their own religious principals, and to screen their families based on their own clearly stated values and beliefs.
Last time I checked freedom of religion was a protected right as well.
Let's draw out the logical principle here and say there's a school that was run as a religious school by an offshoot of the LDS that still held on to the original racist doctrine, or something. They're completely against miscegenation. Do you support their right to kick out a child because his mother married a black man?
If they don't have that right, what's different there?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Plenty of hetero females go to the prom together, lacking a male date. I'm sure there are plenty of gay parents with students in Christian schools. The Catholic school didn't expel the students for having gay parent's, they expelled them because the parents were in open protest to the beliefs of the church. They weren't expelled for their perceived sin, they were expelled for openly opposing the institution. The school is free to expel anyone who attends their private institution while protesting the foundations of the institution.
The lesbian couple only impacted the prom for making an issue out of it. They were free to go but they ruined the prom for everyone by making their attendance a political statement. The student's, not the school turned the event into a statement on gay acceptance. Is there some sort of application for prom attendance that asks your sexuality? The student's made it a protest issue and ruined it for everyone.
Prom's aren't about sexuality. The lesbian students turned a dance into a statement. It can't be equated to a black boy and white girl getting kicked out at the door. The lesbian's would've been let in and could've danced together. PDA is not tolerated at these events in any form, hetero or otherwise. The event isn't about sex or sexuality. The event was canceled because the lesbians twisted the meaning of the event in an attempt to make a political statement when they were welcome to attend. The prom had become a gay rights issue instead of a dance for the biggest football game of the year. Shame on the lesbians for their attention grabbing maneuver. They deprived many students of the big game and dance....that is what it is about.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
OK then...
So the school is allowed to overreact to a girl wearing a tuxedo and taking her girlfriend?
I would have liked to wear a tux to the prom. I hate dress. Dang on people forcing met o wear dress. When I get married I'm wearing either camo pants or hakama pants. But if these folks weren't making such a big deal out of something so trivial as a girl wearing a tux, they could have their prom and have fun. Dang. Gay folks aren't going back into the closet. Deal!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Was she turned around at the door for wearing a tuxedo? The event was canceled because she announced that she was the man in the relationship and intended to wear a tuxedo with her lesbian girlfriend in order to make a statement. No one announces to the world what they intend to wear to the prom.
They didn't cancel the prom because a girl showed up in a tux. She never even had a chance to show up. A known joker/funny guy at my high school prom showed up in a dress. Everyone laughed and the prom went on. Some showed up with tux t-shirts. Some boys and girls came alone. Some boys came together and some girls came together.
The fact that we know she was going to show up with a tux illustrates the fact that she was making a statement out of the event. Had she just shown up with her date, she'd have been let in. That high school is without a prom but she's happy because the world knows that she wishes she was a man and prefers other women.
Proms aren't about statements and everyone is welcome to attend.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Funny....while I don't agree with the school in Denver, I do think they have the the right to kick them out. There is a difference between being a sinner and struggling with something you consider a sin and taking part in a relationship that goes against church doctrine and being unrepentant about it.
Let me make this clear, as I am SURE I am going to get covered in egg for this post....I don't believe they are right. But I respect their right to have their own school, based on their own religious principals, and to screen their families based on their own clearly stated values and beliefs.
Last time I checked freedom of religion was a protected right as well.
Let's draw out the logical principle here and say there's a school that was run as a religious school by an offshoot of the LDS that still held on to the original racist doctrine, or something. They're completely against miscegenation. Do you support their right to kick out a child because his mother married a black man?
If they don't have that right, what's different there?
Actually, I do. If they are privately funded, anyways. More to the point, I can't think of why anyone would want to send their child to school there, knowing what they believe before they enroll him.
I wouldn't want them as neighbors, and I think they are full of it, but private clubs should be able to make their own rules, and religions have the right to believe what they want to, and run their institutions as they see fit.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: They were free to go but they ruined the prom for everyone by making their attendance a political statement.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Had she just shown up with her date, she'd have been let in.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Proms aren't about statements and everyone is welcome to attend.
False. It's not hard to do a search on the subject and find that they were not allowed to attend.
quote:On Thursday, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in US district court, charging that school officials violated McMillen's free speech rights when they told her they would enforce the district's policy requiring prom dates to be of the opposite sex.
Your link doesn't contradict anything I've said. No one was allowed to attend, the event was canceled.
The tux wearing lesbian could have shown up at the door with her date and would've been let in. The fact is, she's the only one who "announced" what she was going to wear, who her date was and her sexual preference. The school isn't interested in what you wear, who your date is or what turns you on. The purpose of the prom was undermined by a political statement. She wasn't oppressed. She had equal rights to wear, date and engage in sexual activity just as any other attendee. Unfortunately, she wanted to use the prom to further her agenda. Proms are about football games and a dance, not media camera's in the parking lot to witness a lesbian attending a prom. Gays and lesbians attend proms every year in every town. The school wanted a prom not a gay rights event.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Your link doesn't contradict anything I've said. No one was allowed to attend, the event was canceled.
*sigh* Don't be deliberately obtuse. They were denied attendance before it was cancelled. Then the ACLU threatened suit if they were not allowed to attend. Then the school cancelled it. The article makes this clear. Read it.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
exactly.
I'll repeat myself:
The tux wearing lesbian could have shown up at the door with her date and would've been let in. The fact is, she's the only one who "announced" what she was going to wear, who her date was and her sexual preference. The school isn't interested in what you wear, who your date is or what turns you on. The purpose of the prom was undermined by a political statement. She wasn't oppressed. She had equal rights to wear, date and engage in sexual activity just as any other attendee. Unfortunately, she wanted to use the prom to further her agenda. Proms are about football games and a dance, not media camera's in the parking lot to witness a lesbian attending a prom. Gays and lesbians attend proms every year in every town. The school wanted a prom not a gay rights event.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The school isn't interested in what you wear, who your date is or what turns you on.
Apparently, the school is very interested. If they weren't interested, they would still have let her attend, no matter what she announced.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The school isn't interested in what you wear, who your date is or what turns you on.
Yes, they don't care SO MUCH that they cancelled it.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: She wasn't oppressed. She had equal rights to wear, date and engage in sexual activity just as any other attendee.
The post *right above yours* talks about how this simply is not true! Do you understand it? Or do you just bypass it?
Sigh. I should stop asking these questions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
malanthrop,
quote:The school is free to expel anyone who attends their private institution while protesting the foundations of the institution.
Thank you for pointing out what no one was contesting in the first place. Quite helpful and relevant.
quote: They weren't expelled for their perceived sin, they were expelled for openly opposing the institution.
Considering their defiance was expressly related to their perceived sin, the distinction is pretty academic. These children were expelled because their parents were being uppity, at least so far as the reports say so far. More may come out later, it's true.
quote: The lesbian couple only impacted the prom for making an issue out of it. They were free to go but they ruined the prom for everyone by making their attendance a political statement. The student's, not the school turned the event into a statement on gay acceptance. Is there some sort of application for prom attendance that asks your sexuality? The student's made it a protest issue and ruined it for everyone.
How on Earth do you know they were free to go together? Not that I expect you to actually answer that straightforward and direct question. Your usual pattern in such cases is to either behave as though it were never asked, or reply without ever actually addressing it. You don't know that they were free to go. You don't know that they could have gone together, romantically, with their peers and teachers and staff knowing that, and would have been permitted to do so. You are aware, aren't you, that students are turned away from school dances at the door for various violations?
You're right about one thing, though: they made their attendance a political statement, that political statement being that it's not any of the school board's damned business if some of their students decide voluntarily to attend a dance as a homosexual couple, any more than it's their business to involve themselves in heterosexual couples they disapprove of for whatever ignorant tight-ass reason they may have.
Given that the school had a policy in place specifically prohibiting same-sex couples from attending, your objections as usual are so much bunk.
quote: Prom's aren't about sexuality.
Wrong. Proms are very much about sexuality. They're not entirely about sexuality, but then again very few important human activities are actually about one thing and one thing only. They're so much about sexuality that losing one's virginity after the prom is a cliche. They're also about dancing, corsages, alcohol, the senior year of high school, decorating, bands, making dates, finding dates, dressing up, doing one's hair, going out to fancy restaurants, and going to parties afterwards.
quote:It can't be equated to a black boy and white girl getting kicked out at the door. The lesbian's would've been let in and could've danced together. PDA is not tolerated at these events in any form, hetero or otherwise.
Given that they were barred based on a completely arbitrary cultural distinction, it can very much be equated to barring a couple on racial grounds. Again, you don't know they would've been let in. And finally, it's obvious your knowledge of high school dances is narrow indeed, because PDA is absolutely tolerated at least to some extent at many of them. It depends on what you mean by 'PDA'. If you mean grinding to booty dance music, then rarely yes. If by 'PDA' you mean 'openly attending and dancing with a date of one's choice', then as usual you're wrong as wrong can be.
quote:Was she turned around at the door for wearing a tuxedo? The event was canceled because she announced that she was the man in the relationship and intended to wear a tuxedo with her lesbian girlfriend in order to make a statement. No one announces to the world what they intend to wear to the prom.
So, wearing a tuxedo means she is declaring herself the man in the relationship? This is yet another thing you have no way of knowing. Perhaps she likes tuxedos. Perhaps her date just really liked dresses, outweighing her own like of dresses. Perhaps she herself doesn't like dresses-as shocking as it might seem to you with your enlightened perspective and happens-to-be-Jamaican neighbors, not everyone heterosexual woman likes dresses.
quote:They didn't cancel the prom because a girl showed up in a tux. She never even had a chance to show up. A known joker/funny guy at my high school prom showed up in a dress. Everyone laughed and the prom went on. Some showed up with tux t-shirts. Some boys and girls came alone. Some boys came together and some girls came together.
How do you know he was joking? Perhaps it was a clever hiding-in-plain-sight kind of thing. Anyway, he wasn't 'declaring himself a woman' by wearing a dress, so why must this lesbian be declaring herself the man by wearing a tux?
quote: The fact that we know she was going to show up with a tux illustrates the fact that she was making a statement out of the event. Had she just shown up with her date, she'd have been let in. That high school is without a prom but she's happy because the world knows that she wishes she was a man and prefers other women.
More stuff you not only don't know, but have no way of knowing.
quote:Proms aren't about statements and everyone is welcome to attend.
If any further evidence were needed that you not only didn't know what you were talking about, but had an agenda to shill for, this would suffice.
quote:The fact is, she's the only one who "announced" what she was going to wear, who her date was and her sexual preference.
But then you said this. Who is dating who and who is wearing what is a big deal for high school proms.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Who is dating who and who is wearing what is only a big deal to the students attending the prom.
I was voted junior prince at one of mine, my date and girlfriend wasn't the princess. How insensitive of the school to "make me" dance with someone else for the royal dance. I saw the pain in her eyes but did the one dance with the other girl.
School proms do not ask who you are bringing, what you are going to wear or what is your sexuality.
PDA might be tolerated at some schools but proms aren't for the expression of sexuality. I'm sure Hatrack has discussed the the private proms students have organized since their school's prom is nothing but fighting and hip-hop dry humping. Of course those private proms were considered racist segregation.
Lesbians and gays have attended proms for a very long time. A couple high school lesbians decided to have what they thought would be a Rosa Parks moment. The only difference is, Rosa Parks was actually not allowed to sit in the front. If a black woman decided to make a scene for no reason, the bus would be pulled over and the route stopped. Rosa Parks wasn't allowed in the front and took a legitimate stand. These lesbians are no different than a black who randomly decides to stand up in the front of the bus and call the driver a racist for no reason. Him getting kicked off the bus isn't proof of the drivers racism.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Nope, not even close. I know that in several similar situations the school was proactive in finding out who was going with who, and most of the schools I know of have dress codes that specifically spell out what is and is not allowed if someone expects to be let in.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that they would have been turned away at the door.
Where the heck do you get this crap, mal? I mean, don't you at least TRY to look like you have a clue? I haven't seen such complete bull being called fact sine the last time I watched Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Who is dating who and who is wearing what is only a big deal to the students attending the prom.
:snort: Mal, this in the face of the prom being canceled over these two things. Two things the school had policies concerning. Sounds like somebody cared.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
malanthrop,
quote:Who is dating who and who is wearing what is only a big deal to the students attending the prom.
Well, yes. That's like saying who wins the game is only a big deal to those watching and playing the football game.
quote:I was voted junior prince at one of mine, my date and girlfriend wasn't the princess. How insensitive of the school to "make me" dance with someone else for the royal dance. I saw the pain in her eyes but did the one dance with the other girl.
Thank you for that completely irrelevant but self-promoting story.
quote:School proms do not ask who you are bringing, what you are going to wear or what is your sexuality.
Considering that this school had a specific policy in place for this prom, once again you're completely wrong. Will you man up and acknowledge that, or pretend it was never said?
quote: PDA might be tolerated at some schools but proms aren't for the expression of sexuality. I'm sure Hatrack has discussed the the private proms students have organized since their school's prom is nothing but fighting and hip-hop dry humping. Of course those private proms were considered racist segregation.
You're completely ignoring what I said, responding as though I never said it. How surprising! Proms are definitely, in part, expressions of sexuality. It's a function about going out on dates and dancing as couples. Why do people do those things? At least in part because of sexuality. Your point about private proms is completely irrelevant too, and it's amusing that in your open-minded Jamaican loving outlook, the bad private proms were the 'black' ones.
quote: Lesbians and gays have attended proms for a very long time. A couple high school lesbians decided to have what they thought would be a Rosa Parks moment. The only difference is, Rosa Parks was actually not allowed to sit in the front. If a black woman decided to make a scene for no reason, the bus would be pulled over and the route stopped. Rosa Parks wasn't allowed in the front and took a legitimate stand. These lesbians are no different than a black who randomly decides to stand up in the front of the bus and call the driver a racist for no reason. Him getting kicked off the bus isn't proof of the drivers racism.
Thanks again, Mr. Irrelevance. You can throw up as much smokescreen and unrelated anecdotes as you like, but people will notice when you don't participate honestly in a discussion. That's why you've got the reputation you have around here. Is your weekend over yet? Will you be going back to working a hundred hours a week, making tons of money, and respecting your Jamaican neighbors soon?
Can't happen soon enough! Anyway, I'ma go back to giving you the same courtesy you do everyone who disagrees inconveniently with you: ignore you.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
My school, 22 years ago, had a registry for people to go, including who their date was, and a dress code. Once again, mal, your opinion stated as fact doesn't actually make it a fact.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:My school, 22 years ago, had a registry for people to go, including who their date was, and a dress code. Once again, mal, your opinion stated as fact doesn't actually make it a fact.
That's the official route for the school knowing who's taking who. The unofficial route is for, y'know, teachers and administrators to have ears and be capable of hearing when many, many students discuss during their free time and during class time who they are taking or being taken by, and who else is going, etc. etc.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
quote:School proms do not ask who you are bringing, what you are going to wear or what is your sexuality.
Actually, mal, the opposite was true at my (public) high school.
When we bought our tickets, we had to write down our name and the name of who we were going with. If we showed up with anyone other than that person (we had to sign in and show ID at the door), we couldn't come in. We were not allowed same-sex dates. When A female friend of mine wanted another female friend of hers (just a friend) from another school to come, she had to have one of her male friends (without a date) sign up the friend as his "date" to get her in. It may have been that these students could have done the same thing, but maybe their own personal sense of integrity wouldn't allow them to.
As for there being no "PDA" at proms... dude, I graduated in 2006. There was... a LOT of PDA at our prom. More than I'd ever seen, anywhere, period. It was dark, and people found corners to hide in. Even the DANCING (if you could call it that) would have gotten you kicked out of anywhere else. Yes, the teachers told people to stop. But 15 teachers can't do much about 400 students.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Who do you think you are, anyway, Tinros? Bringing in your recent personal experiences that directly contradict on the most fundamental level the truth malanthrop is bringing us? Jerk!
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're only grinning because you hate America.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Anyone from that school could attend the prom. The date from another school throws a wrinkle in it. A heterosexual can't just invite their same sex friends to attend the school prom. It's not like each student gets a free ticket to bring any outsider in. No one is turned down for going stag.
The PDA part is also, your experience. It isn't allowed but it is tolerated at crappy schools. I'm sorry your prom was tainted by dance floor dry humping. Perhaps your school should have a student organized, private prom. Of course, that would be considered segregation and attract the attention of the ACLU.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
lol
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Anyone from that school could attend the prom. The date from another school throws a wrinkle in it. A heterosexual can't just invite their same sex friends to attend the school prom.
Yeah I could.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I approve of this high quality thread.
The two proms I attended were at Elvis' house here in Vegas, and Nellis Air Force Base. I graduated high school in 1999.
Maybe things were different back then. There wasn't any dirty dancing, and everyone behaved themselves. There was a girl that had gotten drunk before coming to the dance and we had a good laugh watching her dance. I had known her girlfriend Susan since sixth grade. It wasn't that big of a deal. They danced together during slow songs. Then again, a lot of girls that went by themselves danced with each other. The teachers didn't care.
We have no idea of knowing the true intentions of the girl. Maybe it was what Mal said, maybe it wasn't.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I brought two "just friend" dates with my to my senior prom. I have a picture with one on each arm. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
SOme schools allow that, but some don't. I know mine didn't.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I took a girl who hadn't come out about her homosexuality to my senior prom. I wonder how that'd fly at that school.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
We didn't have prom. Orthodox Jewish high school.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I was a foil for a lesbian prom couple twice when I was a freshman and sophomore (at another school). They had to bring male dates because it was a girl's catholic school (I went to the boys school) and there was no stag option for those proms- you had to have a date. It was fun- I got to dance plenty with my date, who was older than me and really attractive, and I got to be seen at a prom when I was only a freshman, and the other guys from my school were all seniors.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
"Foil"? I thought it was "beard".
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Stumbleupon just brought me this. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Awesome!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
On the one hand, I'm glad someone stepped up and that there's an alternative to no-prom here, or everyone-but-her prom.
On the other hand, I hope the (quite understandably) adversarial, aggressive tone of the event - or is that just the article? - doesn't backfire. However justified, in my experience telling bigots how stupid and hateful they are in plain English doesn't often do very much except maybe make me feel better.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
My suspicion is that the press releases associated with it may convey the "screw you and your narrow beliefs" tone that is obviously implied, but I don't think the event itself would be that way, and ultimately what matters is will the kids get the fun event that they all want. (Though the fact that at least some of them will notice that this event is being funded by a humanist organization is certainly a plus. Parents and school administrators may be pissed, but kids are the future as the saying goes and think this will play out as an overall win for non-narrowminded-ness)
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
See, I get the impression that this is a very religious town. I can't help but wonder how many parents won't let their students attend simply because it's a humanist organization putting it on, and they're worried for some reason.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well Tinros, in a town that 'religious', I think a bunch of initial response like that is inevitable regardless of whatever them damn dirty humanists do.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Heh. It's unfortunate, certainly. It's a genuinely compassionate act on the part of that organization, I think.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I can't help but wonder how many parents won't let their students attend simply because it's a humanist organization putting it on, and they're worried for some reason.
At least if that happens, those kids won't be able to blame their ruined senior year on Constance McMillen anymore.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:See, I get the impression that this is a very religious town. I can't help but wonder how many parents won't let their students attend simply because it's a humanist organization putting it on, and they're worried for some reason.
Oh I'm sure that will happen. And while they might be initially pissed, I'm sure a number of those students will eventually look back on the situation and believe their parents did the right thing. But those kids were going to grow up and be like their folks anyway. If no one had made a big deal about this, all other things being equal, most students in this town would probably would have ended up with beliefs similar to their parents.
Whereas now, a much larger portion of the student population is going to notice a) that the school decided to close down one of the biggest events in senior year so that two girls couldn't go, and b) that a humanist organization was the one that held the event instead. And as Sean noted, if parents forbid their kids to go it redirects their outrage from the girl in question to the stoic religious beliefs of the community.
There's still going to be some backlash, but overall this is about as big a win as you could reasonably expect for the forces of anti-narrowmindedness.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Well I guess I'm on equal ground and negate all your arguments about all high school proms.
My high school prom didn't require me to register what I was wearing, what was my sexuality and who my date was prior to being allowed to attend.
It's unfortunate that so many of you attended schools with such elitist, snobby and sexist concerns.
At my school, having a school ID got you in. They didn't care if you wore a tux or a tux t-shirt. You could go stag or with a group of guys. There was only one rule,,....you need permission to bring a student from another school.
This lesbian's girlfriend from another school was denied. Hetero's from other schools are also denied, every day.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
I hope the administration listens to Ellen and reinstates the prom, but I am not crossing my fingers.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Constance is loving it. Lesbian's attend proms together all the time. Constance is no different than the family of the Balloon Boy.
Constance made a scene out of nothing. The heterosexual without a date who was denied attendance of his best friend from another school equals her. She isn't a civil rights leader. She wanted attention and got it. Regular people, gay or not, don't announce what they are going to wear to the prom. Constance = balloon boy. No brave Rosa Parks in this story.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
mal, are you Christian? If so, there's a little commandment about bearing false witness you should look into... you know, nothing major, certainly not more important than the stuff about ritual sacrifices of lambs and whatnot, but there nevertheless. Could be useful.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Oh, and if you aren't Christian? Then just shut the hell up.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:Regular people, gay or not, don't announce what they are going to wear to the prom.
This made me giggle. Mal, have you ever spent any time with teenage girls around prom time? They announce what they're going to wear all the time, discuss it, brag about it. Even at my school (mostly we weren't very fashion concious), there was a lot of this. It's prom.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, it's statements like that that underscore just how little he actually understands about this topic, Bella Bee. And he's been saying that sort of thing since the beginning of the thread, no less, a week ago. No matter how many people speak up and say, "This is completely mistaken," he persists in posting them.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yeah, it's statements like that that underscore just how little he actually understands about this topic, Bella Bee.
Oh, he understands it just fine. He's deliberately misrepresenting it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
One of my coworkers is actually getting ready to go to prom with her boyfriend. We have talked excitedly ALL WEEK about her dress.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Telling your friends isn't an announcement. I didn't storm into the principle's office and say, I'm a heterosexual who's going to wear a green vested tux and I want to bring a girl from another town. If I had and he denied her attendance, I wouldn't call up the local press and claim discrimination.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:If I had and he denied her attendance, I wouldn't call up the local press and claim discrimination.
First of all, why not? If a heterosexual couple did that the principal would say "Um, okay? Please leave my office." No one would get barred from anything. Second, why do you think they did anything resembling "storming" anyone?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Heterosexuals get denials of this kind everyday. This is no different than a minority crying discrimination for not getting a promotion. Non-minorities are denied promotions every day and heterosexuals aren't always allowed to bring outsiders to the prom. This is a case-by-case decision. In this case, the girl wanted her Rosa Parks moment. The school wanted a prom not a Balloon Boy version of Brown VS the Board of Ed event.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
In a public school this should be an issue, IMO. For a Catholic school, I'd say the freedom of religion clause matches the anti-discrimination laws pretty evenly, so I am not sure who would win in court.
I'd say the school, actually.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Was this incident in a Catholic school? If it were, this thread is completely pointless. I was kicked out of a Catholic school for refusing to play football another season.
Private institutions make their own rules.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Was this incident in a Catholic school? If it were, this thread is completely pointless.
No, it's not. For the same reason it's not pointless to talk about the DC archdiocese deciding to drop their support of orphans because the city dared to let gay couples adopt.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Well, no, that isn't a very good comparison. There, they were objecting to a city policy. Here, they're choosing not to hold a school event. One is internal, one is at least partially external. Both are wrongheaded, but a school has the right to choose who attends, who doesn't, what events are held, what events aren't.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The reason both share that make talk and threads about it not completely pointless is because talking about the guts of either decision hack away at the culture of reactionary homophobia.
Either situation, when talked about, help solidify the doomed nature of yesteryear's anti-gay institutional prejudices.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Private institutions have the right to do as they please.
The KKK could form a private school. What minority would want to attend? I don't complain about BET (Black Entertainment TV). When the racist shoe is on the other foot, it's a big deal. Minorities are the greatest segregationists of all.
The lesbian prom attendee at a Catholic school is equivalent to a KKK member making a stink for being shut out of BET.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The lesbian prom attendee at a Catholic school is equivalent to a KKK member making a stink for being shut out of BET.
First of all, I think that's a ridiculous analogy, but I'm not going to bother addressing it because it doesn't matter.
This is a a PUBLIC high school, isn't it? "Itawamba County School District" would be an awfully odd name for a private Catholic school.
Point being that while private institutions may be able to get away with certain things public schools can't discriminate.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That may be my mistake...I thought it was a Catholic school. There was a case like this involving a Catholic school a few months back, and I think I confused them in my head, then talked about them on a previous page as if they were the same case. Sorry about that.
If you accept federal monies, you are bound by the rules that govern them, plain and simple. That being said, dress codes can be enforced at school events, so it is a little bit of a gray area.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The lesbian prom attendee at a Catholic school is equivalent to a KKK member making a stink for being shut out of BET.
Yeah, I want a KKK member to come up to me and say that being a member of the KKK isn't a matter of choice.
Superbly terrible analogy, there.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I would note that you are probably equally hard pressed to find a KKK member who thinks that being gay IS a matter of choice.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Being gay is a choice. Pedophiles aren't granted the same accord for succumbing to their "natural" desires. Behavior is a choice. The law decides what behavior is accepted by society. Some people have a predisposition for thrill seeking. Some become sky divers and others bank robbers.
Public schools can and do discriminate. Some schools don't allow anyone from another school to attend their prom. They must really be elitist to not accept anyone from outside their organization. Most schools don't allow non-high school students to attend. Why shut out an 18 year old college student when his date is a 19 year old high school senior? They must hate college kids.
It's not uncommon for a high school student to be denied attendance of their date of choice. If her lesbian girlfriend was from the same school, they could've attended together. No one from outside that school has a right to attend.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
The school already had a policy requiring prom dates to be opposite sex.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
The school already had a policy requiring prom dates to be opposite sex.
(That double post is not a mistake - just trying to be sure you see it.)
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: The school already had a policy requiring prom dates to be opposite sex.
(That double post is not a mistake - just trying to be sure you see it.)
Sorry, double posts are annoying - no matter what the reason.
But what's your point? Surely you're not saying that just because the policy was already there it's OK? That it doesn't matter whether or not the rule is discriminatory just because it was "already on the books"?
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by just_me: But what's your point? Surely you're not saying that just because the policy was already there it's OK?
No, I'm not saying it's ok. It's despicable. My point is, mal keeps insisting that if Constance McMillan and her date just showed up to the prom, without making any kind of "announcement", they would have been admitted. He is incorrect, because they already had a policy in place to deny them admittance.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Being gay is a choice. Pedophiles aren't granted the same accord for succumbing to their "natural" desires.
yes, thank you for being a supreme jerk yet again comparing gays to pedophiles.
It's yet another useless comparison. The same accord is not granted to pedophiles when and where they engage in relationships that are impossible for meaningful consent to exist within, not because it's a matter of 'choice.'
Let's try something out. Let's see if you can voluntarily abstain from making another gauche comparison where gays are equivalent to pedophiles. I know you can. I know you're tempted to. But let's see if you can take my word over the fact that it's supremely offensive and will score you no points for style and substance. Can you manage? Is it even possible for you?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: The school already had a policy requiring prom dates to be opposite sex.
It's probably more than likely that state has a law requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman. Just because you want something doesn't make it's opposition unjust. The fifteen year old girl can't have a 30 year old date. Their consensual behavior doesn't make it acceptable. Ask the 30 year old who landed in jail.
Maybe some day soon homosexuals will be accepted as you wish. Only 20 years ago it was considered a mental disorder. What do you expect? We're trying to normalize a behavior that defies the laws of natural selection. You don't have to be religious to be confused by this "natural" phenomena. If it is a natural genetic condition, it's self defeating and shouldn't exist. Natural selection should have eliminated this biological predisposition. Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end road. Of course, pedophiles can't help themselves either....most of them are same sex too.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end road. Of course, pedophiles can't help themselves either....most of them are same sex too.
Apparently not. You can't help but be a needlessly inflammatory poster who only hurts his own side.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: We're trying to normalize a behavior that defies the laws of natural selection. You don't have to be religious to be confused by this "natural" phenomena. If it is a natural genetic condition, it's self defeating and shouldn't exist. Natural selection should have eliminated this biological predisposition. Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end road. Of course, pedophiles can't help themselves either....most of them are same sex too.
Don't bring natural selection and 'genetic conditions' into the discussion if you don't understand them. And it's plain you don't. I don't really understand them either, but I know enough to know that a) natural selection does not work on solely one factor, and b) there are such things as recessive genes, for example.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If it is a natural genetic condition, it's self defeating and shouldn't exist. Natural selection should have eliminated this biological predisposition.
This fallacy of yours was shot down quite some time ago.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: The school already had a policy requiring prom dates to be opposite sex.
It's probably more than likely that state has a law requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman. Just because you want something doesn't make it's opposition unjust. The fifteen year old girl can't have a 30 year old date. Their consensual behavior doesn't make it acceptable. Ask the 30 year old who landed in jail.
I have no idea what this has to do with what you quoted.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Hey, whenever I see Mal posting on the side of homosexuality-as-choice I cringe. Speaking as a bisexual man, I am wholly unconvinced that homosexuality is a genetic condition. This is not to say that it is a fully controllable choice for everyone. I think it's likely that for a majority of individuals, homosexual or not, the roots of their sexuality are so thoroughly ingrained in them that there's little chance they'll change. Why would they? People who try to change aren't usually doing it because that's what they want. They're doing it because they want the social acceptance that it would grant. It's an essential distinction.
Instead of likening it to something repulsive like pedophilia, I'd liken it to something innocuous and basic. Like, say: Food preferences.
I know a guy who hates eggs. Hates 'em! Is this genetic? I doubt it. I see no compelling evidence for that. But who cares? Could he start liking eggs if he tried? Well, how would he do that? Why? Let's say he gets ridiculed for hating eggs. So he forces himself to eat eggs, to avoid ridicule.
That's a miserable situation. How likely is it that he'll start liking eggs based on this? I think he might even hate eggs more at the end of the day.
Let's say instead that he genuinely wants to like eggs more, so he can enjoy the various egg dishes he's missing. He starts slowly introducing egg products in his meals, until he either decides it's not working and gives up, or keeps going and eventually decides eggs are actually pretty cool.
Okay, great, so that's my view on sexuality in a nutshell.
But I don't think any of this really matters. I don't like it when the only defense people can make for homosexuality is "they can't help it, they were born that way!" That's crap. In my view, consenting homosexual relationships are a completely reasonable choice. They don't need any other justification, any more than three consenting adults need to justify or defend their polyamorous relationship, or two consenting adults need to justify their platonic relationship, or two consenting adults need to justify their no-strings-attached sexual relationship.
Mal's problem is not that he says homosexuality is a choice. It's that he thinks this makes it even more squicky than if it was uncontrollable. It doesn't. Homosexuality isn't squicky, period.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
For many people, their sexuality seems to exist on a spectrum where they're predisposed to view one gender more desirable to some degree. Other folks are strictly binary.
So for someone who's easily attracted to either gender, I suppose it would be a choice. For someone who's heavily weighted in favor of one gender, I'm not sure the word adequately describes the situation. It seems more fair to say exceptions are sometimes made to the rule. And for others, there's no choice involved. Only one gender is ever desirable.
Personally, I see the choice/no choice dynamic as being more an issue of not understanding the range of views on sexuality out there. It's never going to describe gays in general; it's never going to reveal grand sweeping truths. It's a dynamic I personally find interesting, but I'm not sure it's much more than that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: Speaking as a bisexual man, I am wholly unconvinced that homosexuality is a genetic condition.
There's underlying physiological traits and heritability patterns which suggest a genetic component, but at best we can only guess that it seeds the "potential" to, for whatever reasons, express as gay.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
I don't know how some here would dlassify me -- I am opposed to gay marriage and feel that the normalization of homosexuality in school curriculums is wrong. Yet I do not have anything against homosexuals in the military and feel positive towards lesbians who choose artificial insemination to have families.
Now as for the prom thing, I think canceling prom is dumb. By now the vast majority of junior and senior students have seen girls making out in music videos and probably most have seen porn involving women having sex with women. I really doubt letting this girl go to prom with another girl will cause anyone thre to go gay, if that is what the school administration is worried about.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
quote:There's underlying physiological traits and heritability patterns which suggest a genetic component, but at best we can only guess that it seeds the "potential" to, for whatever reasons, express as gay.
Just yesterday I had a long conversation with a woman at work who is bi-sexual. She admits to being predatory and actually enjoys turning heterosexual women to lesbianism. She currently says she has caused 6 women to go gay -- and not just become party lesbians, but totally confront their parents to "come out." I was intrigued by her assertations, and have seen her at play at a convention we both attended. I would not doubt her claims in the least.
So is homosexuality genetic? I really don't think so. I do believe that certain people have a personality predisposition to seek out novelty and that may be a factor.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hold up. I want to get your stance on the matter clear. Do you think that heterosexual adults can be made gay by being pressured to be gay?
Also, do you think that most people's expression of homosexuality — or indeed, much of anyone's at all — is due to them having a personality that draws them to the novelty of being gay?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Being gay is a choice.
What an odd thing to say.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Pedophiles aren't granted the same accord for succumbing to their "natural" desires.
So you don't see any difference between consensual adult relationships and child abuse?
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Behavior is a choice. The law decides what behavior is accepted by society.
It hasn't been all that long since the "behavior" of interracial marriage, or kissing even, was illegal. Laws can be utterly immoral.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: Just yesterday I had a long conversation with a woman at work who is bi-sexual. She admits to being predatory and actually enjoys turning heterosexual women to lesbianism. She currently says she has caused 6 women to go gay -- and not just become party lesbians, but totally confront their parents to "come out." I was intrigued by her assertations, and have seen her at play at a convention we both attended. I would not doubt her claims in the least.
So is homosexuality genetic? I really don't think so. I do believe that certain people have a personality predisposition to seek out novelty and that may be a factor.
The problem is, I'm calling bull***t on that story. I'm not saying that you're making it up; maybe she was. But it sounds way too much like the kind of crap that 'phobes are constantly inventing.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think that for some people it IS a choice. For some, it probably isn't. I don;t think all gay people are the same as each other any more than I think all straight people are the same.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I think that for some people it IS a choice.
So I'd like to know what that view is based on.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Think what you wish Lisa, I have known her for 5 years and she is quite capable of doing exactly as she claims. Like I said, I have seen her basically stalk and seduce. I have a relative who prides herself on being able to get any man or woman she wants as well so it is quite possible.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I have a relative who prides herself on being able to get any man or woman she wants as well so it is quite possible.
It could just as well be that these individuals are particularly talented at recognizing subtle indications of mutable sexual identity.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Yes Matt, but mutable means that a person can be changed. I personally believe that there are many people who are in that category. Again, I doubt there are pheremones or anything that would indicate a physiological predisposition to homosexuality -- but personality factors just might.
I know a girl who had been a striper and had seduced a co-worker. She had even talked marriage with the girl, but eventually dropped the idea since she did not want to get into a socially unacceptable relationship for a lifetime. Now one could speculate that a woman might go into stripping because she has a subconscious desire to be around other naked women, but I doubt it. I think the explaination for her friend going from heterosexuality to contemplating a homosexual marriage has more to do with most women in that occupation being open to novelty and experimentation, not some genetic thing.
[ March 23, 2010, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: michaele8 ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Yes Matt, but mutable means that a person can be changed.
In this context I'm suggesting there are some people that can go either way by nature, not that nature provides that attribute to all. (i.e. a genetic disposition may be towards one end of the spectrum or the other OR toward neither)
Your experience with a person that's good a "switching" supposedly straight people isn't that strong of an argument for a strictly non-genetic cause, especially given much more rigorous research that does indicate a genetic component.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: Think what you wish Lisa, I have known her for 5 years and she is quite capable of doing exactly as she claims.
In order for your anecdote to be true (and thus topple the current well-studied knowledge of human sexuality) you would be claiming confirmability of the notion that she is indeed turning people who were previously heterosexual into gay people, rather than reacting to indicators of interest in an individual whose more mutable and previously present middle position on the kinsey scale is merely closeted.
You can throw anecdote at us but it just shows suggestion to you from a far from rigorous sample and a definitely far from rigorous methodology.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Aaand I'm beaten to it by matt.
Anyway:
quote: I think the explaination for her friend going from heterosexuality to contemplating a homosexual marriage has more to do with most women in that occupation being open to novelty and experimentation, not some genetic thing.
I already asked a question about clarifying the extent to which you apply this whole 'novelty' thing. State clearly what that all is.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: Yes Matt, but mutable means that a person can be changed.
I disagree. Mutable just means bisexual. Sure, someone who is bisexual can go from functioning heterosexually to homosexually and vice versa. What does that have to do with those of us who aren't bi?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
And hey, looks like the bigots lost this time. I'm really surprised.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yay!
Regarding the michael story: My understanding is that women have a higher tendency (genetic or otherwise) to be bisexual/mutable/middle-of-kinsey-scale. Given the general social pressure to be heterosexual, it is not at all surprising you can find plenty of people who are bi but operating as straight.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Edited for basic reading comprehension, I missed the part where alternate proms were already being created.
Still it's to be wondered how many from her school will attend this new prom.
[ March 23, 2010, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Bwuh? The only reason they didn't force the school to hold the prom was that forces were already in motion to get a second prom going.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Bwuh? The only reason they didn't force the school to hold the prom was that forces were already in motion to get a second prom going.
Whoops, missed that part of the article.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Quite true Raymond, or one could say males have an easier time repressing same-sex thoughts and actions than females. Personally, I believe Freud was right on this issue -- humans are born bi-potential and, due to societal pressure and the instinct to reproduce, most will only exhibit heterosexual inclinations. I wonder though, if you gave everyone this test -- http://mysexualorientation.com/ how would they come out (no pun intended)?
Studies on people's physiological reactions to visual stimuli have shown that heterosexual women get as much aroused by viewing lesbian sex as heterosexual sex. Males generally don't find male homosexual sex a turn on. Is that genetic or cultural, who knows?
And could someone please show some of this research that demonstrates some "rigorous" reserch that has been replicated that shows that human sexuality is fixed by some sort of genetic predisposition? I have yet to see anything that clearly shows some are "born" straight and some are born homosexual.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Considering that flies and other well studied creatures have specific genetic markers which determine their sexuality, there is good solid evidence that genes can indeed lead to homosexuality in some species. Knowing that these genes exist in other species, it is not unreasonable to believe that genes could determine sexuality in humans. People are a lot harder to study since for some reason, they object to having their genes manipulated and don't breed where told.
Women are generally pretty easy to arouse- watching monkeys leads to signs of arousal. A woman engaging in sex without arousing is more likely to be injured and damaged, so the theory is that any hints at sex in the future will lead to arousal. Also, why a lot of woman are aroused when raped- they didn't enjoy it or want it, but their body did everything it could to protect them.
I think some people are one way, some the other and some get to choose. Since some people get to choose, it does confuse the issue.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Considering that flies and other well studied creatures have specific genetic markers which determine their sexuality, there is good solid evidence that genes can indeed lead to homosexuality in some species.
The problem with this is that most non-human brains (and non-human personalities) are less complex than human ones. And I'm not just talking like, a smidge less complex. The difference is several orders of magnitude.
Flies, for example, have a very limited scope of behavior and actions. So a genetic predisposition could actually create a significant and noticeable effect.
I haven't seen any compelling evidence that humans have a genetic predisposition with regards to sexuality. I definitely haven't seen any compelling evidence that such a genetic predisposition is strong enough to actually have a meaningful effect on our vastly superior, and vastly more complex, brains (slash personalities).
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I think that for some people it IS a choice.
So I'd like to know what that view is based on.
Based on years of observation by psychologists, by the fact that there tends to be common events in homosexuals histories, and by the fact that people rarely do things for one reason alone.
I believe, and modern science has so far seemed to confirm this, that genetics can make people predisposed to some sorts of behavior, but that cultural factors and personal history are actually much better predictors of human behavior.
I know some of my gay friends feel like they had little choice because they had always felt they were gay, before they even knew what gay was.
Human sexuality is most often viewed as a spectrum rather than as a black or white choice these days. It's kinda funny for me in a personal way, although it was tough for me when I was younger. I had a lot of people assume I was gay....I was smaller than my classmates, sensitive, loved kids, played flute, and didn't really date much.
But I never once was attracted to men. I always liked women, but I was socially awkward around them, and 'had no confidence regarding my appearance or attractiveness. I had cystic acne on my chest, and it really affected my confidence regarding dating. Plus, I didn't like the say most guys seemed to treat their girlfriends....but I had no idea how to date.
Just because a guy is sensitive, non-athletic, musical, and caring doesn't mean he is gay.
I have quite a few friends who are gay, and it's a mixed bag. Some probably were programmed from day one....but some of them clearly chose this lifestyle. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Eh, Wikipedia links to this:
quote:... in men, genetic effects explained .34-.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61-.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18-.19 for genetic factors, .16-.17 for shared environmental, and 64-.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.
Although you can debate to what extent that nonshared environment is a product of individual choice, I personally do not have a problem with the idea that same-sex behaviour could be a result of many factors, but with strong genetic and environmental components.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
The thing is, if, let’s say, novelty seeking, or creativity, are a factor of genetics in any way would we not expect that people with high levels of this trait would be more likely to engage in behaviors that are out-of-the-norm? So a society that still holds out that same-sex behaviors are unusual, which will always be the case I believe, yet still allows the behavior (or even makes it a protected legal class) then you will have more people begin to experiment with it and maybe see themselves as having a same-sex orientation? Personally, I think that homosexuality may be an associated genetic variable to novelty seeking, but not the actual trait that a gene might cause – if by some chance homosexuality were determined to have a genetic basis in humans.
It would be like saying that people with blue eyes are more sexually promiscuous than people with brown eyes and trying to prove the hypothesis by comparing pre-marital sexual habits of Swedes and Saudi Arabians. Sure, you will find that the blue-eyed sample is way more promiscuous than the brown-eyed Saudi people, but to say that the genes that cause blue eyes are also responsible for promiscuity would be to extrapolate an incorrect conclusion due to your samples.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Mucas, that's pretty much what I believe as well. I don't rule out a disposition for same sex attraction, but not every person who is gay would have it, nor would every person who has it be gay.
There are very, very few things that are completely predetermined from a biological standpoint regarding human behaviors. I think it is as ridiculous to say that all gay people are that way for biological reasons as it is to say that there is no possible biological factors involved. There are a multitude of factors that influence human behavior, and human sexual behavior is even less understood than other branches, IMO.
Who would have guessed I'd believe that there are individual reasons for each person that affect their sexuality. Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
By the way -- getting banned from prom is minor when we consider what some people want to do to homosexuals:
Well, anything is minor when compared with something more extreme. Does it make the less extreme behavior ok?
Personally, I'm glad I live in a country where acceptance has gotten to the point where a lesbian high school student getting banned from her prom is a big deal...<eta>...and the intolerants lose.</eta>
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:. Personally, I believe Freud was right on this issue -- humans are born bi-potential and, due to societal pressure and the instinct to reproduce, most will only exhibit heterosexual inclinations.
The question is, why do you believe this? is it based on anything more rigorous than what came before?
Also, you still haven't addressed my questions about the 'novelty' thing even though you've brought it up again as a feature of your personal views.
Kwea:
quote:Based on years of observation by psychologists, by the fact that there tends to be common events in homosexuals histories, and by the fact that people rarely do things for one reason alone.
Things like common events in homosexual histories make a complex cause possible for determining how this shared group could have ended up gay, but it doesn't make a case for how your sexuality is a choice once it is expressed. To say that being gay is a choice once you are gay means that you can choose to not be gay. Do you believe there is a significant subset of gay people who can choose not to be gay?
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Okay, Samprimary, here goes:
In the case of males we see that in many societies in ancient history that once the prohibitions against same-sex behavior were taken away the prevelance of the behavior increased. Prisons are also an example where we find same-sex behaviors common. One cannot prove the Freudian view, any more than any other theory though. In the case of women, most women get stimulated by viewing lesbian sex scenes. Also, many women who consider themselves straight will go bi or lesbian if they get involved in environments where it is common (i.e. stripping, porn or swinging). I am not so much concerned with moral judgements in this case as just the psychological aspects of orientation change in these environments. Also, ask the average heterosexual woman to be truthful and answer if they would go on a date someone like Angelina Jolie if given the chance. I have asked that to many downright homophobic women and gotten the silly grin and the nod of the head in the affirmative. So yes, I believe society has a lot to do with sexual expression and I believe that almost everyone who opposes the normalization of homosexuality agrees, or else they would not be so against their children being exposed to teachings that it is okay. As for novelty, I have read research to suggest that some people are way more prone to experiment and seek novel experiences so I believe that if this trait has a genetic basis you would find it over-represented in gay and bi populations.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In the case of males we see that in many societies in ancient history that once the prohibitions against same-sex behavior were taken away the prevelance of the behavior increased.
You may have a chicken/egg problem here, though. Did the behavior increase because the prohibitions were taken away, and thus more people were inclined to try it? Did the prohibitions get taken away because the behavior had become widespread? Did as many people try it as before, but did so more openly because the prohibitions had been removed?
What you're doing is preselecting the answers to those questions which reaffirm your own biases.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Also, ask the average heterosexual woman to be truthful and answer if they would go on a date someone like Angelina Jolie if given the chance. I have asked that to many downright homophobic women and gotten the silly grin and the nod of the head in the affirmative.
I'm going to call bull on this one. Not just because it's ridiculous, but because I (straight male) would never go on a date with Angelina Jolie. She freaks me out.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Okay, think about it this way. Let's say you live in a society that believes people should wear clothing that covers the entire body -- like in the mid-1850s. You probably would feel really strange if you went outside with your arms exposed while shopping. In fact, you probably think that it's natural for people to be this modest. Now let's say that all laws against public exposure are taken away. In fact, the media as well as the schools teach that we should be accepting of people wearing less clothing and that any notions of modesty your society has is merely an expression of outdated norms.
Will people start testing the limits? Will people experiment with new clothing styles that show off more of the body? I think they would indeed.
Now while the argument over same sex relations may be somewhat different, it still is something that we think of at the core of our belief systems. Some in the forum admit that there are people who are heterosexual, but could be changed under the right circumstances -- I would assume those are highly contingent on the belief system of the individuals. So perhaps instead of throwing terms around like "homophobe" which would mean fear of homosexuals the correct way to look at it is that many people fear that if homosexuality is normalized then their children might be sucked into it (since we have no genetic test to see who is and who isn't persuadable). Personally, I would never pick on anyone due to their sexual orientation, but I am adament against it being taught in schools as equal to heterosexuality.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Maybe it's a choice for some people, who are somewhere in the middle of the sliding sexuality scale mentioned earlier.
But for others it is not a choice. And by being opposed to it being taught in schools as such, you are pushing all of those people for which it is not a choice into a subclass. I don't approve of that for skin color, sex, or sexuality.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
nd for those in the middle you are only increasing their confusion by promoting it as equal to heterosexuality.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
If you see homosexuality as something evil to be suppressed and discouraged, then sure.
If you see homosexuality as something that one either is or isn't, and not an evil thing, then you are simply leaving all options open, and letting each person decide what they are or what they want.
I do believe that more people are accepting this second category. And I believe this trend will continue until the people in the first category give up or just fade into the distance.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I'm going to call bull on this one. Not just because it's ridiculous, but because I (straight male) would never go on a date with Angelina Jolie. She freaks me out.
Yeah, I gotta agree. Jolie is very far down the list of celebrities I would want to date (if I was not already in a relationship).
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I (straight male) would never go on a date with Angelina Jolie. She freaks me out.
This.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am adament against it being taught in schools as equal to heterosexuality.
Equal in what way? You mean an equally valid relationship option?
Why not? It is an equally valid relationship option.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Personally, I would never pick on anyone due to their sexual orientation, but I am adament against it being taught in schools as equal to heterosexuality.
One, it's frankly difficult to believe you wouldn't pick on someone for their sexuality if you support frank teaching in public schools that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality.
Two, even if I did believe you wouldn't pick on someone for being gay, I have to point out: advocating a public stance that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality is actually, y'know, state-sanctioned picking on.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Why not? It is an equally valid relationship option.
I definitely don't want to be the wing man on this argument, but I'm curious what you mean by 'valid relationship'?
(<--Honestly just asking, not trying to make some broader point about ... well anything really)
Hobbes Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, you weren't asking me, but I think it's equally valid if by valid you mean 'ought to granted approval or disapproval by the state'.
For what we decide goes into our public school curriculum, that's the only standard that matters.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: Okay, Samprimary, here goes:
In the case of males we see that in many societies in ancient history that once the prohibitions against same-sex behavior were taken away the prevelance of the behavior increased. Prisons are also an example where we find same-sex behaviors common.
As Tom mentioned, you are selecting interpreted causes that only reaffirm a presupposition. If you have credible evidence to this fact (and no, your anecdote about asking women if they'd bone Angelina Jolie isn't really what I'm going to base psychosexual theory on) then please, present it.
quote:One cannot prove the Freudian view, any more than any other theory though.
This is, so far, the most outright false thing you have said. Can you guess why?
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
I see homosexuality in the same context that I would someone promoting the idea that people should not have kids. It is ultimately something that goes against both genetic and cultural survival. So in that respect, it is inferior to heterosexuality. Of course, if lesbians want to have families then they are at least following the commandments of the Bible and multiplying -- more so than many heterosexual materialists are doing today.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Well, you weren't asking me, but I think it's equally valid if by valid you mean 'ought to granted approval or disapproval by the state'.
For what we decide goes into our public school curriculum, that's the only standard that matters.
Hmm, I think that your definition of 'valid' makes sense. I think I agree with a lot of different definitions (which is why I asked, I couldn't narrow it down enough) but I have no qualms with this one.
I disagree with the second part though. That sounds to me like you're saying that if it's legal it ought to be taught as being on the same level with any other legal option. Maybe it's not what you're saying, but then my question would be how you would interpret the difference between "legal" and "promoted".
Moving away from our specific topic to something more illustrative, I don't think most people would approve of a school teaching abortion as equal to or as good as adoption. There's a difference between teaching what's available and declaring two (or more) things to be equal. Probably if I had slept in the last 24 hours I would be able to come up with a better example than abortion (which is hardly less charged than homosexual marriage) but I haven't so hopefully you understand my concern even if I'm not stating it well.
Hobbes Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: ... someone promoting the idea that people should not have kids. It is ultimately something that goes against both genetic and cultural survival.
I find this a little doubtful. What we find as we move from species to species is not in fact that the more offspring a species has, the more successful it is. In fact, there has to be an equilibrium both between the species and environment and the amount of investment that can be allocated to each offspring.
Hmmmm, zero google matches. At least its creative, what precisely do you mean by this new phrase?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think once the "God tells us we should have a lot of kids" argument has been presented, it's a pretty strong sign that this argument is largely pointless.
My final point would be that there are 500,000 children in the US foster system (let alone rest of the world) that need homes, and arguing that a particular relationship is less valuable because it can't produce its own children is pointless until that statistic is anywhere approaching zero.
[ March 25, 2010, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: I see homosexuality in the same context that I would someone promoting the idea that people should not have kids.
Interesting idea, Clive/Cindy/Michael. I'll mention it to my daughter.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: I see homosexuality in the same context that I would someone promoting the idea that people should not have kids.
Actually, it would be more like someone promoting the idea that people who do not want to have kids should not have kids.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It is ultimately something that goes against both genetic and cultural survival. So in that respect, it is inferior to heterosexuality.
If you really believed in this reasoning, you would be advocating for state-taught inferiority of a whole host of things other than homosexuality. Furthermore, you don't have enough evidence to say that it 'goes against' either cultural or genetic survival, though plenty of people - mostly in your camp - like to make grandiose claims about what tolerating homosexuality will do to the gene pool and the culture, when the truth is they have no better an idea than the rest of us, and worse than many.
quote:Of course, if lesbians want to have families then they are at least following the commandments of the Bible and multiplying -- more so than many heterosexual materialists are doing today.
And...following the commandments of the Christian Bible should play what role, exactly, in what we teach in public schools?
-----
quote:I disagree with the second part though. That sounds to me like you're saying that if it's legal it ought to be taught as being on the same level with any other legal option. Maybe it's not what you're saying, but then my question would be how you would interpret the difference between "legal" and "promoted".
What I really mean is that public schools oughtn't be in the business of promoting any morality that isn't rooted in obvious, easily demonstrated concepts like 'cheating is bad' and 'killing is bad' and 'stealing is bad' sort of thing. Schools should be in the business of advocating that sort of morality, because they're things literally everyone can agree on. What schools shouldn't do, though, is step into backing specific unverified religious precepts such as 'homosexuality is bad'. Take away the Bible, and we just don't know it is.
I (as an American citizen) don't particularly care if you (general you) know it is. If you can't demonstrate it to me without begging the question (looking to the Bible like michael is), then it doesn't belong in our public schools. We've got private schools and churches and homes for that. No one gets to coopt the public schools as their pulpit.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end road. Of course, pedophiles can't help themselves either....most of them are same sex too.
Apparently not. You can't help but be a needlessly inflammatory poster who only hurts his own side.
Just because what I state is interpreted as offensive doesn't hurt my "own side". Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end road. If you can support natural selection and homosexuality, we'll have a logical debate.
Pro gay supporters like to point to historical evidence of homosexual relationships in our history dating back to ancient times. There is far more historical evidence supporting married, heterosexual mothers at the age of 14. Like the mother of Christ. Was the mother of Christ the victim of pedophilia? For that matter, was your great-great grandmother molested resulting in your life today? Are you the spawn of a pedophile?
Pedophilia and homosexuality are current legal/social definitions of the day. I'm sorry homosexuality acceptance hasn't kept pace with having sex with 14 year olds. There is more evidence of accepted "pedophilia" than homosexuality in our history.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote: If you can support natural selection and homosexuality, we'll have a logical debate.
There are multiple theories for the selective benefit of homosexuality. That you are unaware of them doesn't make homosexuality an evolutionary dead end.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm sorry homosexuality acceptance hasn't kept pace with having sex with 14 year olds. There is more evidence of accepted "pedophilia" than homosexuality in our history.
That's not pedophilia, Mal. Pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children. Attraction to adolescents is... what's it called... ephebophilia? I think that's it. Regardless, attraction to 14 year olds is not pedophilia.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end road. Of course, pedophiles can't help themselves either....most of them are same sex too.
Apparently not. You can't help but be a needlessly inflammatory poster who only hurts his own side.
Just because what I state is interpreted as offensive doesn't hurt my "own side". Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end road. If you can support natural selection and homosexuality, we'll have a logical debate.
Pro gay supporters like to point to historical evidence of homosexual relationships in our history dating back to ancient times. There is far more historical evidence supporting married, heterosexual mothers at the age of 14. Like the mother of Christ. Was the mother of Christ the victim of pedophilia? For that matter, was your great-great grandmother molested resulting in your life today? Are you the spawn of a pedophile?
Pedophilia and homosexuality are current legal/social definitions of the day. I'm sorry homosexuality acceptance hasn't kept pace with having sex with 14 year olds. There is more evidence of accepted "pedophilia" than homosexuality in our history.
I am sort of amazed, like, in more than one way. The first part is the sort of rambling aesthetic here, because I know that all of this makes some kind of sense in your own head and that, more than anything, is what's interesting to think about. Not the argument itself (which is logically incoherent) but what you must think you are accomplishing with it. How it makes sense to you.
The second point of amazement is how utterly irrelevant it is, and how I could be the child of eight consecutive generations of 'pedophiles' and it honestly has nothing to do with what you were challenged on. Some people go for broke in the strangest ways; you go for being as irrelevant as possible and stuffing as many irrelevant tangents into your 'responses' as possible.
i'm sorry you don't understand how acting the way you act does nothing but hurt your own cause. really, I am. if you could have this information imparted to yourself, you would stop your late-night quasi-timecube rants that dig you into a credibility hole that already threatens to poke through to China.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end road. If you can support natural selection and homosexuality, we'll have a logical debate.
This fallacy of yours was shot down quite some time ago.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Fallacy? How many genes get passed down from homosexual couples?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If my brother is gay and acts to protect my child as his own and thereby increases the rate of my progeny's survival, roughly 25% of his genes are passed on. Furthermore, there is some evidence indicating that if my brother is gay, I am more likely to have more children (increased fecundity).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: Fallacy? How many genes get passed down from homosexual couples?
Interesting question. How many genes do you think a typical worker bee helps pass down?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: Fallacy? How many genes get passed down from homosexual couples?
Depends. In addition to the "gay uncle" theory that gays can provide additional support to their siblings and other kin with children because they do not themselves have to expend resources on reproduction, there's also some evidence that suggests that the female siblings of gay men tend to be more fertile, suggesting that perhaps some genetic elements of female fertility are related to male homosexuality. In this sense, some gay men are not are not an evolutionary dead end, but a byproduct of a genetic makeup that may increase overall fertility.
There are other theories as well that explain homosexuality as an evolutionarily advantageous trait rather than a detrimental one.
A lot of people are overly hung up on the effect of individual reproduction when considering evolutionary fitness, but it's much more complex than that. Evolution acts on genes, and genes are shared across multiple individuals. An individual that improves the survival of his close kin may be more successful in having "his" genes survive (through the survival and reproduction of his kin) than one that acts merely in his own interest. Given this, it's possible to imagine many scenarios in which a certain percentage of infertile or non-reproductive individuals could be beneficial to a population.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: Fallacy? How many genes get passed down from homosexual couples?
Simply put, if homosexuality is genetic, you can have the genes for it without it being expressed in you. If it is genetic, it can be passed through straight couples.
ETA: I've mentioned this in another thread, but to believe that natural selection would quickly eliminate homosexual genetics, one must assume that 1) it is caused by a single gene, and not several working in concert, and 2) that any such genes do not also have additional/unrelated beneficial effects.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I haven't read any articles on the subject recently, but it's something I've spent some time learning about in the past.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
I think those assertations that gay men have highly fertile sisters is based on about as much evidence that lesbians have longer ring fingers than index fingers (more than the average in the female population). There could be far more variables involved such as ghomosexuality being something mroe associated with upper classes -- so perhaps diet and nutrition are a factor in their sister's development. And if novelty is a factor in homosexuality perhaps it is associated with intelligence and that could run in families -- I have read that higher intelligence leads to women being more interested in sex. Who knows, but I think basing such a wild assumption on some study in Italy is stretching things a bit. Heck, most gay men I have run into have more boyish looks. If their families have this kind of look maybe that translates out to their sisters looking and activing more feminine and therefore more traditional and family oriented. Attractive women seem to gravitate more to traditional religions and family structures after all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Who knows, but I think basing such a wild assumption on some study in Italy is stretching things a bit.
Is it any worse than filling in hypotheticals via anecdote and personal interpretation? That's the majority of what you have been doing while you're here, so
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The question of 'dead ends' is in any case based on a strawman understanding of evolution. Whether homosexuals pass on their genes or not is utterly irrelevant. A rapist passes on his genes while a celibate priest does not; it does not follow that we should applaud the one or suppress the other. What evolution "approves of" and what humans should approve of are completely separate questions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: Attractive women seem to gravitate more to traditional religions and family structures after all.
??
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: I think those assertations that gay men have highly fertile sisters is based on about as much evidence that lesbians have longer ring fingers than index fingers (more than the average in the female population).
How did you conclude that? Did you read the paper, and draw your conclusion from the evidence and statistical analyses in it? Or are you just stating that you don't believe things you wish were false?
Becuase people respect the former kind of argument. Not so much the latter, at least not on this topic.
quote:There could be far more variables involved such as ghomosexuality being something mroe associated with upper classes -- so perhaps diet and nutrition are a factor in their sister's development.
Do you have evidence and statisitical analyses that this is the case either? Or are you just stating that you believe what you wish to be true? I think it's clear that richer people have resources, and can afford to do things like move to friendly cities, so therefore, there might be a slight correlation between coming out and money. But not every gay person comes out.
quote:And if novelty is a factor in homosexuality
You keep saying this. You have yet to present the slightest bit of evidence that it is so. People naturally have crushes on ohter people. No one chooses whom they will have a crush on as some kind of adventure.
quote:Who knows, but I think basing such a wild assumption on some study in Italy is stretching things a bit.
Right, because Italians aren't 'real Americans', so we should ignore the results of biological studies about them.
And really, do you know what "assumption" menas? It doesn't mean "a conclusion based on evidence and reason", but you seem to be using it that way here.
quote:Heck, most gay men I have run into have more boyish looks.
Right. Based on your arguments here, I bet that gay men fall all over themselves to make sure you know they are gay. Yeah, no biased data set here.
quote:If their families have this kind of look maybe that translates out to their sisters looking and activing more feminine and therefore more traditional and family oriented. Attractive women seem to gravitate more to traditional religions and family structures after all.
You can't think this is a serious argument. No one with a brain would.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Stop feeding the trolls, guys.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: I have read that higher intelligence leads to women being more interested in sex.
I certainly hope it was not in an Italian study where you read this. Those are unreliable.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:What I really mean is that public schools oughtn't be in the business of promoting any morality that isn't rooted in obvious, easily demonstrated concepts like 'cheating is bad' and 'killing is bad' and 'stealing is bad' sort of thing. Schools should be in the business of advocating that sort of morality, because they're things literally everyone can agree on. What schools shouldn't do, though, is step into backing specific unverified religious precepts such as 'homosexuality is bad'. Take away the Bible, and we just don't know it is.
I (as an American citizen) don't particularly care if you (general you) know it is. If you can't demonstrate it to me without begging the question (looking to the Bible like michael is), then it doesn't belong in our public schools. We've got private schools and churches and homes for that. No one gets to coopt the public schools as their pulpit.
I agree with you in general, but I don't see how that can be implemented. If a language textbook always uses examples with gay couples wouldn't you say it's not neutral on the topic? If it never mentions homosexual couples is it neutral? If 90% of the parents in the nation (this is a hypothetical, not a prediction of actual sentiment) don't think homosexuality is a healthy/moral choice for their children is it still right in have it insinuated in the curriculum (ala the above mentioned method)? Is it right to not have it there if 50% of Americans think it's an 'equal' lifestyle choice?
Hobbes Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Since you have defined pedophilia as an attraction to "prepubescent" kids. I assume you ascribe to the belief that if "It bleeds, it breeds". Sorry, I can't go there with you. My daughter is 10 years old. She could have her first period and be reproductive this year or six years from now. The law has to draw a line somewhere.
When life expectancy was 35 it made sense to snatch them up when they could reproduce. A fifteen year old girl might have had her period for four years, but you're still a pedophile for going after her. Your "natural" attraction is still wrong. We don't live in an anarchist nation. Naturally, there are thieves, rapists and murderers. I'm sure being a thief, rapist and murderer has benefited the species. Kill the competition, steel his goods and rape his wife...you're genes are passed on.
I think homosexuality might be good for an overpopulated society, if it's natural, ie a genetically inheritable trait. Perhaps we should embrace and accept them. We don't want them to live in denial and pass on their gay genes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Since you have defined pedophilia as an attraction to "prepubescent" kids. I assume you ascribe to the belief that if "It bleeds, it breeds".
It's more likely that he's simply aware of the actual definition of "pedophilia," which involves attraction to pre-pubescent children. A 35-year-old man who is attracted to a 15-year-old girl is not technically a pedophile.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Our history is full of 35 year old men breeding with 15 year olds. Human history is full of 35 year old men with multiple wives, ranging in age from 35 to 12. Does human history prove the behavior is "natural" and should be accepted.
Human history has more pedophilia and polygamy than homosexuality. Stating homosexuality deserves equal standing in our society carries less weight than the 13 year old wife of a middle aged man with six other wives.
Which behavior is historically proven to be most natural? The polygamist passed on a lot of genes via his 14 year old wives. Gay genes are a dead end road. Don't get me wrong, I'm a libertarian. I don't care if you are into bestiality...another behavior that has gone on forever....just keep your goat sex in your bedroom and don't demand equal rights. A man having sex with a female sheep has a greater chance of passing on his genes than a man with another man.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
'don't get me wrong, I'm a libertarian. I just want to have more liberties than gay people and for that not to change.'
DON'T GET ME WRONG, I HAVE JAMAICAN NEIGHBORS
DON'T GET ME WRONG, I COMPARE BEING GAY TO SCREWING GOATS BUT
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The question of 'dead ends' is in any case based on a strawman understanding of evolution. Whether homosexuals pass on their genes or not is utterly irrelevant. A rapist passes on his genes while a celibate priest does not; it does not follow that we should applaud the one or suppress the other. What evolution "approves of" and what humans should approve of are completely separate questions.
QFT.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Of course I think goat sex is much more depraved than gay sex. I'm opposed to polygamy and women being married off shortly after having their first period.
All these behaviors have gone on since the beginning. Their historical evidence doesn't justify them today. We're all the descendants of the polygamist who had sex with a girl a couple months after her first period. None of us are descendants of homosexual acts. Which behavior deserves more acceptance in our society?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:We're all the descendants of the polygamist who had sex with a girl a couple months after her first period. None of us are descendants of homosexual acts. Which behavior deserves more acceptance in our society?
The one which is based upon consensual acts between adult people.
And if you can't figure out how that's important and how straw arguments about which acts are 'evolutionarily approved of' are irrelevant to GLBT's stance and would instead like to continue semi-coherently talking about goat-railers like they're relevant to the discussion, then you're an Australopithecus of the digital world and should just shut up forever.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
That's why having bleed between your legs isn't an accepted sign of being ready for sex,....today. It's illegal. Gays should consider themselves lucky for the acceptance they do have. They aren't thrown in jail. Even though sex with a 12 year old was once completely normal. Having 5 wives was once completely normal but will land you in jail today.
The legal reigns have tightened on behavior much more "natural" than homosexuality. The 12 year old wasn't a "victim", that was their society. It was normal to marry once the period came....still the case in many parts of the world. The polygamy didn't victimize anyone. Happy and willing adult polygamists are still charged in America.
Polygamy and defining a woman by having menstruated is far more "natural" than homosexuality but more "illegal". The male driven society has silently accepted gays...they aren't competition. Even in the animal kingdom, alpha males don't drive out the the others until they try to mate. The adult male lion that never tried to mate might not be driven out, but he's still the bottom of the pride.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
Hm, thought better of the post about assassinating the pres, huh? Can't say I blame you.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: Hm, thought better of the post about assassinating the pres, huh? Can't say I blame you.
I pray he isn't assassinated. If he's assassinated, he'll be like JFK, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrisson and Kurt Kobain.
I hope he lives and proves to be an Axle Rose. If Axle Rose OD'd after Appetite for Destruction,....oh what unmet potential. If he is assassinated, he'll end up on a coin. Let him live....he's a one hit wonder.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Gays should consider themselves lucky for the acceptance they do have. They aren't thrown in jail.
What do you consider yourself lucky for, mal?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm lucky to have been born in this country. I was given opportunities not afforded to the vast majority of the rest of the world. I was lucky enough to have parents who instilled in me a work ethic and the value of an education. I was lucky to attend the school I did even though some of my former classmates claim that their education was disadvantaged. I'm lucky to have the job that I have, even though it took years of hard work to qualify for the position. I'm lucky to live in a nation where a hand-me down child eating beans and rice can grow up to be wealthy.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
I notice you didn't mention you're lucky to have been able to marry the person you love.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You don't feel lucky to be attracted to women?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
No one feels lucky for what they are. They are what they are. I feel lucky not being attracted to young teenagers. It would be unfortunate to have a desire that is against the law. If I were attracted to other men, I wouldn't end up in jail for expressing my desires.
The greatest luck in my life....my children. My life is complete. I would die for them and they will carry me on forever.
If I live long enough, I will probably be impotent. There will come a day that sexual attraction is meaningless. When I am old, that part of me will be dead. I will still have a partner in my wife and the fulfillment my children bring to me.
Sexual attraction is temporary. I'm lucky to to be attracted to women. I'll live a full sexual life and when that part of me is dead, I'll still have a full life, holding my grandchildren. I'll see myself in them as do in my son.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
malanthrop, you're doing that thing again where you fail spectacularly to respond to direct statements pointing out huge flaws in your arguments.
Still a hack. Give him a chance per discussion not to be a hack, guys, and then drop him when he (almost) inevitably fails.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I've never really thought about what comes naturally to me as "lucky". That question made me think it through. I am lucky. I'll live a full sexual life and I won't end up an elderly, lonely impotent homosexual. Even when my partner dies, I'll have children and grandchildren that are really my own. Adoption love isn't the same as actually seeing yourself in them.
Thank you for that question. I am lucky to be in line with the vast majority of society. It isn't often you consider yourself to be lucky for being normal.
The best feeling I ever felt was having a dislocated joint returned to position. Oh, what a relief. No better pleasure than the alleviation of pain.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Since you have defined pedophilia as an attraction to "prepubescent" kids. I assume you ascribe to the belief that if "It bleeds, it breeds".
It's more likely that he's simply aware of the actual definition of "pedophilia," which involves attraction to pre-pubescent children. A 35-year-old man who is attracted to a 15-year-old girl is not technically a pedophile.
Well, Tom, I'll come clean and admit it might also be a little bit of a sensitive subject for me. My partner was 14 when we first started going out, and I was... not 14. I'm not massively older than her, but I am enough older that many people thought it was inappropriate. Okay, I'm 4 years older than her. So that technicality is important to me.
There was, however, no "breeding" involved. Thanks for that beautiful adage though, Mal. Wonderful.
Honestly, speaking as somebody who truly values the principles of liberty and freedom (and libertarianism) that make our country great, I think your attitude towards homosexuality is shameful, Mal.
Also, regarding my partner: For those that care (which is, I'm guessing, none of you), we've been together for several years past when it stopped being seen as somewhat creepy, and are still extremely happy. We might get around to breeding one of these days, but we think that's still several years off.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm not attempting to express an attitude towards homosexuality. I really do not care. I'm pro life and opposed to illegal immigration. The libertarian party embraces open borders and is pro choice, yet I'm a proud libertarian. How can I reconcile such things? I'm a true libertarian. I believe in individual freedom. In our country a woman has the legal right to have an abortion and I am free to express my opposition to it. People are free to be homosexuals and do as they please and I'm free to express my opinion.
I haven't expressed an opinion of hate. I've only countered the "natural behavior" arguments. Naturally, humans are depraved, murdering, thieving, raping, survival of the fittest, selfish beings.
I'm happy for you and your partner. From the sounds of it, your partner wasn't a victim and you love one another. You are fortunate to not have landed in jail. I didn't attempt to equate homosexuality, pedophilia, polygamy and bestiality on a moral level, rather an ever changing societal acceptance/legal level.
From a historical perspective, the age and polygamy laws are recent discriminatory phenomena. 90% of human history, homosexuality was never accepted as much as having five 13 year old wives.
There will always be homosexuals. Do what you want to do, within the law. If you want a civil union, great. Don't try to redefine marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The union of a man and man is not the same as the union of a man and a woman. It doesn't deserve the same name....it is different. Of course, I'm the guy who hates the fact you can't use the terms: waitress, mailman and stewardess anymore. It's unfortunate that the word has to be the same. A waiter and a waitress are the same in my mind. Neither is better or worse, only one is man and one is woman. Marriage is man and woman. Give them the same rights, but it isn't the same thing.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Okay, now that polygamy has entered the picture I suppose there is an interesting perspective offered by evolutionary psychology that might be explored -- in relation to whether homosexuality is positive to reproduction or not. In males, no -- in females, yes.
No matter how you look at it, male homosexuality is going to reduce the amount of genes the homosexual male will send into the next generation. So in a sense, if it were a genetic trait, even if males felt compelled to marry women in traditional societies, one would expect less successful conceptions if they either did not perform, or performed with lower frequency or desire (which affects chances of conception).
With females it's kinda different. Polygamy is natural in humans. One can also propose that polygamist arrangements are positive to childrearing since, having more than one woman in the household, will reduce the stress of raising children as the responsibilities of the household and kids does not fall on one person's shoulders. Women who were comfortable with another woman sharing the husband therefore might expect her genes to be magnified in the next generation. And if she were also attracted to women she might bring other women into the household and this would be quite positive for the reproduction of these women as well (not to mention the husband). Not to brag but I know a gal who is bi and she has sort of stalked me for the past few years. She even says my kids are really cute and she would love to be their step mother! I joked with her once, when she was talking about a girlfriend of hers, and I said that if I became a polygamist she could keep her. She said that would be awesome for her -- and for me since her friend was also really attractive. I think this illustrates why such behavior would be positive for female reproduction. May also explain why a lot of women I know from the Middle East (where polygamy is far more common) seem to be far more open to admiting their attraction to women. So I suppose that if there wre a genetic predisposition to same sex behavior or attractio it would be negative for men but positive to women. But polygamy would be necessary to allow bi and mostly bi women the opportunity to have the number of children they wanted. At least a polygamist society (in a more libertarian environment) would allow the men who came up short on reproductive value the opportunity to hook up with a guy.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'll have ... grandchildren that are really my own.
Unless, of course, your children turn out to be gay.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I am lucky to be in line with the vast majority of society.
But you yourself have said that your screen name means "society is bad". Why are you glad to be in line with it?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Excellent, well thought out explanation. I think in your scenario, homosexual males could also benefit the species. Earlier I stated that the alpha male lion will only drive out the young males when they attempt to mate with the females. If the other males never attempt to mate with the females (or the alpha for that matter), he's still a hunting asset for the pride. The male who isn't attracted to the females is an asset and not a challenger.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
ROFLMAO
It's funny how you don't realize these arguments are crap. Sad, but funny.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
You guys really need to read up on evolution and human sexuality. You're just making crap up to support your beliefs, and it isn't even superficially valid.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: You guys really need to read up on evolution and human sexuality. You're just making crap up to support your beliefs, and it isn't even superficially valid.
Examples?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: You guys really need to read up on evolution and human sexuality. You're just making crap up to support your beliefs, and it isn't even superficially valid.
Examples?
"polygamy would be necessary to allow bi and mostly bi women the opportunity to have the number of children they wanted."
greatly fills the category of 'not even superficially valid'
it makes NO sense.
and your psychosexual postulations are riddled with these circumstantial personal interpretations that are both methodologically hazy and contradicted by sound understandings of human sexuality.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
One would hope that we are more than our biology.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I dunno. My biology's pretty fantastic.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
quote:"polygamy would be necessary to allow bi and mostly bi women the opportunity to have the number of children they wanted."
greatly fills the category of 'not even superficially valid'
Once gave a gray haired gentleman a ride back to the city -- met him at a local hot spring. He told me about the polyandrous commune he lived in. Most of the members of his group were female and he had fathered (in total) 11 children with several different women. Seems they had a positive view on fertility (he was only disappointed that two of his daughters had joined the Mormon Church).
I read about a guy in the Netherlands a few years back who married two bi women. While it may go against many people's religious beliefs, such a group could be expected to do wuite well in regards to reproduction.
One of the advantages I have heard expressed by women living in polygamy is that they have an easier time with the kids (even though the numbers of children under one roof, or with the same father is greater). When my sister in law visits and brings her kids my wife can be all stressed, but with two women in the household both are calmer in dealing with roudy kids than when alone.
We know that in the days of polygamy and the mainstream Mormon Church, that it was often a wife who would suggest a certain women be brought into the marriage. I doubt too many engaged in physical relationships with sister wives but who is to say their emotional relationships were not as great, if not greater, than the relationship they had with their husband? So biologically, women who are more open to sharing life with another woman (and a shared husband) would be more likely to be comfortable with polygamy and more likely to pass on their genes. A husband who was unconventional enough to have multiple wives probably had higher intelligence as well and so this trait was passed on to the next generation. Seems like a perfect way to strengthen the gene pool as well as explain why female sexuality is far more fluid than male.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Do you remember that part where I mentioned your tendency towards, quote, "circumstantial personal interpretations?"
You do not help your position by immediately thereupon responding with a massive cluster of personal interpretations from personal anecdote. Literally everything in your response is predicated on "I once did this" and "I once met this guy" and "One thing I have heard" and "This seems like or is probably this"
To top that off, absolutely nothing in your response at all addresses the fact that the statement that polygamy is 'necessary' to 'allow bi and mostly bi women the opportunity to have the number of children they wanted' — you only present a hypothetical based on casual inference that some contrived circumstances might be 'beneficial' on a level none of us are talking to.
The statement remains not even superficially valid.
It's one thing to not understand why, but the means by which you assume to reinforce your statements are only more of what we're talking about.
I'm right now at the point where I do not take any casually inferred idea or fact from you as valid, because when you are pressed for anything to back up that fact, it's shown to be based on shallow personal inferences and anecdote that's been filtered through a preconclusive bias.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
If polygamy can be associated with increasing longevity over the generations:
I suppose that whatever traits that women have that are okay with such social situations would aslo be expanded in the gene pool if we assume that such social units act favorably towards surival and childbirth.
I think that is all I care to say more on the topic. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That is yet another post that does absolutely nothing to in any way support your notion that polygamy is necessary for bi women to have the number of children they want.
Much as that statement isn't even superficially true, your responses aren't even superficially valid.
You're dropping the topic after asking for examples of the phenomenon in your case and reinforcing it in response to having one provided.
What else am I supposed to say?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Homosexual behavior in this argument should be separated between male and female. Heterosexual men like girl on girl pornography. Why? The bisexuality of a female is a turn on for heterosexual men,...he has a chance to bed down two women at once. The man is completely happy to accept his wives satisfying one another, he doesn't want another man to breed with his women.
I carry this double standard over to my children. I have a son and a daughter. Do you think I'll accept their early teen sexual experiences the same?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That strikes me as a classic distinction between conservative and liberal mindsets:
Liberal: "There's a historical double-standard embedded in these traditions. What can we do to eliminate it?"
Conservative: "There's a historical double-standard embedded in these traditions. Don't know why it's there, but it's probably doing something useful."
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote: I have a son and a daughter. Do you think I'll accept their early teen sexual experiences the same?
Knowing you? No. But you should.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Homosexual behavior in this argument should be separated between male and female. Heterosexual men like girl on girl pornography. Why? The bisexuality of a female is a turn on for heterosexual men,...he has a chance to bed down two women at once. The man is completely happy to accept his wives satisfying one another, he doesn't want another man to breed with his women.
I carry this double standard over to my children. I have a son and a daughter. Do you think I'll accept their early teen sexual experiences the same?
Most of my female friends enjoy male-male pornography, particularly in written form. One close friend of mine would be more than happy to allow her boyfriend to bring another man to their bed, because she enjoys seeing them please each other. Her boyfriend is bisexual, she is heterosexual. He's perfectly fine with the idea, too.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Homosexual behavior in this argument should be separated between male and female. Heterosexual men like girl on girl pornography. Why? The bisexuality of a female is a turn on for heterosexual men,...he has a chance to bed down two women at once. The man is completely happy to accept his wives satisfying one another, he doesn't want another man to breed with his women.
I carry this double standard over to my children. I have a son and a daughter. Do you think I'll accept their early teen sexual experiences the same?
Most of my female friends enjoy male-male pornography, particularly in written form. One close friend of mine would be more than happy to allow her boyfriend to bring another man to their bed, because she enjoys seeing them please each other. Her boyfriend is bisexual, she is heterosexual. He's perfectly fine with the idea, too.
Men with men is rather hot... Very hot. mmm. 2 handsome young men.
But this is more than folks need to know. Carry on.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Most women are opposed to pornography in general. Most men will watch girl on girl action.
I seriously doubt most women would like to watch a video of guy on guy anal sex.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
You base either of those facts on....?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Most women are opposed to pornography in general. Most men will watch girl on girl action.
I seriously doubt most women would like to watch a video of guy on guy anal sex.
Oh, really? I know quite a few.
The problem for it with me is there's not nearly enough kissing and making out... But that is what is annoying about porn in general. Folks having sex in it like they KNOW they are being watched. It would be better if they acted like no one was watching and were really enthusiastic instead of ritualistic.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Man on man would probably jump right to the act. Heterosexual men do the same thing, much to the angst of the woman. Men don't require the warm up as much as women.
My wife gets turned on when I clean the house, make dinner for her or play with the kids. There is no amount of physical foreplay that can match a day spent together as a family. Being a good father attracts her more. Any man can touch this or that.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
You do love those gender stereotypes don't you?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Gender stereotype? Liberals like to call statistical majorities "stereotypes" when they go against them while citing them as evidence of discrimination. Would you accuse me of gender stereotyping for saying women make less money than men? How about the minority unemployment rate is higher and minorities and females are underrepresented in the corporate board room? Women and minorities make less money on average. Of course anyone who mentions graduation rates and job experience is a sexist racist.
Most women don't like man on man anal porn and most men will readily watch girl on girl action. Prove me wrong.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
That's twice you've had to qualify the male porn with a specific act.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: That's twice you've had to qualify the male porn with a specific act.
Uh, that's what makes it porn. You don't need to buy porn to watch foreplay. I'm sure there are women all over this country watching Broke Back Mountain because the guy on guy is such a turn on.
Porn is a male driven product. I don't deny some women enjoy it. Some women might enjoy man on man action. My guess is it's the bisexual women who enjoy it. I have more respect for a homosexual than a bisexual. Bisexuals just do what feels good. At least homosexuals are following their nature. Bisexuals are deviants....it feels good, do it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Shouldn't we be talking about porn in the porn thread?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Sorry to bring up gay porn in the thread about homosexuality. We'll stick to the subject.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
" Bisexuals just do what feels good. At least homosexuals are following their nature. Bisexuals are deviants....it feels good, do it. "
I know I'm like, the tenth person to say this, maybe the twentieth when it comes to various subjects, but wow, mal... you know absolutely nothing about this subject, do you?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
-_- Dude is not worth arguing with... It's quite teeth pullingly exhausted. Climbing an icy mountain would yield better results.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote: I have more respect for a homosexual than a bisexual. Bisexuals just do what feels good. At least homosexuals are following their nature. Bisexuals are deviants....it feels good, do it.
Oy.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Most women don't like man on man anal porn and most men will readily watch girl on girl action. Prove me wrong.
Time to add 'the burden of proof' to things you demonstrate that you don't understand.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: -_- Dude is not worth arguing with... It's quite teeth pullingly exhausted. Climbing an icy mountain would yield better results.
You just figuring this out? I thought it was obvious 2 months ago. LOL
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: My guess is it's the bisexual women who enjoy it. I have more respect for a homosexual than a bisexual. Bisexuals just do what feels good. At least homosexuals are following their nature. Bisexuals are deviants....it feels good, do it.
Yo, remember when I talked about how, as a poster, you're utterly incompetent at everything except hurting your own side by association, because you ramble on and on about stuff you obviously know nothing about and are impervious towards self-reflection and correction?
I just have to thank you for hurting your own side even more. I can quote your post as an example of the exact sort of ignorant sexual mentalities we are outmoding and replacing. I can use you in ammunition in bringing gay marriage to the entire united states.
Thanks buddy!
Now stop posting forever.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: -_- Dude is not worth arguing with... It's quite teeth pullingly exhausted. Climbing an icy mountain would yield better results.
You just figuring this out? I thought it was obvious 2 months ago. LOL
Naw, i've known this for ages It's why I haven't said much in this thread once this fellow appeared. Because I'd read it and think that would be more productive.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Guess we should have expected this. *sigh* Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, that's just mean. Shame on them. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Wow.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
That's a remarkably well-kept secret. It means that every single student who was invited to the "real prom" was either on the administrations side or a coward (for not telling Constance).
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: Fallacy? How many genes get passed down from homosexual couples?
If homosexuality is genetic then is is almost certainly sex linked. If that is the case then you basically can't breed it out of the population. Because the gene is not passe don by homosexual men but by their mothers. Evidence also suggests that in those women each male child they have increases the odds of the male child being homosexual.
I will use made up numbers to give an example (as I don't have the info at hand) but say in women with this gene the first male child has a 5% chance of being gay. They then have a second male child but instead of a 10% chance of that boy being gay it's 20%. Then with the next one 40 and so on. In such a situation homosexuality would never breed out. This is even more true if that gene also benefits the mother in some way. Say makes her more fertile or makes her children more likely to survive. Even if the sex linked theory is wrong (I think it is essentially correct) and Homosexuality is carried along the male line and recessive. There is also the possibility that having some homosexual children befits the family as a whole. If a homosexual child has no offspring but there brothers and sisters have more than average then the gene will persist. Natural selection is nowhere near as simple as Mal suggests. Not that that is a surprise. His assertion that most pedophiles are homosexual is flat out wrong both in overall numbers and percentage.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: That's a remarkably well-kept secret. It means that every single student who was invited to the "real prom" was either on the administrations side or a coward (for not telling Constance).
There were, apparently, five students at the 'fake prom', presumably intending to show their support. They cannot well be described as cowards, having apparently decided to defy the rest of the school by not joining the big "Eff You Prom". So it seems reasonable to guess that these students would have told Constance what was going on. A private event does not have to be kept secret for this sort of exclusion to be effective; indeed, all the better if it isn't.
I think there's some sort of history here beyond what we're seeing. I suspect it's the usual pattern where the rebel wants not merely tolerance - which she has, in the sense that nobody is riding her out of town on a rail - but also acceptance; and therefore pushes her rebellion (that's not the right word in the case of sexual orientation, but I can't think what is - her difference?) on the rest of the town, in effect saying "Accept me, you effing bigoted bastards!" Naturally this is counterproductive. It's an unfortunate side effect of using 'tolerance' and 'acceptance' interchangeably. In a similar vein, atheists tolerate theists, in that the pogrom has not yet started. But theists tend to demand acceptance in the form of not saying things like "Your entire life is built on a delusion; get with it".
Tolerance can be enforced by the state; acceptance can't. As much as it sucks, eventually Constance will just have to vote with her feet, and move elsewhere. The best revenge is living well, or at least that will be true until the inevitable civil war rips American society apart and destroys the usual norms. Then the best revenge will be to become a colonel in the blue-state forces and order an exemplary massacre of everyone who so much as looked at you wrong in high school. I hope Constance is practicing her maniacal laugh; she's going to need it.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by Tinros:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Homosexual behavior in this argument should be separated between male and female. Heterosexual men like girl on girl pornography. Why? The bisexuality of a female is a turn on for heterosexual men,...he has a chance to bed down two women at once. The man is completely happy to accept his wives satisfying one another, he doesn't want another man to breed with his women.
I carry this double standard over to my children. I have a son and a daughter. Do you think I'll accept their early teen sexual experiences the same?
Most of my female friends enjoy male-male pornography, particularly in written form. One close friend of mine would be more than happy to allow her boyfriend to bring another man to their bed, because she enjoys seeing them please each other. Her boyfriend is bisexual, she is heterosexual. He's perfectly fine with the idea, too.
Men with men is rather hot... Very hot. mmm. 2 handsome young men.
But this is more than folks need to know. Carry on.
The whole idea that so many, particularly straight men, have that women don't like Male/Male erotica is just a self delusion. Many women do like that. They just tend to express it differently. As was already said they usually prefer it in written form (wincest, slash etc..) or soft core (QAF)And when they do like it hard core it's often corbin fisher style porn. (frat boyish pretty boy types filmed with a lot of kissing, caressing and such. But it's still Male/Male.
EDIT Look up the demographics for "Queer as Folk" sometime. The vast majority of it's viewing audience were women.
[ April 06, 2010, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: aeolusdallas ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, congratulations, Itumubabwumbabama County. You resurrected the age-old tradition of hosting private proms to keep out the Undesirables. Formerly used against blacks, now used against gays and disabled children.
Please keep representing the true face of the anti-gay movement.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Guess we should have expected this.
I think we did.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Amazing. Republicans are such trash.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's got nothing to do with their political party, Eds.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Amazing. Lalo proves himself incapable of critical thinking.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:The whole idea that so many, particularly straight men, have that women don't like Male/Male erotica is just a self delusion.
Lol, pretty much. It's really the opposite. The majority of fandom is comprised of women who like slash.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
Yeah the big disconnet is simply that men and women tend to prefer different types of porn.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's got nothing to do with their political party, Eds.
Do you have any doubt that these people vote Republican? Or that this panicked, vicious, hateful discrimination isn't the sole unifying theme that binds them with the rest of the Republican party?
Maybe not all Republicans are trash, but trash overwhelmingly votes Republican. And banning a girl from prom for being gay -- and then cruelly sending her to a fake prom -- is so Republican that I can hear Rush Limbaugh wheezing his miserable glee to his illiterate audience even now.
Yes, it has a lot to do with politics. As pathetic as the Democrats are, the Republican party is a celebration of the stupid, the hateful, and the close-minded. Republican leaders are painfully dumb and Republican ideas incoherent, but the party's unifying theme of hatred legitimizes and reinforces the vicious bastards who sent a high school girl to a fake prom as punishment for being gay.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Talk about spouting trash.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Talk about spouting trash.
Well she is letting anger talk for her but she is right about one thing. Do you really believe those people don't watch FOX and vote Republican? This is an honest question.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Talk about spouting trash.
Kat, I remember your own incoherent screeds against homosexuality from years ago. I hope people like those who run this school have changed your mind on homosexual rights.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: There were, apparently, five students at the 'fake prom', presumably intending to show their support. They cannot well be described as cowards, having apparently decided to defy the rest of the school by not joining the big "Eff You Prom". So it seems reasonable to guess that these students would have told Constance what was going on. A private event does not have to be kept secret for this sort of exclusion to be effective; indeed, all the better if it isn't.
It's not clear that all of the other students (the five) were there out of a show of solidarity. Two of the students were "special needs" students. It's not clear yet if they were duped as well or chose to come in protest. If they were duped in hopes to embarrass both Constance and those students - it doesn't look like it worked. ;-)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Maybe not all Republicans are trash, but trash overwhelmingly votes Republican.
"maybe not all democrats hate america, but america-haters overwhelmingly vote democrat."
yes, broad generalizations are such the best level of discourse.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You don't understand. The bad guys are monolithic. The good guys get nuance.
Duh!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lalo, you know absolutely nothing about anything and even less about me. You are embarrassing yourself and everyone who might agree with you.
More importantly, why do you think that the appropriate resopnse to trashy behavior is trashier, uglier behavior? Are you a parody? You come off like a parody. If someone wanted invent a character that would make their opposition look as stupid and hate-filled as possible, they would come up with you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Cool, a new snarlbite feud.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:There were, apparently, five students at the 'fake prom', presumably intending to show their support. They cannot well be described as cowards, having apparently decided to defy the rest of the school by not joining the big "Eff You Prom".
Based on the fact that out of 7 students, the prom had Constance, her date, and at least a few special needs kids, I think it much more likely that all were simply not invited. Perhaps a different kind of bigotry for the special needs students.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah honestly I would like to have seen a show of solidarity from at least seven kids, but it seems like the special needs kids were just not invited as well.
There have been reports indicating this, but no way to know for sure RIGHT NOW. anyway.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
As bad as the tricking the lesbian girl is the tricking special needs kids is even more horrible. Then there are those pics surfacing of the "real" prom. Very scandalous pics that belie all of the so called family values that the school said it was protecting,
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
Words fail me. I can't believe a whole town full of adults are acting like this. Apartheid in America. Lovely.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Cool, a new snarlbite feud.
Please don't put me on the same level with Katharina.
Maybe my post was too heated. I believe that the Republican party's primary political tool is uniting lesser-educated, close-minded people against perceived threats of social degeneration -- such as homosexuality. I think that Sarah Palin's meteoric rise in the Republican party is largely thanks to her unashamed stupidity and frank opposition to things that the party doesn't associate with Real America -- such as homosexuals. I also think that the school administration is likely to subscribe to these Republican ideals of Know-Nothingism, which affirm and support their cruelty to a teenage girl -- for being homosexual.
These people are trash, and the fact that their philosophies are completely consistent with Republican politics reflects poorly on the Republican party.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
more from Darkest Itawambastan
quote:listen, im a junior at itawamba. constance is STUPID for blowing this up and ruining the prom for the rest of my school. some of us kids met with about 50 parents last night and they have gladly decided to throw us a prom at the tupelo furniture market on april 2. you would just have to live here to know what its like. theres only about 3500 people that live in our city limits so EVERYONE knows everyone. they dont have to throw us a prom, they volunteered to and we appreciate them so much for it.. AND to top it off, it is going to be INVITATION ONLY. so constance and her gay-activist friends will not be attending. they can go have their own prom because we certainly do not want any of them there.. i wish some of you could be here though. we have WTVA newsmen at front doors of the school every freaking morning. they flag us down to interview us as we’re coming and leaving school. im SICK AND TIRED OF IT. we are very traditional here so personally i think if constance doesnt like it here she needs to pack her stuff and MOVE. no one even liked her here that much in the first place..
quote:I am a senior at IAHS, and I’ve known Constance for the last 6 years. Please hear our side of the story before you decide on our fate. The party we had in Evergreen (the county neighborhood I live in) is 30 mins away from the school. we rented out the community center, hired vendors, decorated, and our parents ran the security/chaperone staff- but it wasn’t prom. Prom was at the country club where constance and 7 other students were. The reason the senior class boycotted the actual prom was not because we hate gays. We wanted a drama-free gathering to celebrate 3 great years and 1 lousy one together, and we wanted to lay low. We also wanted to do it without the main cause of the lousy. What people are failing to realize is that much of the fault of this whole stink lies with Constance, not her mistreatment by the school district, but her crazy-reckless need for attention. It sounds mean and horrible and like we planned it all specifically to embarrass Constance, but we didn’t. We let her have her prom with her girlfriend and her tuxedo and we went to party it up in the “boondocks” not because we wanted her rights violated, but so we could salvage what has turned into a total fiasco. As a whole we didn’t support her decision to throw the district under the bus, or her insinuations that we’re all just a bunch ‘a hicks driving around in beater pick up trucks spitting tobacco and burning crosses. IAHS is one of the top schools in the state and I’m proud of that, and I’m proud that we took a stand and just said you know what? forget it, we have just as much right as you do to have a party for ourselves. So we did, and now we’re getting flack because poor Connie’s ego got a bit of bruising. She’s playing the lesbian card to prove she ALWAYS gets what she wants. This time, we didn’t just let her. Take it as you will, because I’m sure it sounds like we faked her out, but understand this- the decision NOT to attend prom had nothing to do with the school or with Constance’s sexual preferences; it had everything to do with proving we weren’t going to let her and the ACLU steamroll us into doing what Constance wanted. We flexed the muscle of the majority and we’ll suffer the consequences.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yep. Looks very much like someone has been flaunting her difference in a demand for acceptance. A classic teenager mistake, unfortunately. The bit about the special-needs students is, however, rather embarrassing for the "We're just not going to let Constance manipulate us" point of view.
Incidentally, why are we on first-name terms with her? Ought it not to be "Ms [edit]McMillen[/edit]"?
[ April 06, 2010, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: As bad as the tricking the lesbian girl is the tricking special needs kids is even more horrible. Then there are those pics surfacing of the "real" prom. Very scandalous pics that belie all of the so called family values that the school said it was protecting,
Link me to ALL of these you can find. Please.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
They keep pulling them down. But I will keep looking till they turn up again. Those kind of pictures always do.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Well, this is just about the worst way this was likely to play out. Damn.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Technically, they could have tied a whole bunch of black people into a human chain and beat her with it when she showed up. That could have been worse.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:or her insinuations that we’re all just a bunch ‘a hicks driving around in beater pick up trucks spitting tobacco and burning crosses.
quote:I’m proud that we took a stand and just said you know what? forget it, we have just as much right as you do to have a party for ourselves.
Know what else insinuates you're a bunch of cross burning hicks? Deliberately excluding a bunch of kids from the end-of-school-party because you didn't want to have to deal with them being different.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Technically, they could have tied a whole bunch of black people into a human chain and beat her with it when she showed up. That could have been worse.
They could have. But I said "likely to play out." If that really still falls under the category of "likely" I wouldn't even know what to say.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Eh...good point Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Too bad they didn't pour pig blood on her. Then they would have got theirs.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Katharina, this is the second recent thread where you've stepped over the line in response to something. Please stop it.
In katharina's defense, Lalo, I don't remember her opinions, what few of them she actually stated, as being what you're claiming. I think you (and many others) made assumptions, and aside from saying "no, that's not what I believe," she didn't clarify all that often.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Cool, a new snarlbite feud.
Please don't put me on the same level with Katharina.
Maybe my post was too heated. I believe that the Republican party's primary political tool is uniting lesser-educated, close-minded people against perceived threats of social degeneration -- such as homosexuality. I think that Sarah Palin's meteoric rise in the Republican party is largely thanks to her unashamed stupidity and frank opposition to things that the party doesn't associate with Real America -- such as homosexuals. I also think that the school administration is likely to subscribe to these Republican ideals of Know-Nothingism, which affirm and support their cruelty to a teenage girl -- for being homosexual.
These people are trash, and the fact that their philosophies are completely consistent with Republican politics reflects poorly on the Republican party.
Yes, these people are trash. Would you like a list of things done by Democrats that are repugnant? For the record, I voted Republican, and I'd hold my nose and vote for Palin if she was the only choice against Obama. So am I a homophobe? Am I trash?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Well, this is just about the worst way this was likely to play out. Damn.
I didn't even think something like this could have happened. I can't imagine how the entire town managed to keep this whole thing a secret.
But in all honesty I don't think Constance would have enjoyed going to the prom everybody else was going to, I certainly wouldn't.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:I think that Sarah Palin's meteoric rise in the Republican party is largely thanks to her unashamed stupidity and frank opposition to things that the party doesn't associate with Real America -- such as homosexuals.
The reason for Sarah Palin's meteoric rise is because she's handsome and direct and connects with people. Her support of "traditional values" might be part of it, yes, but politicians who are against gay rights are a dime a dozen, and they haven't all had meteoric rises.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: For the record, I voted Republican, and I'd hold my nose and vote for Palin if she was the only choice against Obama. So am I a homophobe? Am I trash?
not really. you're just trained well to vote against your interests.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The first entry is, well, typically teenaged and spiteful.
The second one is interesting, though, in its mixture of mature sounding rhetoric and intent and, well, typical teenager spitefulness. I mean, on the one hand she talks about hearing her side of the story and not hating gays and wanting a drama-free prom. On the other hand she points out quite proudly how the overwhelming majority (seriously, about what, 97%?) went to this 'not-prom' to have their 'drama-free' event...whose entire purpose was united around specific exclusion of undesirables. Whatever they claim to be excluding for, drama-queen-ness or homosexuality. Then talking about letting her have her prom with her girlfriend and her tuxedo while salvaging their fiasco.
It's just...weird. Man, it really seems like this bull@#it is in her, the second poster at least, in her thinking.
Why on Earth would it sound like you faked her out? Is it because 98% of the class went to one prom, and 2% to another? Surely that's just a coincidence! It's rather like folks who claim that slavery was not a decisive factor in causing the Civil War. "It was states rights!" they shout. Yes, and one of the biggest rights was the right to own slaves! Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: For the record, I voted Republican, and I'd hold my nose and vote for Palin if she was the only choice against Obama. So am I a homophobe? Am I trash?
not really. you're just trained well to vote against your interests.
<snort> Sure. Do I strike you as even remotely trainable?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well...yes, actually, Lisa. Extremely passionate people are, after all, able to be 'trained'.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: For the record, I voted Republican, and I'd hold my nose and vote for Palin if she was the only choice against Obama. So am I a homophobe? Am I trash?
not really. you're just trained well to vote against your interests.
<snort> Sure. Do I strike you as even remotely trainable?
Yes. You make an able zealot.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
So.
I vote for a protest.
Of the town's existence.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Would you like a list of things done by Democrats that are repugnant?
I can think of two things, both wars: Kosovo and Vietnam. And the trickle into Vietnam started under Eisenhower.
I really can't think of anything else. I can't think of any other examples of the gleeful fear-mongering and bigotry that the Republicans continue to churn out.
If you're going to say health care, I have a hard time seeing this as anything like, say, the southern strategy.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I would never discuss what I actually think here, and Lalo is a perfect example for why. At this point, it's either be attacked or be associated slightly with him, in his black and white world, and both prospects are repugnant.
More generally, I prefer to discuss politics, philosophy, and religion in places where a real discussion is possible. I am interested neither in a self-righteous booster club that demonizes everyone who doesn't agree with me nor in justifying myself to prejudiced strangers whose opinions I do not value.
[ April 07, 2010, 06:52 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:More generally, I prefer to discuss politics, philosophy, and religion in places where a real discussion is possible.
Where do these discussions take place?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Various places. Elsewhere. Some online, some in real life.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:More generally, I prefer to discuss politics, philosophy, and religion in places where a real discussion is possible.
I do continue to be baffled, though, as to why you would prefer to simply insult someone and then pretend that you aren't interjecting yourself into the discussion. What makes that approach preferable to silence?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
And I'm baffled by Lalo imagining that the world is divided into good guys and trash and that he's on the side of the good guys and the trash is a political party. The world is full of mysteries.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And I'm baffled by Lalo imagining that the world is divided into good guys and trash and that he's on the side of the good guys and the trash is a political party.
It seems to me that putting it that way might be more productive. He probably does have reasons. They might not be good ones, but perhaps in the process of explaining them to you he'll realize that for himself -- or perhaps you'll be convinced by them.
Yeah, it's unlikely. But there's no real downside, so why not?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are wrong about there being no downside.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'll certainly grant that possibility. I'll confess to being unable to perceive a downside that does not also pertain to your current strategy of "insult and stick around to repeatedly say why you won't say anything but insults."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm sorry about your lack of perception.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Are you really? Because, to be honest, that seems like a particularly passive-aggressive sort of thing to say, especially since my lack of perception could be easily remedied by an enumeration on your part of downsides which are excluded by your strategy.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am sorry. If you were more perceptive, perhaps you'd stop with your own passive aggressive insults.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. See, I'm not insulting you. I am pointing out that your strategy here seems to me to be a bad one. I do not know why you have chosen this approach; I have not hazarded any attempts to guess.
I have not, for example, said or insinuated (to use your own example) that you are lacking in perception. I have not suggested, in fact, any personal failing whatsoever. You may very well have a perfectly good reason for insulting people and then sticking around to defend your insult without actually engaging on deeper matters; you claim that this is a deliberate and measured response to certain types of behavior, so clearly you believe that this response is in some way preferred over other sorts of responses.
Just as clearly, I disagree.
However, you will note that I have disagreed with you in ways that freely and fully concede that you are capable of making your own decisions wisely, even if they are not the decisions I would make. I have merely noted the ways in which I think your approach complicates matters, and furthermore left multiple openings for you to elaborate upon what you believe are its advantages.
At no time in this thread -- not once -- have I insulted you in any way. Nor has it been my intention to do so.
I would ask you, Katie, to give this some serious thought. Sincerely.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom, I'm not interested in your self-righteous opinions or your fake concern.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I am sorry. If you were more perceptive, perhaps you'd stop with your own passive aggressive insults.
What's passive aggressive about asking you to support your claim? It would be pretty simple to say "here are the downsides" rather than do a petulant "If you can't figure it out I'm not going to tell you" thing.
I mean, it's fine to *think* that, but why make a point of throwing an insult into a conversation and then getting indignant about being asked to explain yourself?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not interested in talking to you about this, Matt.
Tom, if you really want to turn all the condescension somewhere where it would actually be beleived, try explaining to Lalo, in equal or greater and in convincing detail, why he's wrong.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'm not interested in talking to you about this, Matt.
Then take it to email. And next time someone says something stupid that you want to take issue with without the annoying possibility of having others question you on it, do the same. Please.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shrug* Whatever.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, it's a good thing that it's genuine concern, then. See, I like you a great deal. I also like other people on this site. And you have this tendency to be incredibly, remarkably hostile to other people I like (something that often leads to some really ridiculous, protracted grudges), and I can't believe that's really your intention.
Have you, for example, really determined that you want Eddie to dislike you? To think of you as some angry, dismissive bigot? Because here's the thing: I know that's not true. I think Eddie knows that's not true. But I also believe that the way you've presented yourself here will fix that in his mind, poisoning further interaction -- and I don't think that's what you wanted.
I think what you wanted to say was something like, "Eddie, it frustrates me that you're so willing to smear the entire Republican Party -- many members of which are fine, upstanding, intelligent and principled people -- because some social conservatives whose actions appear completely unrelated to their political affiliation are jerks." My own belief is that you hoped to tell Eddie -- and others who might be reading the thread -- that associating this sort of thing with party membership was unfounded, unproductive, and ultimately insulting. That his response, which dismissed your first criticism through the simple expedient of accusing you of early bigotry, was hurtful and inaccurate.
I think that's a useful thing to say. I agree that it should be said. I don't think, however, that it's what you wound up saying.
All I'm asking, Katie, is that you think about whether the "get offended by a generalization, post an insult, and then refuse to 'condescend' to actual conversation with the insulted party" approach you've taken in several situations over the last few months is really one that's likely to achieve whatever goals you might have. You get brittle when you anticipate challenge, but that doesn't seem to produce in you a corresponding hardness; it just means you break faster, and into sharper pieces.
I understand that you don't appreciate hearing this opinion. And I do regret sharing it with you in direct violation of your stated preferences. I know there's a cost involved -- but I really do hope it's worth it. There's nothing "fake" about that concern, believe me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Rather than saying that in a lecture at me, you should have said that directly to Eddie in a lecture towards him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:try explaining to Lalo, in equal or greater and in convincing detail, why he's wrong
I think he knows why he's wrong. I'm absolutely confident, in fact, that Eddie knows he was speaking off the cuff and making a wild generalization that is far more untrue than it is true, and I'm equally sure that if you asked him for a retraction and apology that one would be offered. You'll notice that when I directly confronted him on this point -- and I did so pretty directly and pretty early in the thread -- he immediately softened his claim to "Yeah, but Republican policies and marketing strategies deliberately produce and inflame this sort of thing." I think that's a pretty substantial retreat, and there's no doubt in my mind that Eddie would, if asked, freely concede that there are plenty of decent Republicans out there.
For what it's worth, I believe there are some people for whom "saving face" is a major priority -- Blayne springs to mind here, actually -- and for whom I believe being somehow forced into an open admission of wrongdoing would be intensely and valuably therapeutic. Otherwise, I don't necessarily believe that this is always the best way to end an argument.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Rather than saying that in a lecture at me, you should have said that directly to Eddie in a lecture towards him.
He did, quickly, even before your response:
quote:It's got nothing to do with their political party, Eds.
"You're wrong"
vs:
quote:Amazing. Lalo proves himself incapable of critical thinking.
"You're stupid"
Note which response actually forced Lalo to modify or defend his position and which led to an exchange of insults. Now it was by no means a verbose condemnation, but it conveyed the message and Lalo's response indicated that he accepted the criticism.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: For the record, I voted Republican, and I'd hold my nose and vote for Palin if she was the only choice against Obama. So am I a homophobe? Am I trash?
not really. you're just trained well to vote against your interests.
<snort> Sure. Do I strike you as even remotely trainable?
Absolutely. Mention any one of five or six hot-button issues and you jump like a dog.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Katherina, as a random person not particularly involved in the current argument, I would like to note that I have a vague recollection of considering you a respectable person when I first came here. But for the past year or so, whatever productive things you've said have been vastly outweighed by short, pointless insults and now whenever I see you entering a discussion I cringe because that discussion will usually end up less productive due to your participation. (Yes, the quality also goes down due to other people, but those other people are undeniably enflamed by your posts and you absolutely share in the responsibility)
At this point you've responded identically to lengthy, serious attempts to address this problem as well as short, sarcastic comebacks and everything in between. The list of people you "have no interest in speaking to" seems to grow each month, and I don't know if there's anyone in the forum you respect enough to change your behavior for. I don't imagine you have any particular respect for me. But please, please, if you don't have something constructive to add to a debate, if you have "no interest in speaking" to multiple people in that debate, just don't participate. Please.
[ April 07, 2010, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Your opinion. How thrilling.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Your opinion. How thrilling.
Is this merely an attempt to annoy people you feel have wronged you, a desire to secure the last word, both, or neither?
And I mean that as a serious question.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
How many people need to share the "opinion" that you are contributing to the downfall of the forum before it becomes, by definition, true?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The downfall? You think it's falling now? It has fallen. It has crashed and burned and this is the shattered, rotting corpse.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Which again, begs the question, why are you even here?!
Plenty of us still find something valuable here, even in the political/religious debate sections. If you consider that area so rotten as to not be worth your time, just don't participate.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'll make sure not to respond to you, then. I don't think I ever have before, so that won't be a change.
If you don't like my contributions, then don't respond to me.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The downfall? You think it's falling now? It has fallen. It has crashed and burned and this is the shattered, rotting corpse.
Then what is your goal here?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you don't like what I say, then don't respond to me.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If you don't like my contributions, then don't respond to me.
Insulting people isn't contribution. Telling people that you don't want to talk to them rather than just, you know, not talking to them, is also not contribution.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then just ignore anything you don't like.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:If you don't like my contributions, then don't respond to me.
No. Sorry. Doesn't work like that. I was enjoying a productive discussion in this thread before you began launching pointless insults and then acting smug when people called you on them, refusing to answer a single question about WHY you are doing what you are doing, and derailing the entire thread. You've stated explicitly that you find the forum to be a "rotting corpse." You have given no explanation as to why you are feasting on that rotting corpse. Which, essentially, is admitting that you are deliberately trolling. I've given you the benefit of the doubt for a while because I do remember you being a respectable member in the past. Clive and Mal, however poisonous, at least put effort into their posts. You are not fostering discussion in the slightest, you are purely derailing threads for your own amusement and whatever good you might have brought the forum in the past, at this point I think you should be banned.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If you don't like my contributions, then don't respond to me.
I typically don't, but as long as the topic of thread has now become this I figured I'd go ahead and say my piece.
"Don't feed the troll" is excellent advice, but it's idealistic. In practice it's hard to get everyone to ignore trollish behavior. This means that the disruptive individual has disproportionate control over the direction a thread may take. One person hurling insults or sardonic one-liners can easily derail a thread even if most others are making a point of ignoring such comments.
A preferable solution is for the person engaging in this sort of behavior to exercise some self-restraint. Then only one individual needs to alter their actions in order for the quality to go up for everyone. This is what PJ has requested as well.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You can do it, if you try.
I'm done discussing it. I'll bother listening again when I see the same zeal in silencing people like Lalo.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The same zeal was unnecessary because a few people said "Hey Lalo, your post is rather insulting" and he backed off. The end.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:You can do it, if you try.
I can, usually. Everyone can, usually. But to get everyone to do it, all the time, well that's a statistical unlikelihood.
quote:I'll bother listening again when I see the same zeal in silencing people like Lalo.
The zeal was in response to indifference, dismissiveness, and an unwillingness to communicate. Lalo has not exhibited these traits. He's said some possibly offensive, misguided things and has shown some willingness to recognize the fault in his original statement.
People, in general, don't mind bad ideas being expressed. Bad ideas can be countered, discussed, changed. "You're incapable of critical thinking." or "*shrug* Whatever." are not ideas though. They are insults and evasion.
The fact that you think we're trying to silence you is telling. No one wants you to be quiet. They just want you to contribute productively. As I heard someone say in Conference this weekend: "You can disagree without being disagreeable."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
We're either watching an elaborate, dark comedy routine, or a spiral into severe depression and unfocused anger.
Either way, it's sad.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
To be fair, I've officially switched my stance to "wanting to silence her," but that's only because she has stated, explicitly, that she has no interest in being productive.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:"Don't feed the troll" is excellent advice, but it's idealistic. In practice it's hard to get everyone to ignore trollish behavior.
I don't see why that is. I think that people holding this attitude is one of the major reasons why it is true. People don't want to take responsibility for their immature behavior and this seems to say "Well, it's bound to happen anyway." I think if people held the mostly non-trolling posters (and honestly, we're talking about like 7 people who really feed the trolls here, all of whom have shown impulse control problems in other contexts) to some pretty obvious standards, it would greatly reduce the problems with them
It's also, absent heavy handed moderation, the only way of making changes. You can't change the trolls behavior by appealing to them, insulting them, getting into detailed engagements with them, etc. That's feeding them; giving them exactly what they came here for. The effect this has, if any, is to make their behavior more frequent.
You stop feeding them, they go away. It's really pretty simple. They like to feel important and feel that sense of control they get from provoking reactions. You take that away from them, there's not much point to what they are doing.
[ April 07, 2010, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: To be fair, I've officially switched my stance to "wanting to silence her," but that's only because she has stated, explicitly, that she has no interest in being productive.
I'd still prefer that she changed her interest rather than simply left. She has made good contributions in the past and I'm sure she could do so again. Heck, I'm confident that she will again once whatever this is gets resolved.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'd agree, except "this" has been going on for at least a year. If she is going through rough spot in real life, I do hope things work out for the better and she eventually returns as a positive force in the forum. But I'm wary of leaping to conclusions there and it's not something we have the capability nor responsibility of helping with. It's also not something I expect be over any time in the near future.
quote: I think that people holding this attitude is one of the major reasons why it is true.
You are right, in that it is one of the major reasons why the attitude is true. The other one of the major reasons is that the attitude is true to begin with. Half of the people who end up encouraging trolls may have that attitude, but the other half are genuinely sucked in by them, either because they don't recognize it as trolling or they're just having a bad day and want a target to vent at.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:but the other half are genuinely sucked in by them, either because they don't recognize it as trolling or they're just having a bad day and want a target to vent at.
And that's where the forum can productively address this issue. Yes, there are people who genuinely get sucked in. There are others that have impulse control problems. We can address those people and effect changes in their behavior. When they start feeding the trolls, we can intervene. If this is something that people recognize as valuable and don't take the line that "This is bound to happen. Nothing we can do about it.", we could greatly reduce the problems with trolling we've been having. Change the social expectations and educate people about these expectations and you can change behavior.
This seems like a much more workable potential solution than actively giving the trolls exactly what they are coming here and trolling for.
---
And again, the majority of the forum doesn't really feed the trolls. Most of it is done by like 7 posters, all of whom have maturity issues.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...and I'm equally sure that if you asked him for a retraction and apology that one would be offered.
Well, that certainly hasn't been my experience. Almost the opposite, in fact: the most that can be hoped for is a modification, not a retraction. In fact, looking back, the closest I see to the kind of behavior people are attributing to Eddie - responding correctly when being called on ridiculous over-the-top political rhetoric - is to say, "... Maybe not all Republicans are trash, but trash overwhelmingly votes Republican."
So, just because katharina is behaving quite badly - and you are, katharina, and your lack of concern over my opinion is matched by my apathy as to whether you care or not right now, because of how you're behaving - there's no need to whitewash Lalo, either. Because civil discussion with him on politics is only possible through agreement.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
But it's a far less workable solution than simply banning the trolls.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We can address those people and effect changes in their behavior. When they start feeding the trolls, we can intervene.
Your proposed solution is to dogpile the people who talk to trolls? Squicky, believe me, that doesn't work either. In fact, what you're going to get in that situation will be meta-trolling.
And either way, it wouldn't apply to this case. Katie's not a troll. She's someone I esteem quite highly. So, for that matter, is Eddie; heck, I've practically watched him grow up. The problem here isn't random trolling for lulz; the problem here is that we have people who simply aren't willing to talk to each other as people anymore.
I think the biggest problem certain types of trolling has caused for Hatrack is that it's made it possible that not everyone here is in fact a "real" person, speaking in good faith. And that makes it easier for all of us to forget that most -- darn near all -- of the people posting here still are.
---------
quote:Because civil discussion with him on politics is only possible through agreement.
That's not entirely true. But I'll freely admit that Eddie ramps up pretty quickly when challenged, and I wish that weren't the case. I've found, myself, it's fairly possible to make a convincing argument that he'll eventually come around to agreeing with on his own time -- but I don't think it's necessarily likely that you'd hear it from him. I think you do need to be willing to look past the layers of hyperbole, absolutely, because it'd get exhausting (and sort of pointless) to try to pierce each one individually.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I want to believe Katie is still capable of posting in good faith. But anyone (I've counted 6 so far) who suggests her behavior is unproductive and needs to change seems to get written off as yet another "non-person" in her mind. Again, I've seen her acting responsible and respectful. I hope there is someone here who she still respects enough to care if they tell her "please, change your behavior because it's harming the forum."
But at some point, the only way to deal with behavior that is identical to trollish behavior is to treat it as trollish behavior.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: But it's a far less workable solution than simply banning the trolls.
In our situation, I disagree. I've added the caveat "Absent more heavy handed moderation" in what I've said. I very much doubt that we're going to get a change in moderation where PJ starts banning the trolls, especially, as I've noted before, many of the trolls don't break any forum rules, while the people who respond to them routinely do so.
And honestly, I think that establishing an expectation that people behave like adults is a better solution than having a nanny forum where we appeal to authority figures to deal with problems that wouldn't really exist if people were grown up enough to respond appropriately. I think that the benefits of this would expand beyond this particular area into other ones as well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I've found, myself, it's fairly possible to make a convincing argument that he'll eventually come around to agreeing with on his own time -- but I don't think it's necessarily likely that you'd hear it from him.
Well, it's certainly easier when your own politics already start out much closer to his from the beginning. And the funny thing is, usually my own personal politics do line up pretty closely with his-but then he'll make some ludicrous, over-the-top demagogue statement about the opposition (usually Republicans and/or Christians), and you can't even say, "Y'know, they don't actually all think that..." and move on from there.
You either have to ignore the issue - not just the hyperbole - or stop talking. Anyway, Tom, the things you're describing...it sounds very much like you're saying to me you agree, that you can't have a civil discussion with him without agreement. The conditions you're talking about, those aren't components of a civil discussion. Refusing to acknowledge a convincing argument, ramping up quickly, not telling you if he does agree, hyperbole...when I hear these things I don't think, "Civil discussion." Maybe productive, but that's a different matter.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:many of the trolls don't break any forum rules, while the people who respond to them routinely do so.
This is true.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that my conversation with him in the Vatican thread has been uncivil.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The conditions you're talking about, those aren't components of a civil discussion.
I think I define "civil" rather differently.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Your proposed solution is to dogpile the people who talk to trolls? Squicky, believe me, that doesn't work either. In fact, what you're going to get in that situation will be meta-trolling.
No, but I'm not surprised that you would see it that way. My solution is not dog piling with simplistic comments, but people engaging and defusing the people feeding the trolls, hopefully in such a way that the troll feeder learns not to do it in the future. One of the big changes I'd love to see is that people acknowledge and accept the responsibility for their actions in feeding the trolls. As part of this and the wider issue, I've tried to create a culturally recognized touchstone to deal with situations like this.
---
Not that this will surprise you, but I disagree with you about kat. I don't think she's a traditional troll, but, from my perspective, she's always been the Sarah Palin of Hatrack. She wants to be considered smarter and more important that she really is and has always used passive aggressiveness and insults when she reaches the gap between her ability and what she would like to be considered as.
Here, I very much doubt that she's acting as she is because she doesn't want to contribute. Instead, I believe she is unable to do so. If you get her to a point where she can't substantiate what she has says, as happened quickly here, she has always behaved this way.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, that's likely. And I do realize it's subjective, so I'll get more specific: it's very difficult to have a conversation with Lalo about politics, religion, or social issues and not experience hyperbole, misinterpretation, and insults either general or specific, if you disagree.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
What the homosexuals and their allies want above all else is the normalization of homosexuality. If states stopped recognizing marriage altogether, homosexuals and their allies would be sad, because the government wouldn't have acquiesced to homosexuals' demand that they be equated with normal people. I am so happy that those kids in that community will have their own PRIVATE prom and keep that sniveling pervert out.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Mr. Squicky knows absolutely nothing about me and is eager and delighted to imagine the very worst. He's a bad source.
If you listen to him on the topic of me, you will get the same level of credibility as a "Here There Be Dragons" map. If you want to know why Hatrack is place where it isn't worth it to share actual opinions, he's a good example of why. Prejudiced from the beginning and bent with hatred.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
contents, are you willing to discuss the issue and give other points of view some consideration?
"above all else" is patently false. Any time you are claiming that someone wants something "above all else" you better be talking about not dying or something along those lines.
"normalization" to the extent of ending persecution, definitely. Likewise harmful discrimination. Opinions vary on what constitutes harm.
quote:If states stopped recognizing marriage altogether, homosexuals and their allies would be sad, because the government wouldn't have acquiesced to homosexuals' demand that they be equated with normal people.
Some homosexuals and "allies" of homosexuals advocate for exactly the solution that you say would make them "sad." I'm one. It's a neat solution. Unfortunately this option is not much more attractive to many of the opponents of civil same sex marriage. (I will concede that some same sex marriage advocates are not happy with that solution, because it is a compromise and they don't think it's necessary - but I believe almost all of them would find it preferable to the status quo.)
quote:I am so happy that those kids in that community will have their own PRIVATE prom and keep that sniveling pervert out.
I'd like for you to think about why it makes you happy for someone to feel excluded and demeaned by the community. Why is that preferable to allowing some relatively small discomfort to intrude on the majority by tolerating the minority? Even if you conclude it is preferable, is it really cause for joy?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Some homosexuals and "allies" of homosexuals advocate for exactly the solution that you say would make them "sad." I'm one. It's a neat solution. Unfortunately this option is not much more attractive to many of the opponents of civil same sex marriage. (I will concede that some same sex marriage advocates are not happy with that solution, because it is a compromise and they don't think it's necessary - but I believe almost all of them would find it preferable to the status quo.)
It would make me sad. I think marriage is a wonderful thing when done well. A major source of my support of SSM is that I think it's so undeniably good that I can't see any reason not to extend its benefits to same sex couples.
One of the criticisms that the anti-SSM crowd makes of the pro-SSM crowd is that they (and here I don't mean all, but a significant section thereof) don't really value marriage and, honestly, I think this is one that has some validity. Now, if only many in the anti-SSM crowd didn't also not really value marriage, it would stick more.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
In addition to the fact that homosexuals are same-gendered, they're also profoundly different from heterosexuals in that homosexuals don't have a similar concept of fidelity:
Thus gay "marriage" is nothing but an attempt to legitimize homosexuality as "normal," despite its abnormalities and pathological qualities.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Yes, Contents Under Pressure, it would be horrible if we treated gay people like people.
Thank you to whoever made the new troll forum name to illustrate the trolling discussion we're having. Very meta.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
"Still trying to prove me wrong, aren’t you?” “You are wrong.” “Am I? They come. They fight. They destroy. They corrupt. It always ends the same.” “It only ends once. Anything that happens before that - is just progress.”
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Because civil discussion with him on politics is only possible through agreement.
That's not entirely true. But I'll freely admit that Eddie ramps up pretty quickly when challenged, and I wish that weren't the case. I've found, myself, it's fairly possible to make a convincing argument that he'll eventually come around to agreeing with on his own time -- but I don't think it's necessarily likely that you'd hear it from him. I think you do need to be willing to look past the layers of hyperbole, absolutely, because it'd get exhausting (and sort of pointless) to try to pierce each one individually.
Really? Maybe I'm blinded by my own experience, but I think I've been pretty open to correction. And if others disagree, I try to respond promptly with a counter-argument or an admission of error.
In this thread alone, I scaled back a generalization within an hour of posting it. I realize Rakeesh says negative things about me, but please don't drink his Kool-Aid -- if he has an unpleasant experience arguing with me, it's because his arguments invariably reduce to pointless semanticism or theatrical displays of offense. I'm still very fond of Jeff, at least as much as one can be with an Internet personality, but I have no illusions that the man can competently assess me. I hope you don't, either.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: What the homosexuals and their allies want above all else is the normalization of homosexuality. If states stopped recognizing marriage altogether, homosexuals and their allies would be sad, because the government wouldn't have acquiesced to homosexuals' demand that they be equated with normal people.
"Normal people". Imbecile.
Anyway, I've made it clear any number of times that my first preference would be for government to get out of the marriage biz altogether, so apparently you're a moron.
Just sayin'.
Oh, and a coward, too.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: In addition to the fact that homosexuals are same-gendered, they're also profoundly different from heterosexuals in that homosexuals don't have a similar concept of fidelity:
Thus gay "marriage" is nothing but an attempt to legitimize homosexuality as "normal," despite its abnormalities and pathological qualities.
I don't know. That article seems to be equating gays and Mormons. Is that what you were trying to say?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Eddie, your scalings-back are still major generalizations. Scaling back 'Republicans are trash' to 'maybe not all Republicans are trash, but trash votes overwhelmingly Republican'...well, really, who do you imagine you're kidding with that? Honestly, that's about as credible as a real scaling back as the excuses made for the 'private' prom.
ETA: It's strange, but it almost sounds like you think Tom is taking his cues on assessing you from me, Eddie. How likely does that sound to you? Perhaps what Tom posted is grounded in his own assessments of you, rather than just modifying what I think.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
What's interesting is that "contents under pressure" has posted 3 times, but only two are showing. Which means that it's deleted a post. What could possibly have been bad enough for the creature to have self-censored?
Fascinating...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: What the homosexuals and their allies want above all else is the normalization of homosexuality. If states stopped recognizing marriage altogether, homosexuals and their allies would be sad, because the government wouldn't have acquiesced to homosexuals' demand that they be equated with normal people.
"Normal people". Imbecile.
Anyway, I've made it clear any number of times that my first preference would be for government to get out of the marriage biz altogether, so apparently you're a moron.
Just sayin'.
Oh, and a coward, too.
whistled.
See, I really don't get it. Didn't you just have a thing where you were taking pride in how untrainable you are? Do you really not see how easy it is for people to play you?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Eddie, your scalings-back are still major generalizations. Scaling back 'Republicans are trash' to 'maybe not all Republicans are trash, but trash votes overwhelmingly Republican'...well, really, who do you imagine you're kidding with that? Honestly, that's about as credible as a real scaling back as the excuses made for the 'private' prom.
Well... not that I don't agree that he was being kind of intemperate, but don't you think he's right? I mean, the kind of trash he's talking about probably does vote overwhelmingly Republican. Just like the kind of trash that's prone to gang membership and welfare cheating votes overwhelmingly Democratic.
Both sides have segments of the population that they absolutely count on as a "gimme" vote, but generally doesn't want to be associated with them. Lately, that's blurred. Obama and Acorn on the one side, and Palin and the redneck crowd on the other.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:If states stopped recognizing marriage altogether, homosexuals and their allies would be sad, because the government wouldn't have acquiesced to homosexuals' demand that they be equated with normal people.
Some homosexuals and "allies" of homosexuals advocate for exactly the solution that you say would make them "sad." I'm one. It's a neat solution. Unfortunately this option is not much more attractive to many of the opponents of civil same sex marriage. (I will concede that some same sex marriage advocates are not happy with that solution, because it is a compromise and they don't think it's necessary - but I believe almost all of them would find it preferable to the status quo.)
I disagree. To keep blacks from voting, should opponents have eradicated elections? Or in a more direct analogy: to prevent miscegenation, should opponents have eradicated marriage just as you propose here?
And I fundamentally oppose the line of thought that says that since marriage is a religious institution, it has no place in government. It's intellectually dishonest. As an atheist, can I not get married? Legal marriage is a secular, civil procedure, and "civil unions" are nothing more than separate-but-equal laws in a modern context.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: In addition to the fact that homosexuals are same-gendered, they're also profoundly different from heterosexuals in that homosexuals don't have a similar concept of fidelity:
Thus gay "marriage" is nothing but an attempt to legitimize homosexuality as "normal," despite its abnormalities and pathological qualities.
I don't know. That article seems to be equating gays and Mormons. Is that what you were trying to say?
Don't be dense.
from the article:
quote: New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
To grant homosexuals the right to "marry" is to legitimize this aspect of their culture that would strike normal people as the antithesis of marriage.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: What the homosexuals and their allies want above all else is the normalization of homosexuality. If states stopped recognizing marriage altogether, homosexuals and their allies would be sad, because the government wouldn't have acquiesced to homosexuals' demand that they be equated with normal people.
"Normal people". Imbecile.
Anyway, I've made it clear any number of times that my first preference would be for government to get out of the marriage biz altogether, so apparently you're a moron.
Just sayin'.
Oh, and a coward, too.
whistled.
See, I really don't get it. Didn't you just have a thing where you were taking pride in how untrainable you are? Do you really not see how easy it is for people to play you?
Oh, come one. First of all, check out the foul thread where sinflower is defending atrocities against my people. When was the last time I posted there? And believe me, I've been reading it and holding back.
But besides that, you can't honestly think that the regular rules apply to obvious trollpuppets like this, can you?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The funny thing is, I do agree with him, at least on how frankly contemptible these people are - the ones holding their 'private' prom, for example, the tissue-thin excuses they offer as to why it wasn't founded in anti-homosexual bigotry, for their hypocrisy in shaming the ideals they claim to revere, and on and on.
Where we disagree is in the way he uses those things to write off the entire group, the way he appears to think that one could not possibly vote Democratic for a variety of issues and still hold this kind of intolerance in their hearts. The way, basically, that some of the worst aspects of these people defines them utterly as Republicans in ways that similar beliefs* don't define other people utterly as Democrats.
The way that the bad guys are monolithic. They're trash, or at best this sort of trash is almost always just one way. But the good guys, they get nuance.
*Don't believe me? The parties are, in the long-term, pretty evenly split in terms of votes throughout American history. But how long has it taken even for the issue to get this far? That means, necessarily, that for all this time, Democrats have been standing idly by, at best.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:To grant homosexuals the right to "marry" is to legitimize this aspect of their culture that would strike normal people as the antithesis of marriage.
Or, as in the case of heterosexual marriage, it may serve to decrease promiscuity. Do you have any data about how many of the relationships referenced in the article are in legal marriages?
quote:To grant homosexuals the right to "marry" is to legitimize this aspect of their culture that would strike normal people as the antithesis of marriage.
If you define "normal" as "not gay" then your statement is demonstrably false, given that a large number of "normal" people, as many as 40-50% across the nation (much higher in some regions) approve of SSM. This, incidentally, is a greater proportion of the population than approved of mixed-race marriages until late in the 20th century - decades after such relationships were universally legal.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Okay, question. Weren't we just talking about how nice it would be if people didn't feed the trolls? And then a troll comes along and everyone promptly starts feeding it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that he was suggesting we ignore the trollpuppets.
Rakeesh, I thought that,"Scaling back 'Republicans are trash' to 'maybe not all Republicans are trash, but trash votes overwhelmingly Republican'" was a significant difference.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Oh, come one. First of all, check out the foul thread where sinflower is defending atrocities against my people. When was the last time I posted there? And believe me, I've been reading it and holding back.
But besides that, you can't honestly think that the regular rules apply to obvious trollpuppets like this, can you?
I think Squick's point was that the whole purpose of this troll was to elicit a response from you, and you fell for it. It's not here for discussion. It just wants a rise out of the general community, either because it's a genuine troll or it's someone trying to prove a point about trolling in a discussion about trolling.
It's very meta, but whoever it is behind "contents under pressure"... stop it.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:If states stopped recognizing marriage altogether, homosexuals and their allies would be sad, because the government wouldn't have acquiesced to homosexuals' demand that they be equated with normal people.
Some homosexuals and "allies" of homosexuals advocate for exactly the solution that you say would make them "sad." I'm one. It's a neat solution. Unfortunately this option is not much more attractive to many of the opponents of civil same sex marriage. (I will concede that some same sex marriage advocates are not happy with that solution, because it is a compromise and they don't think it's necessary - but I believe almost all of them would find it preferable to the status quo.)
I disagree. To keep blacks from voting, should opponents have eradicated elections? Or in a more direct analogy: to prevent miscegenation, should opponents have eradicated marriage just as you propose here?
Marriage can be an entirely private matter between individuals. Individuals would enter into a marriage using whatever ceremony they wanted. All that is necessary for a couple to be "married" is that the community (at least comprised of their friends, family and coworkers) recognize them as such and they wear rings around their fingers to signal the fact. You can fundamentally remove government involvement and keep the institution intact. You seem to have interpreted this as my saying I'm for getting rid of marriage in and of itself entirely. I'm not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:if he has an unpleasant experience arguing with me, it's because his arguments invariably reduce to pointless semanticism or theatrical displays of offense
I think you're doing him a serious disservice here. Jeff is theatrical, sure; so are you. His arguments, though, do not invariably "reduce" away; you're just as capable of ignoring (or overlooking) the validity of some of his points as he is of yours.
I've been trying to work past some of this sort of behavior in myself, because I think a desire to "win" conversations is easily one of my least attractive qualities. There's an instinctive desire to explain away the points which seem to score, instead of manning up to bite the bullet and concede that, yes, that's a valid way of looking at it but isn't, in your point of view, as important as this other thing. And every time one does that, the other person believes one's either being too dishonest to admit the point or too stupid to see it -- and we're too easily tempted by the nature of our own brain chemistry into thinking that our defensively dismissive reaction to counterargument now constitutes a legitimate reason to think less of the person who presented it to us.
There's been a lot of research done on this in the last few years, and I've really been trying to take it seriously. It's way too easy to train yourself to think that the people who disagree with you are all stupid or evil, and I see it happening more and more often all around me. I decided I didn't want to be part of it ages ago, but it's really only in the last few months or so that I've managed to learn to recognize the emotion that leads to that behavior in me (and clamp down on it when it happens).
In other words: give Jeff more credit, and I think you'll find that he'll give you more credit, too.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that he was suggesting we ignore the trollpuppets.
Rakeesh, I thought that,"Scaling back 'Republicans are trash' to 'maybe not all Republicans are trash, but trash votes overwhelmingly Republican'" was a significant difference.
Jeff's deliberately misrepresenting my words, but should clarify for you: when I talked about scaling back, I meant the post after that. In order, I went from generalization --> elaboration --> admission of error and clarification.
He's made more claims about my supposedly black-and-white moral sensibilities, my imagined Democratic inclinations, and many more things that simply aren't true. But it's not worth my time or effort to address them, because he'll simply come up with more and argue them to semantic nonsense.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But besides that, you can't honestly think that the regular rules apply to obvious trollpuppets like this, can you?
If the 'regular rules' don't apply to trolls, who do they apply to? And when?
----
quote:Rakeesh, I thought that,"Scaling back 'Republicans are trash' to 'maybe not all Republicans are trash, but trash votes overwhelmingly Republican'" was a significant difference.
"They're trash. Wait, no, they're not all trash. But trash is almost always them." I suppose that is a significant difference, the way -7 is significantly different from -10.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:if he has an unpleasant experience arguing with me, it's because his arguments invariably reduce to pointless semanticism or theatrical displays of offense
I think you're doing him a serious disservice here. Jeff is theatrical, sure; so are you. His arguments, though, do not invariably "reduce" away; you're just as capable of ignoring (or overlooking) the validity of some of his points as he is of yours.
I've been trying to work past some of this sort of behavior in myself, because I think a desire to "win" conversations is easily one of my least attractive qualities. There's an instinctive desire to explain away the points which seem to score, instead of manning up to bite the bullet and concede that, yes, that's a valid way of looking at it but isn't, in your point of view, as important as this other thing. And every time one does that, the other person believes one's either being too dishonest to admit the point or too stupid to see it -- and we're too easily tempted by the nature of our own brain chemistry into thinking that our defensively dismissive reaction to counterargument now constitutes a legitimate reason to think less of the person who presented it to us.
There's been a lot of research done on this in the last few years, and I've really been trying to take it seriously. It's way too easy to train yourself to think that the people who disagree with you are all stupid or evil, and I see it happening more and more often all around me. I decided I didn't want to be part of it ages ago, but it's really only in the last few months or so that I've managed to learn to recognize the emotion that leads to that behavior in me (and clamp down on it when it happens).
In other words: give Jeff more credit, and I think you'll find that he'll give you more credit, too.
It would be more convincing to explain away my distaste for Jeff's dishonest tactics if I had the same experience with everyone. I have enormous respect for Dagonee, for example, though I disagreed with him on many issues. I disagree with KMBBoots on Catholicism, but I still hold her in high regard. If I were the type to dismiss opponents as stupid or evil, shouldn't I do the same to them?
(What happened to Dagonee, btw? Is he still around?)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Eddie...on what planet is, "Maybe my post was too heated," an 'admission of error'? It's an admission of the possibility of error. Nothing more and nothing less.
I don't think you have black and white moral sensibilities. I don't think you can quote a time where I have suggested you have. I think you've got very black and white sensibilities when it comes to certain religious, political, and social issues-such as this one. Even your possible admissions and clarifications, even they're still quite black and white.
I don't imagine you're a Democratic, I imagine that your contempt for the Democratic party is far, far, far outweighed by that you hold towards the GOP.
ETA: I wonder if Dagonee thinks you have enormous respect for him? If he remembers you, that is-that's not a shot, it's just been awhile since you were around here regularly.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:There's been a lot of research done on this in the last few years
Could you point me towards some of this research, please? It sounds interesting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It would be more convincing to explain away my distaste for Jeff's dishonest tactics if I had the same experience with everyone.
Now stop. Allow yourself to frame the same sentence with the presumption that Jeff's tactics are not, in fact, dishonest.
We are left with the observation that you find Jeff's tactics distasteful, but do not find everyone's tactics distasteful. There are things, then, that distinguish Jeff's tactics from those you don't mind -- but is dishonesty one of those things?
What about Jeff's approach is more dishonest than Kate's? I submit that he's more confrontational and aggressive, and quicker to take offense himself. You both wind up feeding off of that, and conclude that the other simply isn't capable of having a "civil conversation;" you both believe the other is consciously dealing falsely. But that's the laziest conclusion.
The truth is that you're both pretty fallible, quick to huffy anger, and occasionally prone to huge misunderstandings. The truth is also that you're both good, principled, intelligent, and educated men who really do like each other and enjoy talking to each other, but get frustrated when you can't easily understand why the other one is determined to stand stubbornly on some point that is, in your opinion, clearly ridiculous. And when you get frustrated, you both have a tendency to assume that it is because someone else is frustrating you.
That doesn't sound like an insurmountable problem to me, to be honest.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It would be more convincing to explain away my distaste for Jeff's dishonest tactics if I had the same experience with everyone.
Now stop. Allow yourself to frame the same sentence with the presumption that Jeff's tactics are not, in fact, dishonest.
We are left with the observation that you find Jeff's tactics distasteful, but do not find everyone's tactics distasteful. There are things, then, that distinguish Jeff's tactics from those you don't mind -- but is dishonesty one of those things?
What about Jeff's approach is more dishonest than Kate's? I submit that he's more confrontational and aggressive, and quicker to take offense himself. You both wind up feeding off of that, and conclude that the other simply isn't capable of having a "civil conversation;" you both believe the other is consciously dealing falsely. But that's the laziest conclusion.
The truth is that you're both pretty fallible, quick to huffy anger, and occasionally prone to huge misunderstandings. The truth is also that you're both good, principled, intelligent, and educated men who really do like each other and enjoy talking to each other, but get frustrated when you can't easily understand why the other one is determined to stand stubbornly on some point that is, in your opinion, clearly ridiculous. And when you get frustrated, you both have a tendency to assume that it is because someone else is frustrating you.
That doesn't sound like an insurmountable problem to me, to be honest.
To use the most recent example, observe this thread. As I outlined above, I made a short generalization about Republicans, elaborated on it, and then scaled back my generalization to a more reasonable criticism of Know-Nothing philosophy.
Jeff immediately and repeatedly insisted that my second post, an elaboration of my generalization, is my revision. He knows perfectly well that's not true. He simply wanted to obfuscate the discussion, and he succeeded. Kate wound up defending my revision as the scaled-back criticism, because Jeff had revised history to fit his criticism of me.
He's not a bad guy, but he suffers from the win-at-any-cost syndrome you referenced above. Even if it means destroying rational discussion, he sees arguments as having winners and losers -- and he hates to lose.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Who is Jeff?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Who is Jeff?
Jeff is Rakeesh. This was a smaller, more intimate community back in the day.
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: In addition to the fact that homosexuals are same-gendered, they're also profoundly different from heterosexuals in that homosexuals don't have a similar concept of fidelity:
Thus gay "marriage" is nothing but an attempt to legitimize homosexuality as "normal," despite its abnormalities and pathological qualities.
I don't know. That article seems to be equating gays and Mormons. Is that what you were trying to say?
Don't be dense.
from the article:
quote: New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
To grant homosexuals the right to "marry" is to legitimize this aspect of their culture that would strike normal people as the antithesis of marriage.
How is this any different than marriage in heterosexual couples today, of which 60% of men and 50% of women have extramarital affairs? The numbers for homosexual infidelity seem nearly identical to heterosexual infidelity. I don't see the relevance in bringing this statistic up, are you trying to say that infidelity rates are largely similar regardless of the type of relationship? Because that's what your statistic supports.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Jeff immediately and repeatedly insisted that my second post, an elaboration of my generalization, is my revision. He knows perfectly well that's not true.
I think you're making an assumption here that isn't accurate. At the very least, why not assume that Jeff thinks the bit he quoted is an accurate representation of the content of your revision, even assuming he's aware that more text followed? Why instead assume that he's intending to misrepresent you?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenos:
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: In addition to the fact that homosexuals are same-gendered, they're also profoundly different from heterosexuals in that homosexuals don't have a similar concept of fidelity:
Thus gay "marriage" is nothing but an attempt to legitimize homosexuality as "normal," despite its abnormalities and pathological qualities.
I don't know. That article seems to be equating gays and Mormons. Is that what you were trying to say?
Don't be dense.
from the article:
quote: New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
To grant homosexuals the right to "marry" is to legitimize this aspect of their culture that would strike normal people as the antithesis of marriage.
How is this any different than marriage in heterosexual couples today, of which 60% of men and 50% of women have extramarital affairs? The numbers for homosexual infidelity seem nearly identical to heterosexual infidelity. I don't see the relevance in bringing this statistic up, are you trying to say that infidelity rates are largely similar regardless of the type of relationship? Because that's what your statistic supports.
Ah, but according to the article in homosexual marriages they discuss the possibility of infidelity openly, and it is therefore much more likely to be accepted by the other spouse and not result in a failed marriage.
Whew, those naughty gays, using communication and acceptance to keep their marriages going. How despicable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: Kate wound up defending my revision as the scaled-back criticism, because Jeff had revised history to fit his criticism of me.
Actually, I sort of meant to post that the revision was important independent of anything Rakeesh wrote. I got lazy and was distracted by life and didn't get around to it and Rakeesh's post nudged me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: -7 is significantly different from -10.
It's not, actually, under the reasonable assumption that the error is the square root of the absolute value. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:To use the most recent example, observe this thread. As I outlined above, I made a short generalization about Republicans, elaborated on it, and then scaled back my generalization to a more reasonable criticism of Know-Nothing philosophy.
You're switching things around. At times you say 'admission' and other times - such as now - you talk about 'revisions'. I was not objecting to your claim that you revised your statements, though I did object to the suggestion that your revisions were really much of a significant change.
quote: Jeff immediately and repeatedly insisted that my second post, an elaboration of my generalization, is my revision.
Well, no. What actually happened was that I did not consider the post you linked to an admission at all, which is what I was initially talking about. That's why I didn't look at it. You didn't make any admissions of error, just that 'maybe' you were mistaken.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It's not, actually, under the reasonable assumption that the error is the square root of the absolute value. [Big Grin]
Your mother!
(Because I can't bring the math humor)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually that's physics humour. Mathematicians don't deal in errors, and consequently don't use qualifiers like 'significant'. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Your promiscuous mother!
(Because I can't bring the physics humor, either)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Your mom thinks Quarks are from Star Trek!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Your mom did Quark from Star Trek!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
My mom quarked a Trekkie. *shudder*
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
My girlfriend says: Who wouldn't do Quark?
She's pretty enamored with Ferengi in general, but Quark in particular.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
My father - no joke, this is the story he tells himself - married my mother on account of her collection of science-fiction books. Including Star Trek. So there.
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
I married my hubby in part because he not only quoted Star Trek to me, but knew the episode from which he was quoting.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I continued to date my future wife in part because I mentioned Final Fantasy and she knew exactly what I was talking about.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Would you like a list of things done by Democrats that are repugnant?
Yes, I still would, thank you. As I've said, I already know about Vietnam and Kosovo. Don't bother listing health care, that has it's own thread.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
A guy gave me painted D&D miniatures as tokens of affection when he first asked me out. He took me to a sci-fi convention for our 2nd date.
I married him.
Nerdery is apparently a factor in many successful courtships.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
My now-wife made a joke about star trek and time dilation so I decided to ask her on our first date.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Some of the most fun times I've had with my boyfriend- where we were both laughing, and talking, and generally happy- were when I was watching him play some sort of video game. usually, Assassin's Creed or Fable, but once it was Dragon Age. he won't let me sit there while he plays that one, though, because I'm better at it than he is. He won't let me play him at Starcraft, either.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A guy gave me painted D&D miniatures as tokens of affection when he first asked me out. He took me to a sci-fi convention for our 2nd date.
Here's the key question, though: was your nerdery known by him when he courted you with his nerdery?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Where are you meeting these nerds? I'd like an inked nerd, so I'm not only going to get inked, but I'M GOING TO an INK CONVENTION.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
What is it about an inked nerd that makes one preferable to a non-inked nerd?
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
My nerd... is my best friend/roommate's older brother. It seems like a recipe for disaster, but it works.
I didn't actually get to know him until I started going to this tabletop hobby shop, where he spent most of his time. Until recently, anyway. I was going there for the paint, not the miniatures... well, and they had Munchkin there, too.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Syn, I met my geek partner on OKCupid. She decided to send me a message on the site because I mentioned Maureen McHugh as being among my favorite authors.
On our first date, after we went back to her place, I was impressed to find that her SF collection was incredibly extensive--better than my own for some authors.
As we were sitting at her table talking, I mentioned that I was active on Hatrack, and her reaction was "you hang out in Mormonville?" My response was "no, that's Nauvoo", to which she replied something along the lines of "good point." Apparently she lurked here briefly in the early 2000s.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
This guy seems like an inked nerd.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Noemon: What's wrong with hanging out in Mormonville? Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I didn't read that as a criticism.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Woah this thread took a left turn. (Which was a pretty good thing.)
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:A guy gave me painted D&D miniatures as tokens of affection when he first asked me out. He took me to a sci-fi convention for our 2nd date.
Here's the key question, though: was your nerdery known by him when he courted you with his nerdery?
Yes and no. We met at a W40k game but I had never played it before and was sort of leery. I mentioned at the time that I liked D&D stuff so he knew I was a bit of a dork. Of course he gets extra credit - not only did he give me D&D minis after he found this out, he painted them up to look like drow elves. The boy was paying attention when I mentioned liking RA Salvatore.
The true extent of my nerdery didn't come out until I outgeeked him in a Doctor Who conversation about a month later.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: What is it about an inked nerd that makes one preferable to a non-inked nerd?
They don't HAVE to be inked, I just have an odd thing about tattoos I don't understand. I fully expect to marry a biker or possibly a yakusa with a full body suit. But then I think traditional yakusa tattoos are better than biker tattoos... but I would not say that around bikers.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: My father - no joke, this is the story he tells himself - married my mother on account of her collection of science-fiction books. Including Star Trek. So there.
Icarus (he still posts here, rarely) and his wife Cor went on a Trek cruise for their honeymoon, complete with costumes. I've seen the pictures.
I read a ton of fantasy, and my wife and I have some overlap these days because of the supernatural fantasies that are out. Our first date was the see FOTR, and it was her idea. Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Wow. You're all dorks.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
BlackBlade, Matt's right--it wasn't a criticism. Although actually, what would really be wrong with hanging out in the real Mormonville, Nauvoo.com, would be that I'd be there against Card's express wishes.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: They don't HAVE to be inked, I just have an odd thing about tattoos I don't understand. I fully expect to marry a biker or possibly a yakusa with a full body suit.
So your dating criteria makes nice tats trump professional criminal.
As a former dating coach, I'd advise you to reconsider your priorities Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That's the same thing I was thinking. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: They don't HAVE to be inked, I just have an odd thing about tattoos I don't understand. I fully expect to marry a biker or possibly a yakusa with a full body suit.
So your dating criteria makes nice tats trump professional criminal.
As a former dating coach, I'd advise you to reconsider your priorities
She never said "trump". Perhaps it's "complement".
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: This guy seems like an inked nerd.
If this guy could play the bass, I'd marry him tomorrow.
But yeah, geeks with tattoo body suits are hot. Give me some money and a few years, and I'll be one myself.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
lol
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: She never said "trump". Perhaps it's "complement".
Well, the fact that she considers a member of the Japanese mafia a good marriage prospect simply because he has nice tats seems like trumping to me.
Unless being in organized crime is a favorable trait, and then I guess the tats do complement it
If women considering tattoos a primary trait of marriageable material in a man is really so common, I think women are going to lose the privilege of calling guys superficial for marrying women for their youth and good looks. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:Would you like a list of things done by Democrats that are repugnant?
Yes, I still would, thank you. As I've said, I already know about Vietnam and Kosovo. Don't bother listing health care, that has it's own thread.
Since Lisa isn't answering this yet, I'll give it a try. Going to bed now, so I'll just throw out the first few that come to mind: Opposing civil rights legislation. The Department of Education. Social Security.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
You're answering for her, or giving your own answers?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The Department of Education and Social Security are repugnant? I can see someone thinking they're very bad mistakes, but repugnant goes and puts you in the fringe category, man.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: She never said "trump". Perhaps it's "complement".
Well, the fact that she considers a member of the Japanese mafia a good marriage prospect simply because he has nice tats seems like trumping to me.
Unless being in organized crime is a favorable trait, and then I guess the tats do complement it
If women considering tattoos a primary trait of marriageable material in a man is really so common, I think women are going to lose the privilege of calling guys superficial for marrying women for their youth and good looks.
I'm partially joking, those tattoos are gorgeous though, and many non-yakusa are sporting those beautiful illustrations.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The Department of Education and Social Security are repugnant? I can see someone thinking they're very bad mistakes, but repugnant goes and puts you in the fringe category, man.
I'll grant you that. Repugnant is definitely overstating it. Very bad mistakes sounds much more accurate to me. Thanks
I was really more just thinking "What are things Democrats have done that screwed things up?"
In fairness, I don't think many of the things Foust would call repugnant qualify as repugnant either. Like, the Vietnam war, for instance.
PS: Foust I was answering for myself, not for Lisa, although I suspect she'll agree that those are three bad mistakes made by Democrats.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
If we are going to investigate voting patterns we should focus on the extreme. 95% of African Americans vote Democrat. Why? Unfortunate for the gays in California, the blacks outlawed their marriages.
If 95% of whites voted Repub, the racism would be undeniable. Here's a nice fact for you. Less than half the Tea Party members are R's. More than half are Dems and Independents.
Of course, Pelosi wants you to believe that people who believe in limited government are racist right wing Republicans. Brown won in Mass due to his Tea Party positions. Republicans didn't have enough votes to elect Scott Brown and they aren't the majority of the Tea Party.
[ April 10, 2010, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Here's a nice fact for you. Less than half the Tea Party members are R's. More than half are Dems and Independents.
I know this is probably barking up the wrong tree, but... source?
I like the Tea Parties quite a bit, but this does not jive with anything I've read about them. Certainly Democrats have some representation, and there are quite a few Independents, but outnumbering the Republicans? I'm skeptical.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I know this is probably barking up the wrong tree, but... source?
There was a recent poll, though his numbers are off. It's about 60% Republicans, 40% Democrats + independents, but even that obfuscates the fact that it's less than 10% Democrats/liberals.
What gets lost though is that fact that virtually no one wants to admit to being a Republican. Other polls have indicated that only something like 20% of the population currently identify themselves as Republican. Many of today's "independents" were Republicans only a year or two ago. So a group that's 60% Republican leans MUCH heavier to the right than the population at large. A lot of those independents are also Beckian Libertarians, not moderates.
[ April 10, 2010, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That looks more familiar, Matt. The idea that anything but a very centrist Democrat would appreciate much that the Tea Parties are fighting for is basically ridiculous on its face.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
would be more productive.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)