Same Sex Marriage

[Nerys Myk]

Gays and lesbians can have children if they force themselves to, it would be going against their inclinations, but even if they did, their children would probably stand no greater chance of being homosexual than anyone else's, so by having children, they do not perpetuate the homosexual community. If by some 24th century magic they tried to make their children homosexual, they might as well become a separate race of hemaphodites so they can perpetuate themselves without medical intervention.

What inclination prevents homosexuals from wanting to having children???? "Force" them selves????? I don't think being Gay or Lesbian turns off the desire for children.

Being homosexual is hardwired into us. Some of us will be and some wont. I don't think it can be bred out us.

Why exactly would they want to become a race of hermaphrodites????

They won't perpetuate the homosexual community by having children, they rely on others to do that. Homosexuals come out to a fixed percentage of the total population, if that population rises so does the population of homosexuals, and if it falls then so to proportionally does the homosexual community. Unless of course the root cause is discovered and something can be done to prevent it, so far that something doesn't exist, but who knows what the next 300 years will bring.

I don't think they're out to "perpetuate" the community. They want kids for the same reason most folks want kids. Its a natural impulse in humans. The community will be perpetuated, because there will always be homosexual humans.

Why should anyone be looking for a way to "prevent" it? Again its not a disease anymore than me being left handed is a disease.

 

[IndyJones]

Well how do you pick out the homosexual guy then?

I might ask him questions. I might as people who know him. I might take our location into context. But mostly it's not a problem because *I'm* usually the one getting asked. And I've never been offended when a girl asked me out either.

You might be attracted to someone and it turns out he's not homosexual like you, getting to that other homosexual is a problem, because most heterosexual guys don't like to be hit upon by other guys.

I'd like to think that most of the straight guys in my area are able to handle getting hit on by a gay guy, and I've never heard of a gay friend having a serious problem. This conventional wisdom probably doesn't hold for a modern urban gay dude.

I could be attracted to a lesbian, and when I find that out, then there are 10 other women who aren't lesbians, for homosexuals its harder.

Thanks for that deep insight into the plight of gays.

 

[The Castellan]

If we can control whether or not we have them, then I assume most parents would like to have children that are like themselves, that is heterosexual, so we can raise them properly, rather than unlike them

Dude, you know you're in an uphill battle, and the hill's covered with axle grease? You're trying to push a car uphill with a rope.

MY parants do not care if I am like them or not like them, they want me to be myself, and no one else. And here's a shock, homosexual couples with children, raise their kids just fine like eveyone else, better in some cases.

Just come out and admit that you simply hate gays, bisexuals, transgenders, and everyone else who's sexuality is not the norm....you'll get a lot more respect for being honest than trying what you are doing now.....about trying top 'help' them. Oh, and what's you fetish on reproduction.....not everyone out there wants to have kids...I don't......I know homosexual couples who don't and even ~GASPS~ heterosexual couples!

AND WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK if the population of gays or straights goes up or down? Folks have kids because they want to, not to
perpetuate' their populations.....this is not tribal times where one had to have 20 kids, just to keep the tribe going. It seems you're really rallying for the former to happen, and praying every night, "Please, God, let the homosexuals become extinct!" I say stop making the floor plans on how everyone should raise their kids, because it's only a matter of time before someone's gonna, one day, give you a nice kick to your hackey sacks before telling you to STFU. Plus each time society has tried to tame a minority or outcast group, they always FAIL.....Blacks, women, and a few others will tell you. The gays are just going to be added to that list of those whom society FAILED at taming. And it being a 'disease', every gay I know has said, in responce to this smeg, is "I'd rather stay 'sick', then!". I got a feeling this guy simply got rejected by one too many hot lesbians and is taking it on everyone.

So, I'v said it once, and I'll say it again:

You get NOTHING, you LOSE, good DAY, sir!

 

[Saito S]

EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM that you (meaning Mars) have attributed to homosexuality is societal.

Every last disadvantage of being homosexual is a disadvantage because, and only because, our society still doesn't treat gays (or bisexuals, or transgendered people, or... anyone who is in any way not heteronormative, really) with the respect that they deserve. Your argument with us is circular.

A man being particularly bothered by being hit on by another man is a form of homophobia in itself. Unless that man would also be bothered by being hit on by a woman, i.e., if that man just doesn't like being hit on, period.

The whole idea is that society will, hopefully, someday, treat everyone equally. Treat all people as just PEOPLE. Gay, straight, whatever; it doesn't matter. Two consenting adults want to get married? Great. They want to have a kid? Fine (and don't bring up a same-sex couple's inability to procreate; artificial insemination and adopting are not exactly new concepts). A man hitting on a man or a woman hitting on a woman would, in this society, be treated no differently than a man hitting on a woman or vice versa.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

As for comparing homosexuality to a disease or birth defect or some such, that puts you on very dangerous ground, and I suggest cutting back on that unless you want to be a bigot.

Yes, the homosexual community can absolutely say "boo" (or perhaps something a BIT more strong...) to the notion of homosexuality being wiped out via genetic manipulation. It is absolutely different from the implications of a cure for, say, blindness, in ways that are quite obvious if you think about it for two minutes.

The bottom line is this: homosexuality is not a disease, or a defect, or a problem, or anything of the sort. It's simply an alternative sexuality, and instead of stamping it out, we should be focusing on stamping out homophobia and lack of acceptance. This is the only morally defensible path for us, as a civilization, to take on this issue.

 

[The Castellan]

EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM that you (meaning Mars) have attributed to homosexuality is societal.

Every last disadvantage of being homosexual is a disadvantage because, and only because, our society still doesn't treat gays (or bisexuals, or transgendered people, or... anyone who is in any way not heteronormative, really) with the respect that they deserve. Your argument with us is circular.

A man being particularly bothered by being hit on by another man is a form of homophobia in itself. Unless that man would also be bothered by being hit on by a woman, i.e., if that man just doesn't like being hit on, period.

The whole idea is that society will, hopefully, someday, treat everyone equally. Treat all people as just PEOPLE. Gay, straight, whatever; it doesn't matter. Two consenting adults want to get married? Great. They want to have a kid? Fine (and don't bring up a same-sex couple's inability to procreate; artificial insemination and adopting are not exactly new concepts). A man hitting on a man or a woman hitting on a woman would, in this society, be treated no differently than a man hitting on a woman or vice versa.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

As for comparing homosexuality to a disease or birth defect or some such, that puts you on very dangerous ground, and I suggest cutting back on that unless you want to be a bigot.

Yes, the homosexual community can absolutely say "boo" (or perhaps something a BIT more strong...) to the notion of homosexuality being wiped out via genetic manipulation. It is absolutely different from the implications of a cure for, say, blindness, in ways that are quite obvious if you think about it for two minutes.

The bottom line is this: homosexuality is not a disease, or a defect, or a problem, or anything of the sort. It's simply an alternative sexuality, and instead of stamping it out, we should be focusing on stamping out homophobia and lack of acceptance. This is the only morally defensible path for us, as a civilization, to take on this issue.

Very well put, my rainbow mained horse friend.

Mars is just using all these things about disease (I'm shocked he did not bring up the tired old aids issues while he was at it ), reproduction, and 'theats' of population increases.....aka "the gay agenda! da da daaaaaa!"....as some sort of cover or shield to hide behind and is just being your regular, run of the mill little bigot. Even Archie Bunker would respect and accept blacks, gays and Jews when he got to know them. So, let Archie Bunker show you the way, Mars......since even he would lighten up.

So, Mars, like it or not, gays, and all the rest of the "unnormals" are here to stay and will not go away, and enough of the disease nonsence. And, just like Jews, many gays went on and did really well for themselves in life, because they are folks like me, and, heven help us, you.

~Cracks open a wine~ Laters.

 

[RB_Kandy]

Well, yeah, OK, but I think we're splitting hairs at this point, considering everyone knows there is a link/association between transgenderism and homosexuality.
If you disagree, than you disagree. I'm not going to split hairs on this.

<citation needed>

You're good at goating me aren't you LOL.
Look man, for the purposes of simplification, I categorize things into straight, and other.


You know how there are Nazi's, neo-nazis, skinheads, Klansmen, white supremacists, white separatists, white nationalists, and how they're all different?
Well, you know what I do, I draw a circle around them, lump them all together, and call them racists.


And on the religious side you got things like Presbyterian, Lutheran, catholic, christian, Jehovah’s Witnesses, baptist, and a million other denominations. At the end of the day i just draw a circle around it and call 'em "bible thumpers".
My Cousin (not the clinically homophobic one) is a bible thumper. What kind? the kind who works on the Sabbath, wears mixed fabric, and tells me why fags are going to hell, while stuffing his face with pork chops. (oh wait, maybe he is homophobic too) That's the kind of bible thumper he is, I'm not gonna split hairs on what denomination he is.
.
The way I see it, if you are a man, and you say you feel like a woman in a man's body, well, maybe that makes you transgender, but I'll tell you one thing, it makes you not straight. And if you insist you are straight, than you're just in denial.


You know what we need to do, (and by "we" I mean me and everyone who isn't in this thread). We need to take a lesson from the LGBT and start dividing every form of homophobia and anti-LGBT sentiment into it's own classification.
You see we got the clinical homophobe, who has an irrational fear, a legit phobia.
Then we got the queer basher, they have a violent hatred of none-straights.
Then we have the gender-phobe, he has nothing against gays or transexual, so long as everyone fits into their gender role.
Then we have the flame-aphobe, he has no problem with the subtle masculine gay, but can't stand the Richard Simmons flamer type.
Then you have straight-dressers, they have no problem with LGBT as long as you wear clothes respective of your sex, or your self gender identification.
Then we have the bi-haters. They are accepting of everyone accept bisexuals. Why? because "they need to make up their minds and stick to it! Dang nabit"
Then you have the hetero-culturist, they got no problem with gays, bis, lesbos, and the trans, they are perfectly accepting of them, but they draw the line at the "cultural" aspect of it and want to preserve homo-normative standards.
Then you got the anti-lesbians.
Then you got the NOM-ists, they love gays, bis, trans, and they support LGBT, and they have lots of gay friends, and they have a rainbow sticker on their car, and they will viciously defend peoples rights to be gay, and they support partnerships between people of the same sex... as long as it's not called a "marriage" because "Dang nabit! marriage is between a man and a woman."
Then you got the homo-treka-phobe that has no problems with gays, but doesn't want them in Star Trek. It's a fear of trek getting queered up.
Then you got the Levita-phobe, he doesn't dislike gays, only what they do, and only because the lord finds it an abomanation.
And because we divide homophobia into a million classifications, we will then need courses on it in our colleges so that we can better indoctrinate the youth and teach them differences.


And anyone who thinks this million and one flavors of homophobia some how are linked, connected, associated, intertwined, or overlap, in any way, you make that statement out of ignorance... guess you didn't do well in your Hetero-normative studies.


And then when some gay says "I think you are a homophobe" the homophobe can scream outrage and say "a homophobe is specifically this thing, and I am clearly not, but I bet you lump us all together out of ignorance. Is it ignorance, or is it bigotry? you are so intolorant of our homophobic differences. You don't know the differences, and you lump us together because you don't care, you are the worst type of heterophobe, the willfully ignorant type!" And then he makes a call to his hetero-rights group, and you get fired for your intolorance. And you're going to realize, this all happened because you goated me!


That's right folks, when you see a hetero-rights organization and a million and one flavors of homophobia, and hetero-normative studies in your colleges, remember, Maurice goated me!




Yeah, I'm gonna start that organization now. And because we're different flavors of homophobia, our symbol will be the rainbow. I know I know you guys got the rainbow. Well ours is different, ours has glitter. That's right, our rainbow sparkles, bitchez!

I think it would earn it an R-rating right there just for language.


I prefer PG-rated Star Trek, I don't want to have to stay up till 10 pm to catch a Star Trek Episode because they foul mouthed it. This is what basically happened to Battlestar Galactica.

Actually lack of serious adult topics on TV actually bother me sometimes. I hated as a kid I would watch a cartoon like Batman, or Ninja Turtles, or Voltron, and it bothered me when I realized, only robots got "killed", guns fired "lasers" because a bullet would be too graphic. No one ever bled, and all the other "no no's" of kid programing, it really bothered me.
We are a society that honestly thinks it's OK to let the TV baby sit our children with nonstop violence, so long as no "human" ever dies, and no one ever bleeds, then it's all just kid friendly wholesome entertainment.


Another thing I hate is when I am watching presumably "grown up" shows, but everything has to be censored and watered down in case a child accidentally sees it.


What this does is default all TV programing to children's programing. It feels like everything on TV and radio was kid friendly, even when the target audience was adults. So it left me feeling like I was trapped in a nursery, and I just wanted to get out and go somewhere grown up. But the whole damn country is a nursery.


What is wrong with this imaginary concept we call "profanity"? If someone says the almighty "F word" what harm can it do? Does it give you cancer? Does it cause brain damage? Does it cause mental trauma? No! So what's the problem?


I ask this and I often hear "but what if my children hear it?"
And I ask "what if they do?"
"well what if they ask me what it means?"
"tell them you don't know, tell them none of their business, or tell them what it means"
"well what if my children use that word?"
"what if they do?"


And then it's "well he might get kicked out of school"


And there's the problem. A long time ago someone... probably the sort that eat pork and vote against gay marriage, decided that certain words were auto-magically wrong. And saying them would be forbidden. And we people, who are herd animals forever trapped in group think, decided to nod our heads in agreement, and over night we bore a new phobia, a fear of words with arbitrary meaning.
And so it is that profanity is wrong because, because it is. And this circular logic is all that is needed to hypnotize the masses. Thus we can't have profanity.


I can just see some Alien, like the Star Trek crew coming to earth and talking to us humans.
ALIEN: So why is the F Word forbidden?
HUMAN: because it's wrong.
ALIEN: why is it wrong?
HUMAN: because it's immoral?
ALIEN: Why is it immoral?
HUMAN: Because saying it is forbidden. Writing it too!
ALIEN: OK let's try another question. So we were wondering, why can't gays get married?
HUMAN: because marriage is between a man and a woman.
ALIEN: Why?
HUMAN: Because that's the definition.
ALIEN: So... what if I said "gay-partnership" and gave it the definition of any two persons of the same sex. Could the gays not be married, but instead be gay-partnered?
GAY HUMAN: No! We demand the right to be normal married, any other term would suggest there is something abnormal about us!
ALIEN: Even if it meant effectively the same thing? I thought marriage was about love. That is your slogan, oh never mind.
STRAIGHT HUMAN: Absolutely not, gays shouldn't be married in any way. The invisible man in the sky who wrote this book thousands of years ago, said so.
ALIEN: OK, look, we came here because we heard there was intelligent life on this planet, it would appear we were mistaken.

I think you can make a good science fiction show without restricting it from children. After all the Children are our future, and Star Trek is about the Future. I can't have lewdness and sexually suggestive language cause the show to be restricted from children to watch.

Well as I said, I am personally tired of things getting watered down. I don't want to live in a nursery, just because children exist.
Furthermore, it's amazing how much raunchy sexual innuendos get mentioned in young teen programing, and how many fart jokes you can put in a broadcast and yet this is called "family friendly".
As for children are our future. Yeah, well, we indoctrinate them into left wing politics starting in kindergarten when some lesbian feminist from the LGBT visits the class and says "some boys want to play with soldiers and fire trucks, and some girls want to play with dolls. But some girls want to play with fire trucks and some boys want to play with dolls, and that's OK too."
And then the kid comes home and his father says "all I know is, if you don't believe in Jesus you burn in the fires of hell forever. So when they teach you that you came from apes in science class you just point to the book of truth here and tell them.."
"but daddy, the topic was fire trucks and dolls. Which one did you buy me to play with?"
"Boy, let me tell you, boys that play with dolls end up voting communist and going to hell, you'd need a whole lot of fire trucks to put out that fire let me tell you, you'd have no need for a Barbie doll in hell."


OK, so basically we're confusing and abusing our kids now for our own selfish political interests, I doubt hearing the word "ass" is going to cause any problems.


Oh and that thing about coming to kindergarten classes and preaching the doll vs fire truck speech, I read about that years ago, I don't know whether it was feminism, LGBT, or how many schools it takes place in, and I don't have a link.


But Mars, I do understand where you're coming from, I do sympathize with you. I often like to watch The Andy Griffith Show, Dick Van Dyke, Little House On The Prarie, and get away from all the filth that normally comes on TV. You know all the shows today got jiggly boobs, women screaming about their biological clock and how their vagina hasn't seen action since the Reagan administration, vibrators, hookers, gay innuendos, periods, broken condoms marital affairs, and then someone farts and we hear some canned laughter and go to commercial break. I really hate the majority of the crap on TV. But I really do enjoy the more wholesome shows from the good old days.
But I'd hate to be forced to live in a time period where only clean pure wholesomeness was allowed because everything else was censored. So I guess the filth on TV today is the lesser of the two evils. TV is a mess, and I think TV is going to die, and that's a good thing.
I think the internet, things like Netflix and youtube will replace TV. But when that happens, all the people who eat pork and preach Leviticus will petition congress to lock down the internet with some cyber FCC. Actually, this time it might come in the form of a angry feminist with a blog, who decides the internet is too politically incorrect and needs liberal censorship. Either way, things suck LOL


But yeah, I can identify with the desire to clean things up and return to a simpler time.

To Be Continued...

 

[RB_Kandy]

...Continued

What scenario, specifically?


Does the idea of parents - any parents - being able to choose such details as sexual orientation before birth via genetic manipulation make you uncomfortable? If yes, then ok, I can see how, and will admit that I find it a bit unsettling myself.


On the other hand, do you mean that you find the idea of a couple making their child gay before birth via genetic manipulation unsettling, specifically? While you WOULDN'T find a couple doing the same thing, but making their child straight, unsettling?


Just wondering.

I don't know what I find unsettling about it. I am all in favor of genetically modifying our kids. It's one of the few things I really really support. You see, due to complex circumstances that I won't get into, we are down breeding at an alarming rate. We are breeding, dumber, sicker, children into our welfare system at higher and higher rates every generation. We need some genetic modification or eugenics to clean the scum out of our gene pool.
Imagine a child who will never have acne, or allergies to common things, no cancer, scoliosis, diabetes, arthritis, Parkinson, autism, retardation, cerebral pausy, tenancy to have psychotic breaks, epilepsy, or degenerative spinal conditions, no male pattern baldness, no prostate or ovarian problems, imagine even speeding up their metabolism to make obesity a more rare occurrence.


Now I hear someone toss in "oh. and make sure he isn't gay either!"
And the first thing that comes to mind is "really? Of all the procedures, this is high on your list of expectations?"


And some lesbian couple is like "to hell with safe guarding against breast cancer, just make her a dyke!"


You see if I had a kid and the doctor said "he's gonna be a heterosexual" I'd say wow, my boy's gonna grow up to be the next Bruce Dickenson... Iron Maiden forever!"


And the doctor says "oops, wait, the chart was upside down, he's gonna be gay."


"Oh... even better, he's gonna grow up to be the next Freddy Mercury"


However, would I have my kid genetically engineered to be straight... hmmm. Well if it was a girl, I would fear her growing up to be a man hating feminist... with a blog! So I'd probably opt for a straight male... who would go on to rebel and join the LGBT and be like "Hey dad, you had me genetically modified to be straight, well guess what, that doesn’t stop me from supporting gay rights activists. Hell I am on your favorite star trek forum right now advocating that we re-do the original Trek, with all gay characters, and the LGBT love me there. I am gonna get a my little pony avatar with a sexy rainbow tail. What do you think of that?"
"I think it was a mistake to have you genetically engineered, should've had you aborted."


So I don't think I'd be modifying my kid's sexuality.
Though it would be funny to have two lesbians, genetically modify their daughter to be a lesbo, only for her to rebel at 17 by getting with a guy, and being like "yeah, that's right, I stay at home while he works. I even did the dishes, but I won't take out the trash because that's man's work. Oh, and we had sex... missionary style mom! Oh and I am joining the Hetero-normative rights group, they got a rainbow that sparkles, I mean come on, it sparkles."


I just realized, the unsettling thing would most likely be to have a kid. what sort of masachist wants parenthood?

yes, anyone who would STILL - now, today - declare that homosexuality is a mental disorder is making a baseless, false statement, and is probably a homophobe.

It wouldn't be baseless, but I already explained that.
Yeah of course anyone who agrees with LGBT less than 100% on all issues is definitely a homophobe. Homophobe used to mean someone who didn't like gays, now it means someone gays don't like. I don't believe Homosexuality is a disease, but then again I don't think depression, ADHD, alcoholism, and most other behaviors/moods are diseases.
Depression is a disease, Prozac (and thusly all SSRI's) is a treatment.
But if you feel depressed and drink alcohol to alleviate depression, it's not treatment, the disease isn't depression, the disease is the alcohol.
The official explanation for this is that depression is a highly specific neurochemical imbalance, and only an anti-depressant can balance the chemicals.
Unfortunately no imbalance has ever been proven. You are not tested for an imbalance when put on drugs, and even the neurochimcal reaction when taking the drugs is mostly a guessing game based on theories. And add on top of that this highly specific chemical imbalence has changed. We went from MAOI's to tricyclic antidepressants, to SSRI's to NRI's to SSNRI's" Considering each class has a different theory of nourochemical mechanism of action, the alleged cause of depression would had to have changed each time to justify the use of any given drug. Though it has not. I guess that "highly specific" neuro chemical imbalance really means "completely random and anybody's guess".
And the poor kids who are active and energetic and don't like school, well they used to get put on speed, because their dopamine receptors were blah blah blah, now a lot of them get Stratera, and other failed antidepressants that theoretically work on neoropineprine and serotonin.
Psychology is a crock.

People once "knew" that the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it, and that smoking cigarettes all the damn time wasn't dangerous to one's health. That a previous "fact" has in modern times been proven to be nonsense is hardly new or unusual.

I believe your statement is "science has proven homosexuality is not a disease". So what are you going to do 50 years from now when it goes back on the books as a disease? you're going to say psychology is a crock, and you'd be right.

So every heterosexual relationship on Star Trek that we saw over the years that was relatively "normal" was also boring, yes?

Yes. I think I liked the idea of Harry and Seven getting together (which never happened) and other than that, never gave a crap about any of the romances.

Because homosexuality is a social disadvantage, and I would not want my child to have it. Would that be such a terrible thing to do? I feel no obligation to make a contribution to the LGBT community with my offspring.


After all, if your an alien, you have alien children, homosexuals are human and so have human children, homosexuality is a trait that their offspring might not share, by manipulating them so they are homosexual you are guaranteeing that to some degree they will be a social outcast, and not quite fit in most places. I'm not sure I would want that, even if I was gay, I assume its not a picnic to be attracted to the same sex.

Mars, I agree, if a gay couple wanted to genetically engineer their child to be gay in our current society, I would be against because it's not right that a child be born deliberately disadvantaged. However, I'd be in favor of their "right" to do it. And the reason, ugly dirt poor obese people are breeding like rabbits in spite of the fact they are breeding children who will be disadvantaged. I mean, if you are on welfare, you really can't present your kids with much of an opportunity in life.


That's why when I answered the question I said assuming homosexuality would not be a disadvantage by that society.


Oh and I just realized you said this:

I assume its not a picnic to be attracted to the same sex

Yeah, it sickens me that these people bang on about homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders having such a bad life, all the while being the source of that misery.

LMAO

Homosexuals don't reproduce themselves, we reproduce for them, that is the problem. In order for there to be a next generation of homosexuals, Heterosexuals need to have homosexual children. If we can control whether or not we have them, then I assume most parents would like to have children that are like themselves, that is heterosexual, so we can raise them properly, rather than unlike them. With aliens, they have their own children, they don't depend on humans to have their children for them, unless they are Xenomorphs from the Alien movies.

I... I have no words for that. I can't even find an emoticon for that.


[quote="Mars']Gays and lesbians can have children if they force themselves to[/quote]

Moving on. If you remove the offensive word "ass" and replace it with "Butt" now, my question is, could this interaction between the homosexual and the homophobe work to entertain people, while satisfying the people in this thread who want a gay character?

 

[Maurice]

Well, yeah, OK, but I think we're splitting hairs at this point, considering everyone knows there is a link/association between transgenderism and homosexuality.
If you disagree, than you disagree. I'm not going to split hairs on this.

<citation needed>

You're good at goating me aren't you LOL.
Look man, for the purposes of simplification, I categorize things into straight, and other.

You mean "goading".

Frankly, no one should accept statements as broad as "everyone knows" such and such, which is why I called you out on it. You didn't even defend your contention, but create your own convenient definition ("I categorize things into straight, and other") as opposed to admitting you spoke in a overly board generality.

Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

H.L. Menken
"The Divine Afflatus" in New York Evening Mail
16 November 1917​

I have one question for Mars: Do you have any gay friends? Not acquaintances: friends.

 

[Saito S]

Very well put, my rainbow mained horse friend.

Thanks!

Mars is just using all these things about disease (I'm shocked he did not bring up the tired old aids issues while he was at it ), reproduction, and 'theats' of population increases.....aka "the gay agenda! da da daaaaaa!"....as some sort of cover or shield to hide behind and is just being your regular, run of the mill little bigot. Even Archie Bunker would respect and accept blacks, gays and Jews when he got to know them. So, let Archie Bunker show you the way, Mars......since even he would lighten up.

So, Mars, like it or not, gays, and all the rest of the "unnormals" are here to stay and will not go away, and enough of the disease nonsence. And, just like Jews, many gays went on and did really well for themselves in life, because they are folks like me, and, heven help us, you.

~Cracks open a wine~ Laters.

Yep. As you say, gay people are really just people.

@RB_Kandy: I'm afraid my "nonsensical rambling to English" translator is malfunctioning, so I'm only going to respond to a couple of points from that huge morass of words you put up.

Look man, for the purposes of simplification, I categorize things into straight, and other.

That's your prerogative, I suppose. Doesn't make you correct.

The way I see it, if you are a man, and you say you feel like a woman in a man's body, well, maybe that makes you transgender, but I'll tell you one thing, it makes you not straight. And if you insist you are straight, than you're just in denial.

Nonsense. "Gender" and "sexual orientation" are two different things. If one feels they are a woman trapped in a man's body, that person is transgender. If that same person is romantically and sexually attracted only to women, he is also straight.

However, would I have my kid genetically engineered to be straight... hmmm. Well if it was a girl, I would fear her growing up to be a man hating feminist... with a blog! So I'd probably opt for a straight male... who would go on to rebel and join the LGBT and be like "Hey dad, you had me genetically modified to be straight, well guess what, that doesn’t stop me from supporting gay rights activists. Hell I am on your favorite star trek forum right now advocating that we re-do the original Trek, with all gay characters, and the LGBT love me there. I am gonna get a my little pony avatar with a sexy rainbow tail. What do you think of that?"
"I think it was a mistake to have you genetically engineered, should've had you aborted."

Seek professional help.

Moving on. If you remove the offensive word "ass" and replace it with "Butt" now, my question is, could this interaction between the homosexual and the homophobe work to entertain people,

No, because it's dumb.

while satisfying the people in this thread who want a gay character?

If you cannot answer this part of the question on your own, you haven't been paying attention to anything we've been saying.

 

[RB_Kandy]

You mean "goading".

Frankly, no one should accept statements as broad as "everyone knows" such and such, which is why I called you out on it. You didn't even defend your contention, but create your own convenient definition ("I categorize things into straight, and other") as opposed to admitting you spoke in a overly board generality.

yes, I meant goading. I always thought the word was "goating" no wonder my spell checker couldn’t find it LMAO



And yes, good point. I said "everyone knows" when what I meant was "in my opinion", and this is why you asked for a citation, and you're right.

 

[T'Girl]

Wrong, GID's link is to transgenderism and not homosexuality.

Well, yeah, OK, but I think we're splitting hairs at this point, considering everyone knows there is a link/association between transgenderism and homosexuality.

Who's "everyone?"

GID (gender dysphoria) is exclusive to transgenderism and has no connection to homosexually. While there are individuals who are both transgender and homosexual, the combination of the two isn't automatically a given. And the vast majority of homosexuals are not transgenders.

I mean come on, I live this every day.

In 1942, the APA declared ...

The DSM didn't exist in 1942. I know, you said the APA declared yada yada.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, under it's original title of Statistical Manual for the Use of Institutions for the Insane, was first published in 1917.

Gays and lesbians can have children if they force themselves to

Wrong, within the gay community there are bi-sexuals, many studies hold that the the majority of gays are actually bi-sexual men and women. Bi-sexuals reproduce without force (unless that what they're into).

I assume its not a picnic to be attracted to the same sex.

The attraction part isn't a problem, in fact it's the best part. Personally I love being sexually and romantically attracted to both men and women.

If someone for some reason wears a pink tie ...

It isn't pink, it's salmon.

Well how do you pick out the homosexual guy then?

Not a problem at all, there is of course a gay community out there, being gay isn't just sexual, it's social too. Gay bars, gay social clubs, there are also on-line gay dating sites. I've been on both outpersonals.com and alt.com, there are lot's of others.

... because most heterosexual guys don't like to be hit upon by other guys.

Take it for the compliment that it is.

I could be attracted to a lesbian, and when I find that out, then there are 10 other women who aren't lesbians ...

And if the person I'm attracted to isn't interested, there are another twelve to thirty million other gays in America for me to consider.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM that you (meaning Mars) have attributed to homosexuality is societal.

Every last disadvantage of being homosexual is a disadvantage because, and only because, our society still doesn't treat gays (or bisexuals, or transgendered people, or... anyone who is in any way not heteronormative, really) with the respect that they deserve. Your argument with us is circular.

A man being particularly bothered by being hit on by another man is a form of homophobia in itself. Unless that man would also be bothered by being hit on by a woman, i.e., if that man just doesn't like being hit on, period.

The whole idea is that society will, hopefully, someday, treat everyone equally. Treat all people as just PEOPLE. Gay, straight, whatever; it doesn't matter. Two consenting adults want to get married? Great. They want to have a kid? Fine (and don't bring up a same-sex couple's inability to procreate; artificial insemination and adopting are not exactly new concepts). A man hitting on a man or a woman hitting on a woman would, in this society, be treated no differently than a man hitting on a woman or vice versa.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

QFT!

As for comparing homosexuality to a disease or birth defect or some such, that puts you on very dangerous ground, and I suggest cutting back on that unless you want to be a bigot.

I believe he has already branded himself as such, and because of that he has my pity.

 

[Saito S]

If someone for some reason wears a pink tie ...

It isn't pink, it's salmon.

As for comparing homosexuality to a disease or birth defect or some such, that puts you on very dangerous ground, and I suggest cutting back on that unless you want to be a bigot.

I believe he has already branded himself as such, and because of that he has my pity.

Yeah. Mars' comments in this thread have been all over the map, but that aspect has certainly shined through, unfortunately.

 

[RB_Kandy]

That's your prerogative, I suppose. Doesn't make you correct.

Yes, it is the way I look at things. And it was incorrect of me to say "everyone" as if my way of compartmentalizing and generalizing various topics, particularly this one, is accurately reflective of the average person.
And it's not just sexuality that I use this compartmentalizing and generalizing with. Take music for example, you got death metal, black metal, pop metal, progressive metal, nu metal, thrash metal, speed metal, doom metal, and I just call all of that stuff "metal"and I hear people bitching "oh but the difference between speed and thrash is... and the difference between death and black is..." And yeah there are differences, it's why we have different words, but to me it's insisting that a million shades of blue are completely different colors, where as I call the whole thing blue, and might go as far as to say "light, medium, dark" but refuse to make distinctions beyond that.


I gave the dozen varieties of homophobia to demonstrate that anything can be broken down into finer and finer categories, then each given specific definitions, but at the end of the day we're going to generalize it as one thing, and we are going to say that the roots and attributes of one overlap with another.


But yeah, it's "my" way of viewing things.

Nonsense. "Gender" and "sexual orientation" are two different things. If one feels they are a woman trapped in a man's body, that person is transgender. If that same person is romantically and sexually attracted only to women, he is also straight.

But what man is going to feel like a woman, and then want to date women? Wouldn't that make him a lesbian in a man's body? and isn't a lesbian in a man's body the same thing as a straight man? I mean what's the difference... oh wait, the blog.

If you cannot answer this part of the question on your own, you haven't been paying attention to anything we've been saying.

Or I could be very stupid! Bet you didn't consider that possibility. Oh wait, I am probably not making a good case for myself.
Look, I heard some pages ago, way back actually, that it is important that the gay character is not seen as different, because we want to project the idea that this is normal and that people in the future no longer distinguish such differences. I don't know who said that, and it's paraphrased of course.
So having the homophobe constantly bickering with the gay, I thought maybe a lot of people here would dislike that because no one should be homophobic in the future, and certainly not a main character.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, under it's original title of Statistical Manual for the Use of Institutions for the Insane, was first published in 1917.

They're two different things. For crying out loud if you can insist that a transgender and homosexual are different, I can certainly make a case for these two manuals being different LOL
And the reason I pointed that out is because my original statement about some people believing homosexuality is not mentally healthy, was based on the DSM, which used to list homosexuality as a disease, thus the assumption isn't "baseless". The manual you listed was for institutionalization, which I believe made it a really small book the size of a pamphlet. And that book wouldn't have homosexuality listed because even your run of the mill homophobe wouldn't insist that homosexuality was an illness rendering the patient a danger to himself and others by way of psychosis or delusional thinking. The publication of the DSM was like the industrial revolution for the psychology industry, before that was published there were very few things considered to be a mental disease (to the best of my knowledge). So the assertion that homosexuality wasn't listed before that time period is rendered a moot point because half the disease we have today weren't listed. But we're getting into that hair splitting territory

because most heterosexual guys don't like to be hit upon by other guys.

I have no idea if that's true or not, but I don't mind LOL.
When I worked at Kenwood, Baltimore, I had long Blond hair, and that place is the gay capital of Maryland. I had lots of guys flirt with me, slip me their number, and leave me a huge tip.
Though it would upset me pretty quick when I told them I was straight, and they continued flirtatious behavior, that's when it felt really harassing really fast.


See and here's the thing, you tell a woman she has a beautiful ass, and she is highly offended. A woman tells me I have a beautiful ass, and I am complimented. A man tells me I have a beautiful ass, and I am still complimented. An old woman tells me I got a fine young ass and I feel complimented.
I guess the moral of the story is, girls can't take compliments as well as guys LOL.


But like I said in another thread, about holograms or something, I wish I were gay. All those gay men who asked me out, slipped me their number, left me huge tips, offered to buy things for me and take me places. And then here I am chasing after women who act offended if you compliment them the wrong way. Laugh at you while saying no, and then the one's that say "yes" annoy the hell out of you while spending your money... Christ! if I were gay, I could have really had a better life, but of course, you can't choose to be gay LOL. Women treated me like a leper, gay men treated me like a prince, and chances are, if I dated one of those gay men, I would have had a really great time... until he wanted butt sex.

 

[IndyJones]

The way I see it, if you are a man, and you say you feel like a woman in a man's body, well, maybe that makes you transgender, but I'll tell you one thing, it makes you not straight. And if you insist you are straight, than you're just in denial.

You do, of course, realize that that's not how gays view themselves, right? I don't think of myself as a woman in a man's body, I think of myself of a man in a man's body who's attracted to men.

We may be grouped under the "not straight" umbrella, but that doesn't make us the same.

 

[iguana_tonante]

As for comparing homosexuality to a disease or birth defect or some such, that puts you on very dangerous ground, and I suggest cutting back on that unless you want to be a bigot.

I believe he has already branded himself as such, and because of that he has my pity.

I believe the same, but I waste no pity for him.

 

[The Castellan]

RB Kandy, you need to watch GoLion, the uncut Japanese Voltron, it's like watching a totally different series....in fact, 50% of the story is totally diffeent.

 

[Maurice]

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, under it's original title of Statistical Manual for the Use of Institutions for the Insane, was first published in 1917.

They're two different things. For crying out loud if you can insist that a transgender and homosexual are different, I can certainly make a case for these two manuals being different LOL

Cute but wrong.

The DSM's origins are in the Statistical Manual for the Use of Institutions for the Insane, which is a clear antecedent to the DSM and ergo related in both its origin (the APA) and purpose. They're different books but closely related. Transgender and homosexual are in fact entirely different things, as the definitions of both words readily demonstrate, so your attempted analogue is baseless.

If you insist on applying your own personal definitions, don't expect us go along and believe that black is white and get ourselves killed on the next zebra crossing.*

cum hoc ergo propter hoc


*Paraphrasing Douglas Adams

 

[RB_Kandy]

You do, of course, realize that that's not how gays view themselves, right? I don't think of myself as a woman in a man's body, I think of myself of a man in a man's body who's attracted to men.

We may be grouped under the "not straight" umbrella, but that doesn't make us the same.

Yes, I know that not all dogs are rottweilers, but I insist that all rottweilers are dogs. I'm not saying all gays are transgenders, I am saying all transgenders are gay. I am sure there a lot, maybe most, gay men who feel strong, tough, manly, and certainly identify as masculine and male, but simply prefer the romantic and sexual company of other males.
But what I am saying is, those people who feel as if they are women trapped in a man's body, they have to be gay. Because part of being a woman is seeking romantic and sexual relationships with males.
So if some man said they felt as if they were really a woman, oh but they don't want a relationship with a man... I have no way of possibly relating to that. It's as alien to me as saying that you feel like you're a square, but a square that has no corners. to which I raise my hand and say "wouldn't that make you a circle?" and you say "nope, just a cornerless square in a circle's body." And it would be like that scene from DS9 when Sisko is trying to explain to the wormhole aliens about linear time, and it is so far removed from their comprehension he lacks a strong foundation for an explanation.
So for the sake of my own sanity, if you tell me you are a woman in a man's body, I am just going to presume you're gay.
I consider transgender to be an aspect of homosexuality, like I consider a rottweiler to be an aspect of dogs, it's a smaller part of the larger whole, but it isn't separate. And therefore, I don't believe in the existence of a transgender person, transsexual yes, but not transgender.
For a man to feel like a woman, yet not want sex with men, basically means he's just a soft effeminate male, or a sissy as they used to be called. If you claim there is something in between, than I am at a total loss to understand what you mean.
Like wise a woman who feels like a boy, yet does not want a relationship with a girl, isn't transgender either; she's a tom boy. Again, you're a sissy or a tomboy, but your not transgender, and if you feel like your a woman in a man's body and you want sex with men, than you're not transgender either, you're a homosexual, who happens to be very effeminate.

I hear liberal crap like "race is a social construct". No, it isn't, transgenderism is a social construct. And one of the reasons it was constructed was to broaden homosexuality to be more inclusive and overly complicated for the purpose of sewing confusion so that it becomes easier to nit pick and argue against hetero-normality, for the purpose of trying to push homo-normality. that's why when I hear all this terminology, I just string it all together, and stick it on the side of the fence called LGBT, or "gay" for short.

 

[DAYoung]

I was on an ABC "gender bender" radio panel last year, talking about some of these issues, e.g. transgender, sexuality, masculinity.

Some of you might find it illuminating: http://blogs.abc.net.au/files/gender-bender.mp3

(Others clearly get much of it already.)