Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New York Gay Marriage
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 226 of 284 (627526)
08-02-2011 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Artemis Entreri
08-02-2011 4:38 PM


In other words you are a troll and freely admit it.
You are also in violation of forum rules.
quote:
8. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 4:38 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 5:31 PM Theodoric has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 284 (627530)
08-02-2011 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 1:56 PM


Re: Go back to the start
How about for starters there's no term for it.
Bisexual!
If it was an equal phenomena you'd expect someone somewhere would have mentioned it.
Then there's the complete lack of the "I was going through a phase" comment from guys.
But there are guys who are attracted to both sexes...
No. I was talking about "gay rights" and "gay marriage".
There isn't a "lesbian marriage" movement. There isn't a "bi marriage" movement. There isn't a "trans-marriage" movement.
I was pointing out that "gay" as a term is an umbrella.Then Stranger made a joke, so I joked back. Then 5 of you asked the EXACT SAME QUESTION. Fuck me if I'm going to copy and paste the same response 5 times in 5 posts.
I just opened your post from the email notification and responded without reading any of the thread at all. Not the best idea I had that day.
Then I left for 4 days.
Until one of the gays came on to tell me that as a "straight boy" I wasn't allowed to have an opinion.
At that point, it was ON.
Regardless, you're still wrong about bisexuals being gay.
Nah. Think about it.
Let's say you are a straight religious guy and you have a ministry and you are worried about "the kids".
Okay. You are going to set up a "group" for kids in trouble. That group is going to cover kids who listen to devil music, kids who are smoking the drugs, kids who dress like vampires, gay kids and kids who have gotten busted by the police.
You aren't going to set up a group that ONLY deals with gay kids. Why would you?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 1:56 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 5:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 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 2492 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

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 284 (627535)
08-02-2011 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 5:38 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 5:38 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 5:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 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

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 232 of 284 (627539)
08-02-2011 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 5:07 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
Nuggin writes:
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".
My comment related to your views on bisexuals being "attention seekers." It was nothing to do with marriage.
Nuggin writes:
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.
They have no need to be described as "gay" legally. Same sex marriage, when made legal, is open to everyone.
Nuggin writes:
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.
See above. And "they" for you always seem to be acting in unison as one group.
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?
Nuggin writes:
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.
Not literally true (indecision), and that doesn't address my point about human sexuality. It is in no way easy to divide humans into two distinct groups according to their sexual orientation. (We could go to a science thread on this subject and look at psychology papers).
Nuggin writes:
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?
There's no need to. Where same sex marriage is recognized, it's available to all adults regardless of their sexuality. You could have a marriage of convenience for money with a male Mexican immigrant who wanted citizenship. If you do, I promise I won't start pretending you're homosexual rather than either heterosexual or a closet bisexual, which are the current favourites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 5:07 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 6:18 PM bluegenes has replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 233 of 284 (627540)
08-02-2011 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 5:31 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
How do we know that you're not just playing Devil's Advocate now, in claiming that you usually play Devil's Advocate? You could actually really believe everything you type!
Shit, there's no way to tell at all just what you actually believe!
Exactly, though what I believe, is not important to the debate at hand.
Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with why you should argue the position instead of the person
Exactly, how I really feel is only important for those who like to assume things about me, with strawmen, and other false accusations, because they have no real ability to debate what I have to say.
Like many things Artemis Entreri, of Evc, is a product of his environment.
Nuggin writes:
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.
You should ignore him/her. Everyone else does, and for good reason. He/she doesn’t get it. Rule #8 is not about the poster, but about the information that the poster is posting. One should not misquote, or quote mine to unethically make a point. One should find valid data from some source to support his/her POV. Misrepresenting yourself is not the issue, what you really believe and what you say can be two different things entirely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 5:31 PM Nuggin has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 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

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


(2)
Message 235 of 284 (627552)
08-02-2011 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 6:18 PM


final attempt at reason
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.
I think a lot of confusion is from this difference in outlook. I consider my sexuality to be a function of what sexes I presently find sexually attractive. You seem to be seeing it as a function of who you have ever had sex with, or something at least along those lines.
Gay people report that they do not find the opposite sex attractive. Some of them even report that while they had sex with members of the opposite sex, they weren't really turned on. That they were essentially 'faking it'. These people I would not classify as bisexual, even though their lifetime sexual experience is bisexual in nature. There are also gay people who have never had gay sex, at least not anal intercourse.
Likewise, a person who reports to me that they only find guys attractive, but they've only ever been with a woman and it felt unpleasant - I'd categorize as gay, even though his present sexual experience is heterosexual in nature.
The test as to which of us is right should be down to how the words are actually used.
If I introduced myself as being gay, what would most people think?
I submit that most people would infer from this that I did not find women sexually attractive and that I only go for other guys. The word gay, used in this context, and in common use, clearly refers to an exclusivity. By referring to myself as gay, people will get the wrong impression, meaning I have failed to communicate properly, which means the word is an inappropriate one to use in this case.
But yes, if I am with a guy, that is a homosexual coupling. That doesn't mean we are both necessarily homosexual. In fact, we might both be straight and deluded/confused/drunk/on psychotropics/experimenting/students.
If I marry a guy, that is a gay marriage.
And gay rights are the important ones because the straight rights are already taken care of to a sufficient degree.
It isn't that you are calling bisexuals 'gay' that is the central problem though, unnecessarily confusing as it is. It is that you characterised them all as attention craving self involved gays. There are words used to describe the action of taking a small sample of personal experiences and using that to draw inferences about the characteristics of the whole group, and they are words I'm led to believe you wouldn't want yourself labelled with. I appreciate that it was 'off the cuff', and probably a bit of fun - but then you continued the position beyond the confines of the joke in further discussions with me.
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.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 6:18 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 8:27 PM Modulous has replied

Meddle
Member (Idle past 1270 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


(1)
Message 236 of 284 (627553)
08-02-2011 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 5:38 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. However, so far you have been actively dismissive of this attraction to the opposite sex saying they are gay and also happen to have sex with women or are attention seeking. 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.
Do you not see how hurtful this could be, and why they may feel the need to speak out to defend themselves from such accusations? In a way you are denying one aspect of their identity, just as politicians legislating against gay rights deny them another aspect of their identity.
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. It made me realise that people who are bisexual can potentially be subjected to hostility from both gay and straight people.
Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 5:38 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 8:37 PM Meddle has not replied
 Message 267 by Chuck77, posted 08-03-2011 1:12 AM Meddle has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 237 of 284 (627559)
08-02-2011 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 6:18 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
Nuggin writes:
If a bisexual wants to marry someone of the same sex, it's gay marriage. They are gay. They are married. Gay marriage.
It's same sex marriage. Like you and your Mexican.
Nuggin writes:
bluegenes writes:
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 think that if you want to discuss subjects like this, your English needs to be good enough to distinguish between phrases like "sexual orientation" and "sexual history".
Nuggin writes:
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.
It's used to describe orientation when referring to people. A gay person can be celibate.
Nuggin writes:
Notice you changed terms? Instead of "gay marriage" you said "same sex marriage". Why?
What phrase do you think courts and legal documents use? No-one has to be gay in order to have a same sex marriage.
Nuggin writes:
Because if you used the term "gay marriage" which is what I was talking about, you would have to admit that I was right.
People are under no obligation to call their same sex marriages "gay marriages" because you want them to, or because the writer of the O.P. uses slang.
Nuggin writes:
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?
But would you and your Mexican, with your same sex marriage of convenience, be having a gay marriage?
You seem to want to back up your desire to call bisexuals "gay" by deciding that all same sex marriages (the correct legal term) have to be called "gay marriages".
If someone's sexual orientation is bisexual, it remains so whether they marry someone of the opposite sex or the same sex. That applies to homosexuals and heterosexuals as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 6:18 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 8:46 PM bluegenes has replied

Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 238 of 284 (627560)
08-02-2011 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 1:12 PM


Re: Go back to the start
As I pointed out earlier, there is no male version of "LUG". It's a phenomena that just doesn't happen.
Those, 'one time at camp' stories seem to be similar or perhaps the emo boy fetish for kissing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 1:12 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 8:48 PM Trae has seen this message but not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 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 2492 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