Nevermind. Nothing good can come out of a response to ronholm.
Nevermind. Nothing good can come out of a response to ronholm.
mattm wrote: Nevermind. Nothing good can come out of a response to ronholm.
Correct. Do not feed the troll.
It can still be a good thread if no one takes the bait.
All joking aside - reading this thread has renewed my faith in humanity. I've got several gay friends, some of whom are married or in committed relationships. The idea that some people might want to discriminate against them simply on the basis of who they love... would be ludicrous if it wasn't so evil. I often wonder why the self-righteous have to be so bloody mean.
Lesley wrote: All joking aside - reading this thread has renewed my faith in humanity. I've got several gay friends, some of whom are married or in committed relationships. The idea that some people might want to discriminate against them simply on the basis of who they love... would be ludicrous if it wasn't so evil.
Ask them if their Gay just because it's popular? 
Apparently My Aunt and cousin are not gay for that reason. My Aunt is 55 and has been gay since she was 12. I do not think it was "Popular" in 1970 rural Vermont to be gay.
Haven't you heard? You turn gay from watching "Will and Grace".
Whoa!
You don't think because the behavior is popularized more people who are not gay are going to try it? Of course they are... Again so what?
AAAAANNNNDDDDD. I didn't say that in the post that apparently is to hateful and bloody mean for this forum... 
(Yet.... the stuff you guys are talking about isn't?)
What I said is YOU are TODAY, not 30 years ago, talking about the 'right' of gay marriage because gay is now cool and fun. People are working hard to manage a perception of what gay is to society at large...
And I also made it clear I didn't think this was necessarily a bad thing..
Will and Grace is a perfect example.
Other examples of such would be TV shows geared to such social shift like the Brady Bunch... Different Strokes... Three's Company...
Intelligent conversation would be more centered around whether these types of things are done more proactively in order to change opinion... Or are they the function of consumer demand?
This is useful thought for both sides of the discussion... Probably more useful for the supporters to understand as it is a powerful and motivating tool...
One of the arguments I heard was that any legitimization of gay marriage will encourage people to "switch teams". I'm sorry, but if you played baseball all your life then suddenly drop it for soccer because a more local team forms, you were really a soccer player all along (or at least a very dual sport person).
To be fair to Ron. He did not bring up the sodomy thing, he was simply explaining it as he saw it after I noted how absurd I found the idea of not only sodomy laws, but basing anti-gay laws on them. He can be less then elegant and too aggressive in is writing (and he clearly was doing some baiting earlier), but his last post (the one before this one above, he posted at the same time as I wrote this) was far better then the earlier one.
I am reluctant to approve of excluding him from the discussion if for nothing else, simply because he provides a rather well thought out (but many times not well communicated) counter point to the discussion. Discounting apposing views is never a good idea. As noted, the delivery could use some work in most cases.
Lesley wrote: It can still be a good thread if no one takes the bait. All joking aside - reading this thread has renewed my faith in humanity. I've got several gay friends, some of whom are married or in committed relationships. The idea that some people might want to discriminate against them simply on the basis of who they love... would be ludicrous if it wasn't so evil. I often wonder why the self-righteous have to be so bloody mean.
As aircooled points out... I hang out with a rough crowd.. former Marine, wife works in a jail, and the gay guys and gals I hang out, generally the people I am attracted to, have no problems with very raw and open honesty about what they feel... Life on the edge my friends...
I have plenty of gay friends also... Some of them I LOVE very dearly. Within the last hour I have been on the phone with my gay friends even discussing this thread... Directing them here... One of them is one of my goods friends and best subcontractors sister... Another is more an acquaintance but I sail with him and his boyfriend regularly. He is a fun guy... former producer for ESPN's sports center.. Senior producer for Nat Geo's Shark men and now nearly secured his PHD in psychology with an intense focus on Gay issues.... His boyfriend is in Med school...
The picture of me with that guy a few pages back... That was me out supporting the 30 postcards project.... http://www.30postcards.com/
Recently I lost one of my best customers... A fabulous interior decorator... HIV..
If you think I am truly being "discriminatory" in my posts you are doing as bad of a job reading them as I am of writing them.
If you will excuse me for saying this... But I feel strongly that the inability to discuss these issues OPENLY and COMPLETELY is a far more egregious display of hate and bigotry than anything I could dream up...
Yeah... sorry if that offends...
I totally agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I support your right to yours. However - why would you immediately assume that my post was directed to you? I was actually referring to vocal fundamentalists who seem to make everyone else's business their own. Debating works much better if you don't take a "me vs everyone else" stance and then pick apart other people's opinions. What I see here was a genuine discourse of a wide-range of people discussing issues openly and completely (as you put it) - what's offensive is then using people's opinions to criticize them.
Lesley wrote: I totally agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I support your right to yours. However - why would you immediately assume that my post was directed to you? I was actually referring to vocal fundamentalists who seem to make everyone else's business their own. Debating works much better if you don't take a "me vs everyone else" stance and then pick apart other people's opinions. What I see here was a genuine discourse of a wide-range of people discussing issues openly and completely (as you put it) - what's offensive is then using people's opinions to criticize them.
So If were to say watching "Will and Grace" could very possibly lead a 12 year old child to explore sexual behavior they may not have considered in the absence of such exposure, which could then in turn lead them down a path which is statistically very destructive...
You wouldn't use this opinion ( which of course could be proven by social science) to criticize me?
Of course you would (did), and a valid and strong argument could be made that your criticism of a person making that statement in certain situations may very well be justified..
Yet you can't exactly get to upset with me for rejecting your criticism of opinions you think I hold, can you? Assuming of course you are applying the same standards of judgement to me as you apply to yourself...
The "Will and Grace" comment was made by a US politician. Everything's not about you.
This has for the most part, been a very civilized discussion. But you're the only poster who has repeatedly taken other people's opinions, re-posted them and proceeded to pick them apart.
Lesley wrote: The "Will and Grace" comment was made by a US politician. Everything's not about you. This has for the most part, been a very civilized discussion. But you're the only poster who has repeatedly taken other people's opinions, re-posted them and proceeded to pick them apart.
I don't mean to make it about me... (I hope)
But are you really trying to say your Will and Grace comment wasn't in response to my post?
Now come on...
You were trolling me.. 
Its Ok... I wont hold it against you... and neither will anyone else..
(said as I pick apart your opinion again) 
AGain... Excluding the "nonsense" part of Santorums comment... For the sake of gay marriage supporters.. Shouldn't your consider there could be some truth in the comment?
Just because you disagree with his opinion doesn't mean he didn't have point... Which you should even maybe use to your advantage... besides simply mocking him for possibly understanding a fundamental source of the current popularity of the issue..
No, it was not. That Rick Santoris clip has been posted repeatedly on Facebook – most recently by a former colleague who now writes for one of Canada's leading gay newspapers. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here anyway? I lost interest in your one rambling statement after reading that "everyone was very guilty" - that's not a quantitative state, it's like being "a little pregnant" you either are, or you're not. If you've got an opinion, that's great! Make your point. Quit justifying it by picking apart everyone else.
ronholm wrote: ...explore sexual behavior they may not have considered in the absence of such exposure, which could then in turn lead them down a path which is statistically very destructive...
This seems to be a large part of your position and I would like you to expand on it.
I am suspicious of its validity (as you can imagine). What is your basis for that statement?
Do I think a gay person, on average, has a much harder life? Certainly. But controlling for the negative effects of living in a society where a significant part of the population shuns them (and in some cases abuses them) I do not see any reason why that "path" would be destructive. I really don't see "how" someone is having sex, that is not negatively affecting other (or has the potential to, such as child porn) is by its nature "damaging".
1998 was the first year for Will and Grace..
15 yrs ago.... You are pitching the show to the network... How do you go about it? There have been gay characters on primetime TV before... but not at that scale...
It was 'controversial'.. intentionally so...
Stuff like that is culturally very powerful...
Here... A quick Wiki link to show you a snapshot of something... Look at the dates for when and how these characters make it to the mainstream... How often they appear, and the significance of their roles in the show...
and even in the short descriptions notice how we go from this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dramatic_television_series_with_LGBT_characters
Hill Street Blues said: Eddie was a gay male prostitute who becomes friends with Mick Belker (Bruce Weitz) after helping him take down his pimp. He would guest star in a few episodes of the show before dying of AIDS in the episode "Slum-Enchanted Evening". McBride comes out after being falsely accused of sexually harassing a female prisoner.
To this..
Scandal said: Cyrus is the White House Chief of Staff. He is openly gay and in a long term relationship with (though not yet legally married to) James.
The rest of my argument has been made on that point. It is was more a question as it falls under "I don't know"....
As the question here is does that stuff lead or follow public opinion? Certainly both.... But to what extent?
It most certainly effects the current popularity of the Gay Marriage question.
and yes.. about the "everyone is guilty"
Are you suggesting you don't, haven't, and won't fall prey to domga's?
aircooled wrote:ronholm wrote: ...explore sexual behavior they may not have considered in the absence of such exposure, which could then in turn lead them down a path which is statistically very destructive...This seems to be a large part of your position and I would like you to expand on it. I am suspicious of its validity (as you can imagine). What is your basis for that statement? Do I think a gay person, on average, has a much harder life? Certainly. But controlling for the negative effects of living in a society where a significant part of the population shuns them (and in some cases abuses them) I do not see any reason why that "path" would be destructive. I really don't see "how" someone is having sex, that is not negatively affecting other (or has the potential to, such as child porn) is by its nature "damaging".
Yes... I feel gay people have a much harder life... Both due to pressures inside and outside of the gay community.
Statistically it is near 1 in 5 gay men suffer from HIV/AIDS.. This doesn't make life easy.
Oddly... What I gather from my gay friends is that society "shunning" them doesn't seem to be as much of a negative factor in the way many people might think. The culture seems to me to be at a point much like "punk" or "hip hop" or "goth"... MEANING being shunned has become a POSITIVE part of how they view themselves within society. This being shunned almost seems to create a source of pride, because in today's popular cultural their isn't any "real" shunning going on. At least not to the extent say a polygamist (or a priest ) might face... As being popularly shunned is what all the cool kids are doing these days....
Now... being shunned by the family is a whole different can of worms. A father facing his friends over a gay son... Or rejecting his son over the issue.. that is something again all together...
But again... These factors lead to a statistically harder go at life... Right, wrong or indifferent.
I will go further into some of the ideas I have developed about how gay sex effects people, as discussed with my gay psychologist friend, only with your permission. I like your question... and have really thought about this sincerely and with more depth than you might expect... but my welcome is quite thin... and undoubtedly this will offend the sensibilities of many as even simply discussing the psychology of "traditional" sex could devolve very quickly.
It seems though we agree the gay life is a harder life than the straight one? Where is our disagreement? On how to make this easier for as many a possible?
ronholm wrote: The rest of my argument has been made on that point.
Incorrect. Your argument has not been made because the majority of your audience does not know what your point is.
If you have a point, make it in one or two paragraphs totaling 5 sentences or less. Keep it formatted compactly enough so that it takes up less than half of a screen height to read.
Beer Baron wrote:ronholm wrote: The rest of my argument has been made on that point.Incorrect. Your argument has not been made because the majority of your audience does not know what your point is. If you have a point, make it in one or two paragraphs totaling 5 sentences or less. Keep it formatted compactly enough so that it takes up less than half of a screen height to read.
Sound bite culture?
when people spout out unsubstantiated "facts" about gays, and keep rambling on.. this is all I can picture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRxjJZFGgNM
(warning.. she is even more screwed up on her "facts", than the worst poster in this head could image to make up...but you get my drift.)
ronholm wrote: ...It seems though we agree the gay life is a harder life than the straight one? Where is our disagreement? On how to make this easier for as many a possible?
Well certainly. But there is a strange dichotomy in your argument. On one hand you argue that it is wrong that we should encourage people accept gay people because it is a hard or damaging life. And yet you admit one of the primary reasons why gay people have a hard life is because they are not accepted. Do you see what I am saying?
Probably best to avoid the mechanics discussion for now.
ronholm wrote: Sound bite culture?
No. The basics of how to make a clear argumentative thesis statement. After stating clearly what the point you are arguing is, then you provide clarifying and supporting evidence as necessary.
"Brevity is the soul of wit." - Polonius, Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2
I tried telling you guys it wouldn't get any better after Lesley's "confusing" post.
Let this one die and let the troll think he is the superior intellect in the room.
I spend a lot of time shooting cars with a good friend, a former Nascar shooter. He's taught me a lot about light play on the metal surfaces, and the technical things like ISO and shutter speed that I just couldn't grasp before. Since we drive all over the place looking for good locations we talk – a LOT. Mostly about cars, and racing, but since we're both single - past relationships. He was in a committed relationship for many years, but his partner died five years ago. Since then, he's been alone, since he's not interested in flings or meaningless relationships. We agree on a lot of things, and offer each other a lot of insight. The thought that this lovely guy could be hated by some people simply because they're afraid of what they don't understand bewilders me. He's lucky - he has the support of a loving family. Many don't. Substance abuse is frequent in their circles as a method of coping with the psychological strain of rejection. He's told me of friends who have been victims of gay-bashing, and other horrific crimes.
This is a guy who would totally fit in on this board. Often he knows more of the minutia of the cars I've just picked up, because he's already read all about them. Would it be cool if he too posted that he had a "hot" significant other that totally supported his car habits? I'd hope so.
z31maniac wrote: I tried telling you guys it wouldn't get any better after Lesley's "confusing" post. Let this one die and let the troll think he is the superior intellect in the room.
Did I make a confusing post? I'm sorry. 
Or did you mean the gross one I posted. For that I'm even sorrier... 
You'll need to log in to post.
