Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New York Gay Marriage
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 136 of 284 (627194)
08-01-2011 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Nuggin
08-01-2011 10:02 AM


Re: You don't get it.
How would you define "gay" in regards to "gay rights" or "gay marriage"?
I wouldn't. The word gay is not defined in terms of "rights". "gay marriage" is simply the marrying of two individuals of the same sex, irrespective of their own individual sexuality. There is, as far as I am aware, no test required to prove that one is gay before one is allowed to partake in gay marriage...
It's starting to become apparent that the people here who are really homophobic are the self described "bi"s who throw an absolute hissy fit if you dare to suggest they might be "gay".
I doubt it. I have often heard my gay friends speak of finally coming to terms that they were not bi, and were definitely gay; that they didn't have to pretend that they found women in any way sexually attractive. I found it fascinating myself how they would describe their revulsion to female genitalia as I would describe my revulsion to other males' genitalia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Nuggin, posted 08-01-2011 10:02 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Nuggin, posted 08-01-2011 10:19 AM cavediver has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 137 of 284 (627195)
08-01-2011 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by cavediver
08-01-2011 10:16 AM


Re: You don't get it.
I doubt it. I have often heard my gay friends speak of finally coming to terms that they were not bi, and were definitely gay; that they didn't have to pretend that they found women in any way sexually attractive. I found it fascinating myself how they would describe their revulsion to female genitalia as I would describe my revulsion to other males' genitalia.
You are gonna want to edit and delete this section of your post.
As soon as the "bi"s see this, they are going to throw a shit fit and climb all over you for DARING to suggest that there are "gay" people out there who are "gay" yet having sex with women and calling themselves "bi".
You basically just called in a "biphobia drone attack" on yourself.
Be prepared to not really be afraid!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2011 10:16 AM cavediver has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 138 of 284 (627212)
08-01-2011 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Nuggin
08-01-2011 9:25 AM


Re: You don't get it.
Oh, am I making you mad by flaunting your attempt to put a label on me by arbitrarily declaring that the label doesn't fit because I have a special definition.
Boy, that must be so annoying. I WONDER what that's like.
No, you aren't making me mad. I am just informing you what I mean when I use a word, and backing it up with a reference to that usage. You are ignoring what I mean when I use the word, even after I've explained it. That doesn't make me mad, it just makes me question your sincerity.
How dare you arbitrarily label all gay people that way! Who the hell are you to make those kinds of decisions.
Definitions are arbitrary, by definition! But I'm using the terms as they are commonly used in discussions of sexuality, since we are discussing sexuality. I am an English speaker, that's what gives me the right to use such definitions. If you want to arbitrarily ignore those conventions, you'd better have a good reason beyond bluster.
So, you don't think bisexuals deserve rights under any legislation that protects gays? If you married a dude, it would be "bisexual marriage" not "gay marriage"
What makes you say that? I don't champion 'bisexual rights', I haven't talked about them. Gay rights sufficiently covers the areas where bisexuals feel most of their rights-based issues, I said this before, and I have not once disputed it. If I married a dude it would be a gay marriage, and I champion the option of getting married to someone of the same sex. I'm not demanding that special 'bisexual marriages' exist or anything of that sort, am I?
Are you beginning to see why I say this is all terribly self involved?
No, you haven't explained why it is terribly self-involved to object to being called a self involved, attention starved gay that is too full of himself to limit who I get attention from. That's the only thing I'm objecting too. I'm not suggesting that 'bisexual rights' are being ignored and we should all pay special attention to them, as you seem to be characterising my posts. I'm just objecting to your stereotyping of bisexuals as being self involved, attention starved gays that are too full of themselves to limit who they get attention from.
Silence is not the correct response to discrimination, prejudice or negative stereotyping. According to you, speaking out against such slurs is confirmation of the slur. As I said before - you've built yourself quite the unfalsifiable narrative construct there. Well done.
If you find yourself attracted to the same sex, you are gay. If you are also attracted to other things, you are STILL GAY.
Not by common usage. You are free to have idiosyncratic opinions on that, but my objection isn't really that you are calling me gay. That's entirely unimportant in the scheme of things. It seems to be an erroneous characterisation in the common definitions in use by English speakers, but I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that common usage is irrelevant to you, so I'm happy to let particular objection drop. The major objection is being called a self involved, attention starved gay that is too full of himself to limit who I get attention from.
If you like to ski, you are a skier. If you ALSO like to go sailing, that doesn't make you NOT a skier.
If you are an animal that only eats plant matter you are a herbivore. If you ALSO eat animal meat you are an omnivore NOT a herbivore.
And instead of letting that go, you spent a weekend screaming "Look at me! This is what I do in the bedroom! Oh god PLEASE pay attention to me! I'm so important! Don't label me as being part of the gay community! I'm part of the gay community, but only I get to say so!"
No I didn't. I wrote a about half a dozen posts trying to point out that characterising all bisexuals as being self involved, attention starved gays that are too full of themselves to limit who they get attention from is problematic. I haven't once declared that I am important, just deserving of not being plastered with a negative stereotype. I don't think I mentioned what I do the bedroom once, let alone beg for you to pay attention to it.
Yeah, you aren't attention starved at all!
Apparently I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't. Nevertheless, if you wish to accuse me of being attention starved you are welcome to - I'd just rather you didn't paint all bisexuals in that way. And I'd rather you didn't try and claim that an individual bisexual person attempting to point out the problem with characterising all bisexual people as being self involved, attention starved gays that are too full of themselves to limit who they get attention from is confirmation that all bisexual people are self involved, attention starved gays that are too full of themselves to limit who they get attention from.
The difference here is that I'm FOR gay rights. I'm just not going to play games with every individual who wants a special label just for themselves.
That is an irrelevant difference to the point I was making. I'm not interested in playing games. I'm interested in criticising negative stereotyping. I'm not looking for a special label. I just don't want the label you are putting on me as being self involved, attention starved and too full of myself to limit who I get attention from
I say you're gay, I'm wrong. You say you're gay, you're right.
What are you talking about?
And I notice you're back on the whole "you're afraid of me" thing. AGAIN.
Except I haven't said that you are afraid of me once, and have explicitly said that I am not saying you are afraid of me on several occasions now. I'm beginning to assume you aren't really paying much attention.
nuggin writes:
cavediver writes:
I doubt it. I have often heard my gay friends speak of finally coming to terms that they were not bi, and were definitely gay; that they didn't have to pretend that they found women in any way sexually attractive. I found it fascinating myself how they would describe their revulsion to female genitalia as I would describe my revulsion to other males' genitalia
revulsion to female genitalia as I would describe my revulsion to other males' genitalia.
You are gonna want to edit and delete this section of your post.
As soon as the "bi"s see this, they are going to throw a shit fit and climb all over you for DARING to suggest that there are "gay" people out there who are "gay" yet having sex with women and calling themselves "bi".
You basically just called in a "biphobia drone attack" on yourself.
Be prepared to not really be afraid!
Nothing cavediver said was problematic to me. That you think it is, is evidence that you have misunderstood cavediver, me, or both of us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Nuggin, posted 08-01-2011 9:25 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Nuggin, posted 08-01-2011 12:38 PM Modulous has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 139 of 284 (627216)
08-01-2011 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Modulous
08-01-2011 12:06 PM


Re: You don't get it.
Definitions are arbitrary, by definition!
But if I make an arbitrary definition of a term, it's _wrong_. However if YOU make an arbitrary definition of a term, it's okay.
But THAT'S not self involved in the least. LOL.
Well done.
Thank you. The next time you make an off the cuff joke and find yourself attacked for 3 straight days about it, I hope you have the fortitude to fight back as well.
my objection isn't really that you are calling me gay.
This WHOLE argument got started because it was declared that since I wasn't gay I didn't have the right to have an opinion on the term.
How dare I, as someone who doesn't have gay sex, have any position on gay rights or use the term "gay" as a blanket term covering "people who have sex with people who have the same parts".
If you are an animal that only eats plant matter you are a herbivore. If you ALSO eat animal meat you are an omnivore NOT a herbivore.
Yes, but omnivores are not picky about who gets to play the gay card and who doesn't.
If you are walking down the street holding some guys hand and you get attacked. You don't call it a "bi hate crime", you don't decry the discrimination you face as a bi-guy.
No, at that point you are MORE THAN HAPPY to proclaim that you are gay and that this is a crime against gays.
So, like I said before, "we get to call ourselves niggers but you don't".
I STRONGLY suspect that if I was sucking a guys dick and called him gay even though last week he want to the movies with some girl, he wouldn't object.
But heaven fucking forbid a straight guy make the mistake of calling someone gay when "technically I'm super special and important" and it's a NEVER ENDING RIVER OF SHIT about from people who are "not at all self involved but desperately want all the attention they can get".
I don't think I mentioned what I do the bedroom once, let alone beg for you to pay attention to it.
Oh really?!?
as someone that enjoys the feel of an erect cock as much as I enjoy a good pair of tits
Yeah, I guess that's not you talking about your sexual activities at all.
Nothing cavediver said was problematic to me.
He's specifically talking about so called "bisexuals" who are really just gay guys who won't admit that they are gay and are still having sex with women.
But THAT isn't a problem for you. However, when I say that there are gay guys who won't admit that they are gay and are still having sex with women - THAT is a problem for you.
And it's a problem because HE attributes it to self loathing where as I attribute it to self involvement.
So, you would rather be characterized as being too afraid to admit your are gay instead of being characterized as someone who wants attention.
Personally, if I was gay and refusing to admit it, I'd go with the positive characterization of "wanting attention" rather than "hating myself".
But if you want to go with "I hate myself" I won't stop you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Modulous, posted 08-01-2011 12:06 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Modulous, posted 08-01-2011 1:34 PM Nuggin has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 140 of 284 (627226)
08-01-2011 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Nuggin
08-01-2011 12:38 PM


Re: You don't get it.
But if I make an arbitrary definition of a term, it's _wrong_. However if YOU make an arbitrary definition of a term, it's okay.
But THAT'S not self involved in the least. LOL.
When engaged in a conversation in written English it is expected one sticks to common usage. This is kind of the reason we are both using the same language. If you want to overturn common usage, you need a reason beyond bluster. I think I said that before, clearly you are not paying attention.
Thank you. The next time you make an off the cuff joke and find yourself attacked for 3 straight days about it, I hope you have the fortitude to fight back as well.
If it was a joke, you could have said that much earlier in the discussion couldn't you? You are therefore the only one to blame if you are unhappy about being 'attacked for three days straight'. Remember you are the one that called me self involved and attention starved, so be careful who you are saying is the one under attack. I'm just calling you out on your negative stereotyping, even if it was done in humour.
Yes, but omnivores are not picky about who gets to play the gay card and who doesn't.
This is gibberish. If you were to say that omnivores are really herbivores that are too full of themselves, I'd call you out on it.
If you are walking down the street holding some guys hand and you get attacked. You don't call it a "bi hate crime", you don't decry the discrimination you face as a bi-guy.
Most of the bisexual exclusive discrimination I get is people denying that bisexuals exist, and characterising me as being a gay that can't make up his mind, or who is promiscuous, unfussy, confused etc etc etc. That comes from people like you.
No, at that point you are MORE THAN HAPPY to proclaim that you are gay and that this is a crime against gays.
No I'm not. Nor was I happy to do this when it actually happened to me (though I was in a pub, not walking down the street). That was a homophobic attack if we are to go by their intentions, I don't think it would matter to them that I found women attractive, I was just a fag as far as they were concerned.
don't think I mentioned what I do the bedroom once, let alone beg for you to pay attention to it.
Oh really?!?
as someone that enjoys the feel of an erect cock as much as I enjoy a good pair of tits
Yeah, I guess that's not you talking about your sexual activities at all.
Its about my sexual preferences, not what I do in my bedroom. The latter is none of your business.
He's specifically talking about so called "bisexuals" who are really just gay guys who won't admit that they are gay and are still having sex with women.
No, he's talking about gay people who had to come to terms with the fact that they weren't bisexual. That's why he said 'I have often heard my gay friends speak of finally coming to terms that they were not bi'
However, when I say that there are gay guys who won't admit that they are gay and are still having sex with women - THAT is a problem for you.
No that isn't a problem for me.
See? I told you you had misunderstood cavediver, me or both. It transpires it was both.
Personally, if I was gay and refusing to admit it, I'd go with the positive characterization of "wanting attention" rather than "hating myself".
But if you want to go with "I hate myself" I won't stop you
I don't hate myself. I'm just sexually attracted to both men and women. I had the thought once that I was gay, but I kept finding women attractive, so...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Nuggin, posted 08-01-2011 12:38 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2011 1:49 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 147 by Nuggin, posted 08-01-2011 7:39 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 141 of 284 (627229)
08-01-2011 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Modulous
08-01-2011 1:34 PM


Re: You don't get it.
I don't see how anyone can tell anyone else who they do or don't find sexually attractive. If after years of knowing who you are you say with confidence that you are geuinely attracted to both men and women how the hell can anyone else tell you that you aren't really bisexual?
Frankly - Nuggin is being a twit.
Out of interest (and you can tell me to piss off or ignore me if this is too personal) are you physically attracted to a "type" that straddles male and female? For example liking slim tall women and boyishly good looking guys I guess would qualify whilst liking petite but curvy girls and huge muscle bound guys would be kinda opposite.
Just interested for no particular reason other than curiosity about genuine bisexuality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Modulous, posted 08-01-2011 1:34 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Modulous, posted 08-01-2011 2:46 PM Straggler has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 142 of 284 (627239)
08-01-2011 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Straggler
08-01-2011 1:49 PM


Re: You don't get it.
Frankly - Nuggin is being a twit.
Maybe so, but he's expressing a relatively common view, that in MeatSpace I tend to silently 'put up with', but here at EvC we have an environment suitable to conflict and disagreements so I feel safe expressing my views. Of course, my doing this is apparently just confirming Nuggin's prejudices but it at least puts them out there for everyone else to see.
Out of interest (and you can tell me to piss off or ignore me if this is too personal) are you physically attracted to a "type" that straddles male and female? For example liking slim tall women and boyishly good looking guys I guess would qualify whilst liking petite but curvy girls and huge muscle bound guys would be kinda opposite.
To be honest, while I have a few identifiable types, they don't conform to the expectations you cite. My present partner is quite the curvy girl who likes handbags and shoes. And although I like a squared jawed 'man's man' I also am attracted to people such as Tim Minchin whose quite skinny and slightly effiminate (in his stage getup at least).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2011 1:49 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by hooah212002, posted 08-01-2011 3:09 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 143 of 284 (627241)
08-01-2011 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Modulous
08-01-2011 2:46 PM


Re: You don't get it.
but he's expressing a relatively common view
I didn't even realize it was a "thing", let alone a common viewpoint, until this thread.... There is actuall a wiki on Biphobia....

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Modulous, posted 08-01-2011 2:46 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2011 3:49 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 144 of 284 (627244)
08-01-2011 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by hooah212002
08-01-2011 3:09 PM


Re: You don't get it.
I didn't even realize it was a "thing", let alone a common viewpoint, until this thread....
Me neither - Nuggin took me completely by surprise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by hooah212002, posted 08-01-2011 3:09 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Panda, posted 08-01-2011 5:39 PM cavediver has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 145 of 284 (627253)
08-01-2011 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by cavediver
08-01-2011 3:49 PM


Re: You don't get it.
cavediver writes:
Nuggin took me completely by surprise.
Does that mean that both of you are now gay?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2011 3:49 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2011 5:49 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 146 of 284 (627256)
08-01-2011 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Panda
08-01-2011 5:39 PM


Re: You don't get it.
Does that mean that both of you are now gay?
Hey - I never said I enjoyed it!
You'll never know just how long I agonised over that post, knowing what a great double entendre I'd written, but unsure as to whether I should make anything of it - and then I remembered Kenneth Williams' imortal words
quote:
whenever I see innuendo in a script, I whip it out immediately
And so, I did...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Panda, posted 08-01-2011 5:39 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 147 of 284 (627269)
08-01-2011 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Modulous
08-01-2011 1:34 PM


Re: You don't get it.
If you were to say that omnivores are really herbivores that are too full of themselves, I'd call you out on it.
And if you were to claim to be an omnivore some day and claim to be a herbivore other days when it suits you, I'd say you were full of crap.
Most of the bisexual exclusive discrimination I get is people denying that bisexuals exist, and characterising me as being a gay that can't make up his mind, or who is promiscuous, unfussy, confused etc etc etc. That comes from people like you.
Actually, it comes from gays who have played at being bisexual and then later said "yeah, I was just fooling myself and trying to fit in".
Yet when someone points that out, silence from you. Why? Because you can't argue with the gays about being gay, can you?
Its about my sexual preferences, not what I do in my bedroom. The latter is none of your business.
So, you were bragging about sexual exploits out in public then. Fantastic. That doesn't fit my model of "wanting to talk about your sex life" at all. Geez.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Modulous, posted 08-01-2011 1:34 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2011 7:47 PM Nuggin has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 148 of 284 (627271)
08-01-2011 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Nuggin
08-01-2011 7:39 PM


Re: You don't get it.
Actually, it comes from gays who have played at being bisexual and then later said "yeah, I was just fooling myself and trying to fit in".
Which is fine if that is what they did. But if they go on to claim that therefore, all self-claimed bisexuals are fooling themselves and just trying to fit in, then I will call them on their obvious bullshit. Gays can also be complete arseholes; straights don't have the monopoly. This really isn't rocket-science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Nuggin, posted 08-01-2011 7:39 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Nuggin, posted 08-01-2011 8:40 PM cavediver has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 149 of 284 (627280)
08-01-2011 8:30 PM


These gentlemen explains things very clearly.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 150 of 284 (627281)
08-01-2011 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by cavediver
08-01-2011 7:47 PM


Re: You don't get it.
Gays can also be complete arseholes; straights don't have the monopoly. This really isn't rocket-science.
Ah, but the problem here is that I was told my opinion didn't count because I was a "straight boy".
So, again. "We can call each other nigger, you can't".
Further, the fact that there are gays saying "Yeah, I used to claim to be bi, but it was bullshit" is sorta damning for the rest of the bi's who are claiming to be special and definitely not gay. (except when they call themselves gay or when they want to make a political point - but only they get to say it).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by cavediver, posted 08-01-2011 7:47 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Trae, posted 08-02-2011 2:57 AM Nuggin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024