Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New York Gay Marriage
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 207 of 284 (627485)
08-02-2011 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Ohruhen
08-02-2011 3:19 PM


How else can he reliable inform you that he doesn't and have that information reliably received by others reading all of this? Seems like the most logical thing to do as silence is so rarely useful in making a point.
Let's remove the word "Attention" and substitution the word "scream".
If someone stands in the middle of the street and screams: "I DON'T SCREAM" - clearly they are contradicting themselves.
If I say, "The problem with guys in plaid shirts is that they tend to scream", I'm over generalizing.
But then, if a plaid shirt wearing guy starts screaming "I DON'T SCREAM" over and over and over again, you really don't expect me to say "Wow, you're right. You don't scream."
No, the proper thing to do is just _not scream_. Pretty simple. Apparently too hard to do.
This thread boils down to three things in my opinion:
#1) Who is gay?
- My point is and has been that "gay" is an umbrella term which included "bi", "lesbian", etc. The BIs on the thread have admitted that they are covered under "gay marriage" and "gay rights". So, they admit that "gay" applies to them.
Yet, in response to me, they object to being referred to as "gay".
So, it's a "nigger" situation. They get to call one another gay but no one else gets to.
#2) Who gets to have an opinion?
- Apparently "straight boys" don't get to have an opinion on gay rights. I object to this, and apparently I'm the only one who thinks so because everyone else seems to be in agreement that only the gays get to have an opinion on the gays and the rest of us are "homophobes" or "biphobes" or "lesbophobes" etc.
#3) Who wants attention?
- I pointed out that the other posters wanted attention. They wanted to talk about what they do sexually and did. They wanted to tell me that I didn't have a right to an opinion. And did. They wanted to go on endlessly about how they didn't want attention. And did.
All of that is just attention seeking.
The rest has just been them insulting me and me insulting them back.
Oh, and lately, people complaining that I won't just sit back and let them insult me without responding in kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Ohruhen, posted 08-02-2011 3:19 PM Ohruhen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Ohruhen, posted 08-02-2011 3:46 PM Nuggin has replied

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


Message 211 of 284 (627491)
08-02-2011 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2011 3:44 PM


None of that was highlighted.
Was the omission intentional, or do you just not know how to do it?
I don't know how to highlight, but if I did I would have done the whole message. Which is why I quoted it all.
Then when I asked if you could offer evidence in the contrary you admit that you can't.
So why bother? Seriously?
Is this how the rest of the thread is going to go? I post something. You say "what"? I repeat it. You say "what"? I repeat it. You say "what"?
Boooooring.
it is not clear in what sense there can be a debate.
There is no debate. There never has been a debate.
I made a statement. You guys admitted to it, but then told me that my opinion didn't count because I'm not gay.
That's not debate. That's just you guys being straightiphobic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 3:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2011 4:12 PM Nuggin has replied

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


Message 212 of 284 (627494)
08-02-2011 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Ohruhen
08-02-2011 3:46 PM


However, I don't see why ONLY gays, as defined by the concensus as those who are only interested in members of the same gender as they, are the only ones who would want a "gay marrage".
You are trying to define the term "gay" as meaning strictly men who have sex with men.
I'm using the term "gay" to mean anyone who is involved in relationships with people of the same gender.
I'm pointing out that there is a movement for "gay marriage" which includes "lesbian marriage" and "bi marriage" and whatever else.
I'm pointing out there these is a movement for hate crime protection, for gay rights, etc.
The gay community (note the word "gay" there still covers everyone) is perfectly happy to accept the term gay when they want to use it. However, as has been made abundantly clear through this thread, they want to govern everyone else's use of the term and attack anyone who doesn't use it the "correct" way.
I don't know why some have a problem with you're use of the term gay
I do. It's because I'm straight. They told me as such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Ohruhen, posted 08-02-2011 3:46 PM Ohruhen has not replied

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


Message 213 of 284 (627496)
08-02-2011 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2011 4:00 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
Do you honestly honestly not care?
Do you honestly honestly want to know?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 4:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 216 of 284 (627500)
08-02-2011 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Modulous
08-02-2011 4:12 PM


Perhaps you should let it go?
Notice I didn't respond to them.
Instead I'm responding to your attacks on me.
If you would stop attacking me, I'd stop fighting back. It's pretty simple. I've explained it enough times already.
Stop accusing me of being afraid of you. Stop telling me which words I can and can not use. Stop complaining about me being mean for standing up for myself and it will all be over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2011 4:12 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2011 4:34 PM Nuggin has replied

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


Message 217 of 284 (627501)
08-02-2011 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by bluegenes
08-02-2011 4:12 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
But your claim that bisexuals are "attention seekers" implies that people who are attracted to both sexes all seek attention far more than other groups, does it not?
Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are as gay as a (something that is gay) and that you are male.
You are seeking attention from men.
I am straight. I am male. I am seeking attention from women.
If someone is seeking attention from men AND women, then they are seeking...
...attention far more than other groups
Are they not?
Not necessarily. You could be in denial about your own bisexuality, and also in denial about what the generally accepted English language description of your group is.
Perhaps. Or maybe you are in denial in that you think that you are allowed to use the term "bisexual" without getting accused of being afraid of them since you don't have sex with them.
Or maybe you are in denial about being in denial about being denied the ability to use the word.
At the end of the day it comes down to people who claim that they are covered by the term "gay" when it comes to the TOPIC OF THE THREAD but don't want to be covered by the term "gay" when it comes from a "straight boy".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2011 4:12 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2011 4:47 PM Nuggin has replied

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


Message 221 of 284 (627514)
08-02-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Modulous
08-02-2011 4:34 PM


It wasn't for standing up for yourself that I complained. It was for your admission of breaking the forum rules, for arguing insincerely, for not discussing the topic in good faith.
After 4 days of people making gay rape jokes, you THEN decide that I'm the one not discussing the topic in good faith when I object to being told which words I can and can not use based on my sexuality.
Uh huh.
Great that you have such an even handed application of your perception of the rules of conduct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2011 4:34 PM Modulous 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 222 of 284 (627516)
08-02-2011 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Artemis Entreri
08-02-2011 4:38 PM


I disagree!
For Example I play the heel, I disagree with almost everyone on just about every topic, to stimulate a discussion.
I disagree! I think you agree with everyone! I dare you to disagree back!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 4:38 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 5:07 PM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 223 of 284 (627519)
08-02-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by bluegenes
08-02-2011 4:47 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
You could argue that for promiscuous people.
Bisexuals are just attracted to individuals from both groups.
No one is advocating for "promiscuous rights" or "promiscuous marriage".
No one is saying "because you don't have enough sex, you don't get to use the term promiscuous".
Bisexuals are perfectly willing to be "gay" when it comes to legal issues. They don't get to complain about being deemed "gay" if they themselves are allowing it to happen.
If the bisexuals were to raise a huge stink about "bisexual marriage", then I'd agree with you. They aren't. They are perfectly happy to be "gay" when it suits them. They just want to be able to object if someone from "outside of the club" uses one of their special words.
However, I won't entirely rule out my closet bisexual hypothesis. It sometimes does seem that those who would like to divide the complex of human sexuality into just two distinct compartments seem to have something in themselves to be frightened of.
All of humanity can be divided into two distinct compartments:
Those who agree they can be divided into two distinct compartments and those who disagree.
We can't accomplish _anything_ without using terminology to form collections of people.
Can you imagine how impossible it would be to carry on a debate about "gay marriage" in which EACH AND EVERY relationship was discussed in detail EVERY SINGLE TIME it came up?
Nothing would ever get done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2011 4:47 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2011 6:02 PM Nuggin has replied

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


Message 228 of 284 (627531)
08-02-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Theodoric
08-02-2011 5:21 PM


In other words you are a troll and freely admit it.
You are also in violation of forum rules.
So, it's your opinion that the site would be better served if no one was willing to argue the opposite side of any issue unless they REALLY mean it?
Seriously? Even the Creationists don't REALLY mean it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2011 5:21 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 6:06 PM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 229 of 284 (627533)
08-02-2011 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2011 5:29 PM


Re: Go back to the start
How about for starters there's no term for it.
Bisexual
So, "bisexual" is now defined as "guys that have sex with guys while at college, but then never again once they get out".
And you wonder why I'm having trouble following along. You guys keep changing your definitions.
Meanwhile, mine stays exactly the same:
If you have sex with people who have the same parts, you are gay.
But there are guys who are attracted to both sexes...
Okay. They are gay and also have sex with women.
That doesn't make them not gay.
Regardless, you're still wrong about bisexuals being gay.
They have sex with people who have the same parts. That makes them gay.
They are covered by "gay rights" legislation. That makes them gay.
They march in "gay pride parades", they will be covered under "gay marriage", they are subject to "gay hate crime".
Gay gay gay gay gay.
Saying that they aren't "gay" because sometimes they want to be "gay" and sometimes they don't is just silly.
If I was motivated by greed, then I would if I thought that I would make more money by limiting it to gays. Or if it was religiously motivated, and I didn't find immorality in those other things you mention, then I might limit it to just the gays. I dunno, but blanket absolute statements almost never fly.
Come on. Let's assume for a second that you have a 12 year old son.
You discover that there is a minister in your neighborhood who runs a special class for young boys focusing on indepth discussion about their gay desires.
Your conclusion is: "Wow, that guy must be making tons of money"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 5:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 5:42 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 236 by Meddle, posted 08-02-2011 7:21 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 241 by Trae, posted 08-02-2011 8:39 PM Nuggin has replied

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


(2)
Message 231 of 284 (627536)
08-02-2011 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2011 5:42 PM


Re: Go back to the start
Gay means 'is sexually atttracted exclusively to the same gender'.
If they're also attacted to women, then they aren't gay.
The when a bisexual is attacked for walking down the street holding hands with another guy, it's not a gay hate crime because he's not gay?
Come on.
Besides, when I look up "gay" at dictionary.com it says "homosexual" which it then defines as "someone displaying homosexuality" which in turn is defined as:
sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.
I don't see the word "exclusive" in there. Do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 5:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


(2)
Message 234 of 284 (627542)
08-02-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by bluegenes
08-02-2011 6:02 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
A bisexual can pursue his or her right to marry someone of the opposite sex without being called "straight" by you, can't they? Yet you seem to have massive problems the other way around. Why?
I don't. In fact, that's EXACTLY what I've been saying.
If a bisexual wants to marry someone of the same sex, it's gay marriage. They are gay. They are married. Gay marriage.
It is in no way easy to divide humans into two distinct groups according to their sexual orientation.
Sure there is. There's LOTS of ways to do it.
Those who have had sex and those who haven't.
Those who have sex with people of the opposite sex exclusively. Those who have sex with people of the same sex.
Or you could flip it and say "Those who have sex exclusively with members of the same sex" - However, I think you'll find that a VANISHINGLY small group.
I don't have any specific numbers in front of me, but I think you would find that a majority of the gay community has had sex with someone of the opposite sex.
That's why the gays don't use the term "gay" as an EXCLUSIVE term but rather an INCLUSIVE term. "Anyone having sex with people of the same sex" - all gay.
There's no need to. Where same sex marriage is recognized, ...
Notice you changed terms? Instead of "gay marriage" you said "same sex marriage". Why?
Because if you used the term "gay marriage" which is what I was talking about, you would have to admit that I was right.
If everyone is included under "gay marriage" (the topic of the thread by the way), then they can't really object to the word "gay". Can they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2011 6:02 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2011 7:19 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 237 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2011 7:55 PM Nuggin has replied

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


Message 239 of 284 (627563)
08-02-2011 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Modulous
08-02-2011 7:19 PM


Re: final attempt at reason
Can you at least understand how a person who is bisexual, or indeed any person of any group, may be upset when such negative stereotypes are presented about them?
Can I also request you try a civil tone? No giant capitals everywhere, use italics for emphasis instead, no condescension, no needling, goading or 'monkey poking' or any other trolling. That'd be super.
Yes.
Can you understand that discounting a persons opinion because they haven't had enough same sex sex is just as much condescension, needling, goading and monkey poking as anything I'm doing?
Can you understand that being nitpicky about terminology derails the entire movement?
Why on Earth would anyone want to help you if the first thing you do is beat them up for not using your particular term when you yourself switch off terms whenever you feel it applies?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2011 7:19 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2011 8:42 PM Nuggin has replied

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


Message 240 of 284 (627564)
08-02-2011 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Meddle
08-02-2011 7:21 PM


Re: Go back to the start
I think the problem is that when you declare someone who is bisexual as gay, you are defining them by their attraction to the same sex. Your definition neglects the fact that bisexuals are also attracted to people of the opposite sex, which just as significant and important to their lives.
But it's totally irrelevant in regards to the law, rights, marriage, etc.
Like I've been saying, no one is talking about bisexual rights. No one is talking about bisexual marriage.
They are talking about gay rights and the bisexuals aren't marching around complaining that they aren't covered by gay rights legislation.
So, they are perfectly willing to accept the label of "gay" when it suits them.
It's not MY definition. I didn't invent the word "gay". It's not my fault that they've been accepting the term for decades.
It may not have been your intention, but it comes across that if a bisexual man is in a relationship with a woman it is somehow not genuine and is instead a pretence.
I'm not the one that posted this. Someone did, but I'm not about to dig back through 10 pages of posts again to find it.
Someone very specifically said they knew a lot of gay guys who had claimed to be bisexuals and then finally said "Yeah, I was just fooling everyone, myself included".
So, given that this exists - how DARE I suggest that it may exist.
Of course, had one of the bisexuals or gays on the thread said it, because they've paid the gay tax and had "a sufficient amount of gay sex to be allowed to speak", then no one would raise a stink.
Also I looked up LUG in wikipedia, because I'd never heard the term before. It seems it can be used as a derogatory term against bisexual women.
...primarily by lesbians who are sick of these girls "playing at being lesbians" while at college, then dropping it like a trend that's gone out of style when they get back to the real world.
I'm not making this sh1t up. I shouldn't be accosted for pointing out what is happening in the real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Meddle, posted 08-02-2011 7:21 PM Meddle 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