martinguerre

What exactly are you doing?

If you find me despicable, it's only because of your own amorality and acceptance of repression. It's a defense mecanism to avoid actually having to confront these issues. You cannot debate on logical terms, so resort to closing your ears and slinging insults. Because I don't get to say that enough.

Who has burden of proof here is the only issue that make this whole circlejerk of a conversation keep running. You think that you have tradition at your back, and so do not question why your assumptions are right. The left thinks they have progress at their back...

And i'm left rolling my eyes as far back in to their sockets as they'll go. this isn't political football. this is about people's lives. and you don't seem to give a damn about that. i think that choice is immoral, and despicable.

you say you haven't been given a reason. everyone here knows that's not true. i've seen you ignore every posting that tries to point that out to you. so i say you're choosing to be willfully ignorant.

do i wish you made difference choices? sure. but i'm not holding my breath. you seem pretty convinced of your own amorality.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

filtherton

Yes, and when exactly did you decide that you weren't going to be attracted to men? A simple answer will suffice. Was it when you were in adolescence? Young adult? Regardless of whether something is inborn or not, what i'm talking about is choice. I want you to tell me unequivocally that you can choose to be sexually aroused by men.

Your analogy is not apt. I can't tell if the world is round just by looking out my window. I can, however, tell whether i am attracted to men or not by looking at a man.

As far as psychology goes, a lot of it is bullshit, but that's another discussion. Speaking of psychology, i would imagine that you believe that most mental patients choose to suffer from mental illness.

Above all, if you respond to this, please give me a rough estimate as to when you chose to be heterosexual, and then tell me all about how you can choose to be attracted to men.

alansmithee

This whole section makes absolutely no sense, so I won't respond unless you'd like to clarify.

Hmm, hypocracy much? Did you even read what the topic was about, or just come out to defend the gay mafia? A Republican senator who was a "foe of gay rights" (whatever that's supposed to mean, nobody yet has seemed to be able to say what rights gays are being denied) was outed in a sting operation, which liberals HERE have said they supported. They are doing exactly what you are accusing others of: using one man's sexuality as a political football and not caring about his life. But because it's a republican who didn't buy into the gay agenda, you don't seem to see anything wrong with his personal life being used as a political tool. You seem to be admonishing the wrong side.

Show me one posting i've ignored, otherwise your statement is false. The closest i've seen is filtherton's posts asking me when I chose to be hetero, and a link dealing with a book about how animals supposedly show gay behavior. Neither of these is even convincing, not to mention definitive. You are being willfully blinded by propaganda, and are refusing to see anything that doesn't fit into how you view the world.


Again, have no idea what this is supposed to mean or its relevance but it seems that irrationality is one of your hallmarks so statements like that should be expected.

Thinking back, it was probably in 3rd grade, 6 yrs old or so when I started having anything that could be described as attraction for women. And as for choosing to be attracted to men, I didn't even know it was possible until probably 6th or 7th grade.

And as for saying that I can unequivocally choose to be attracted to men, I can't say that at the time. But I also can't rule out the possibility in the future.

I'll concede this simply because it's not really necessary for the discussion at hand.

Some mental disorders are from choice, or start as lesser disorders that are deliberately choosen (or at least behaving with the symptoms is choosen). But I seriously doubt that most mental patients choose mental illness.

I covered most of this above, but i'll try for another example. As I've said before, I currently am not attracted to men, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility for the future. I also currently have no intrest in many fetishistic behaviors, but that doesn't mean that I won't like those in the future if I chose to try those either.

martinguerre

Alan...i don't support outing. Did you not catch that?

Outing only works when you have people saying the kind of shit that you say. It's only something to be feared when a culture of shame is built up to keep queer sexuality a dirty secret. Gay mafia? Screw that, man. I'm standing up for myself.

You want to think this is personal, or that i'm irrational, that's fine. I don't much care what happens in your head. that's your own. but what you say on this board is dehumanizing and wrong. and i take issue with that.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

alansmithee

What do you mean standing up for yourself? I never mentioned you at all until you came in trying to attack me.

Also, how is stating my personal displeasure with certain forms of behavior dehumanizing or wrong? I do many things that people probably have problems with, but I don't demand special rights to practice those behaviors or force everyone to embrace those behaviors, nor do I start slinging names at them. But woe betide the person that speaks against "teh ghey", as a wave of liberals will decend upon him like locusts, and the skys will rumble with the thunder of their insults and be illuminated with the lightning of their self-righteousness. They wear their hypocricy like armour, and use their amorality as a shield as they strike against anyone who doesn't fall in line with their agenda.

filtherton

I'm not talking about choosing to try. I'm talking about choosing to enjoy. The fact that you have no interest in fetishistic behaviors that you've never tried doesn't matter. What matters is whether you can make a choice, right now, without any cognitive dissonance whatsoever, without any self delusional trickery, to enjoy fucking men. Is sexual orientation was a choice, as you seem to believe, than you should be able to alter it at will. If you can't then it's not really a choice.

martinguerre

You aren't stating a personal displeasure. Complicity with the heteronormative culture is to accept what goes along with it. Suicide caused by fear and shame, politics of personal destruction, the breaking of families, leaving foster children without loving and waiting homes, allowing hospitals to deny vistation to lifelong partners, the list goes on and on.

When you use the vocabulary of virulant homophobia, i respond. For me. I don't belong to a gay mafia. Let me let you in on a secret. There isn't one. I'm queer, and i'm a person. That's it. So before you try to ascribe what i'm saying to some secret society, just can it and listen for one minute.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

hannukah harry

i think you need to change that a bit... it's not whether or not allensmithee can just up and choose to enjoy sex with a man. if he's ever had anal or recieved head, he could easily enjoy it. the issue is whether or not he could just up and choose to have romantic feelings for another man without any cognitive dissonance, etc.

<b>allensmithee</b>
it seems to me that sexual preferance isn't a choice. you call the animals seen engaging in homosexual activities as propoganda. i see it as observational evidence. does that mean that every instance of homosexuality in humans is 100% biologic? nope. my guess is that there are some people who are hardwired to be homosexual, and others are 'programmed' to be (something happened to them while developing mentally to unconsciously turn them off to the opposite sex or leave them open to finding both sexes equally attractive - not programmed as many homophobic people think gays are trying to 'brainwash' kids into being gay).

think about people you've been romantically attracted to. why have you been attracted to them? a lot of the time people fall in love for no particular reason... the person they fall in love with has a 'je ne se qua' (possibly horribly misspelled) quality. is it that you find big tits attractive? or is it that all of the people you fall for happen to have big tits? your 'type' is based on your genes and your experiences as you were growing. for some men, their type happen to have dicks. it's not a conscious choice just like i'm sure you meet women you find yourself attracted to and you do it just by seeing them without knowing anything else about them...

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

cellophanedeity

Alan and J8ear, I'm sure you've posted before on this somewhere, but why is it that you believe that homosexuality is wrong? What is your defence and or reasoning for your beliefs? You're of great interest to me, as I don't actually know anyone in person who shares your perspectives, and I'd like to know your reasons.

I don't think people should be outed. It's mean and bad experiences can lead someone to be even increasingly self-denying and ashamed. Coming out to someone often has a lot to do with trust and personal comfort, and it's cruel to make this decision for people.

I don't believe that sexual preference is a choice. In a world filled with so much hatred against homosexuals, why would anyone choose to become one? I'm lucky, and I've been able to explore my sexuality in a very accepting and embracing community, but why on earth would anyone choose to be gay? It seems that it would be much easier to be straight, in general.

roachboy

so much for loving your neighbor as yourself, so much for judge not lest you be judged, so much for let he who is without sin cast the first stone---so much for every important tenant of the new testament. you would think that these repeated outbursts of bigotry--even in the microcosm of this thread--would give even the most convinced protestant fundamentalist reason to think about what they are saying, how it lines up with the religion they claim to represent, what their positions make christianity look like to others....they do a real disservice to an often quite beautiful vision of how people can and should be to each other in the world that jesus outlined...all in the name of that vision. you would think that eventually some kind of dissonance would turn up in this. you really would think so.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

alansmithee

Heteronormative? You have got to be putting on some sort of an act to come up with stuff like that. That is the single most ridiculous thing I've read on these boards in awhile. The rest of the post isn't even worth discussing.


What I meant was that in the book the author (who is gay) interprets many behaviors as being homosexual that might not be. He admits himself that because it's dealing with animal behavior, there is much interpretation involved. I am not questioning what he observed, merely his interpretation of it, since he did have an agenda.

I don't care about attraction. People can be attracted to whoever they want, and I don't think that anyone cares. It's when people act on that attraction. And I personally don't even care if people act on their attractions, but when they want special rights based on their attraction is where I draw the line.

I personally don't care much about homosexuality, what happens between other people in their bedrooms. But I do care when people try to force their beliefs on me, which is what the gay mafia tries to do. They want everyone to accept sex between the same genders as not only normal but something to be celebrated, and anyone who thinks otherwise is attacked. And then they try to hijack marriage in order to get gov't support of their deviant lifestyle. And people aren't even supposed to blink.

cellophanedeity

Alan, you missed what I was asking all together. Here, let me clarify. What makes you not wish to embrace the idea of sex between the same gender as something that is okay? You seemingly do care about homosexuality, as you refer to it as a "deviant lifestyle" which, obviously, has a negative connotation. Why do you feel this way?

And as for the "gay mafia" thing, I hope that I'm misinterpreting what you're saying with this term. Could you clarify for me? If you mean what I think you mean, it seems that calling queer activists the "gay mafia" would be like calling the Christian conservatives the "God Mob" who are out to brainwash everyone into thinking that anything sexual for non-reproductive purposes is evil.

I don't agree with you alansmithee, but I'd like this discussion to be civil and clear... if you're rude I'll send the gay mafia after you!

martinguerre

alan? It's not made up. A lot of people will recognize that vocabulary, and your outright refusal to consider my words reflects upon your willful ignorance that i mentioned in my first post.

i suppose this is the end of the discussion.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

filtherton

So i would assume that you have no qualms about religious discrimination since people choose to be religious?

How is homosexuality not normal? How do you define what is normal? I hope you're aware that given current divorce rates being in a marriage that hasn't ended in divorce is also a deviant lifestyle. Perhaps you wouldn't be attacked if you weren't so selective in defining what is normal and what is deviant.

btw, could you just up and choose to be attracted to a man without experiencing any kind of cognitive dissonance?

arch13

So we are clear, you also feel that I am allowed to fire any employee I may have for being Christian?
So firing someone for being black, christian, or gay are all okay, right?
If your going to stand on this prinicpal, then stand on it and state what you implied, that firing can be done "for what ever fucking reason someone can invent".
That of course means I can fire all the christians and jews for believing?
I can also fire someone for being Republican, or having a W sticker on their car, right?

So what is marriage to you J8ear?
Is it somethng about love, procreation, or monotary in nature (ie "privilages").
What is the meaning of it to you, and why does it hold importance.

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

j8ear

You're under the dillusion that you have the ability to "bestow", as it were, anything upon me, a second chance in this instance. The grownups are talking Kadath. Please don't interupt with your tantrums.

Irrelevant

You make it so better then any argument I could present.

I don't think that at all. It is definately NOT normal, and is definately deviant...but it is not WRONG, imho. I don't believe it should be celebrated or even encouraged. I don't even believe homosexuals should be discrimitated against. That however conflicts with my belief that the discrimitating application of decision making is not mine to judge. And in fact is a violation of someones RIGHTS to judge. In other words I strongly support another fellas right to descriminate against homosexuals.

That's correct sport...WHAT EVER FUCKING reason someone can invent. What wasn't clear about that?

If you think you can run a successful business by firing christians, jews blacks, republicans...whatever....go right ahead. The market will WEED your looser business accumen out. Same with homos...the market will dictate how that plays out. I'll be there to pick up the scraps at the bankruptcy sale.

Of course, it is currently a violation of LAW to fire someone based on race religion, creed, gender or national origin. Some states have increased that list to include homosexuality. MOST haven't. Regardless I'll make my decisions based on what's best for the business. Compliance with law is an important consideration.

As far as marriage is concerned it is a private contract between my wife and I. It is important to me because it involves MY WORD.


Finally to Manx, I thought about your post earlier and have decided that the reason the "outing" was done was exclusively to punish, humilate, expose, and othewise negatively influence an individual. That is shameful, hypocritical and despicable. Those who perputrate these tactics are on the same level as Tom Delay and Chuck Shumer. People whose hair I wouldn't piss on if it was on fire.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

j8ear

I just wanted to add one more under the following heading:
Let me break this down:

1. You think much differently then I do.
2. You pushed the limits of my vastly superior intellect and experience.
3. I tolerated you for a week many moons ago.
4. Unable to counter or contain your poison, I banished you.
5. I bestowed a second opportunity upon your being out of the goodness of my supremacy.
6. You failed me with your insolence.
7. I have rambled on senselessly for several sentences, and had better close succinctly with some command instructing the heathen to refrain from further comment verbally on this matter.
8. Yuo misspelled a word; used, a comma incorrectly and a preposition ended your sentence with!!!!

hehe...I made eight up

Yikes, I better watch my pees and queues.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Manx

I'm not sure why I am bothering to respond to you considering the posts you've been making.

I'm quite certain the outing was done to "punish, humilate, expose and otherwise negatively influence an individual". In the very exclusive realm of those who view homosexuality as a behavior deserving of punishment, humiliation, exposition - resulting in a negative perception of the person exposed, by those who supported the position on homosexuality that comes from the person exposed. As I said - all negativity associated with the outing is brought about very exclusively by those with anti-homosexual positions, including the person who was outed.

The only other people who would view the person being outed in a negative light are those who disfavor hypocrisy. Such as myself. Though in that case, it is nothing more than fulfillment of the expectation of a politician.

Those who oppose outing are those who believe homosexuality is better left private - our society is heterosexual, and very far from private in that respect.

I don't care if he's gay. I don't care if you're gay. I don't care if I'm gay. I don't care if you can't get it up without being whipped. Sexual preference means nothing to me outside of relationships I have that include sexuality.

If you view this recently outed man with additional disfavor due to his sexuality, that is your flaw. And if you are gay - then you're a hypocrite like him.

j8ear

I'm not sure what this serves aside from an attempt at condescention. This is your second time Manx, the first time you were dismissed out of hand, likely embarassed and not heard from in that thread again. There will not be a third time.

No on to more important matters:

Then why would you support anyones attempts to humiliate, punish...or blah blah blah...? That doesn't make sense. I can see what your saying. IT ~shouldn't~ matter. To me it doesn't...although frankly, if you started bragging about the whipping you need to be getting while your dog licked peanut butter off of your ball sack in order to even get a woodie...I would have SERIOUS hesitations about voting for you, to you it doesn't also. Fine. Your an enlightened soul, able to see past our mortal bodies...likely AWARE that your actions are unique, and not shared by everyone. In fact could be darn right damaging to someone. Yet you share anyway..knowing the damage and harm you will inflict.

This is done MALICIOUSLY...with purpose and intent to harm. Here is the thought train of the perpetrator. I do not think any one should be harmed by this...but I KNOW this guy will be. I'm going to OUT HIM in order to harm him. That'll show him. Vengeance is mine. The evil heathen. I know what it felt like...no so will he...<insert evil insane laughter>

Come on Manx. Are you really defending this? Malice and premeditation?

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Manx

Let's be clear - when you say you disapprove of maliciousness, I don't believe you for a second - you consistently demonstrate your affinity for it in your posts. Therefore, it becomes clear that what you really disapprove of is maliciousness towards politicians who are more similar than dissimilar to yourself, or at the least, the desire to be malicious towards liberal viewpoints for the sake of maliciousness.

Having said that, I do understand the point you claim to be making. The reason I disagree is that in a culture of repression, it is not malicious to shine the light on those things that are unecessarily repressed. The maliciousness you speak of is not the creation of the person or people who outed this politician - it is the creation of this politician. Any harm he feels has been done to him has been done to him by himself. He supports the maliciousness.

Lebell

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!