Your Political Affiliation

[catalina_francisco]

You know what I've found with people who feel very strongly about homosexuality? Either they are afraid of it out of ignorance, or they are heavily into denial about themselves so deep they cannot tolerate those who feel comfortable enough to be out and proud because it is a constant reminder of what they seek to hide...could the latter be BogartSlap's problem?

Catalina

 

[Shankara20]

You know what I've found with people who feel very strongly about homosexuality?
Catalina

Cat - you missed one option -

I feel very strongly about homosexuality -

I love it


and I am way way behind my quota of 500.....

 

[BogartSlap]

inquiring minds want to know

Cat - you missed one option -
I feel very strongly about homosexuality -
I love it
and I am way way behind my quota of 500.....

Just a quick technical question: When you're fucking an antelope, you're not obligated to give him a reach-around, are you?

 

[BogartSlap]

word to the wise

You'd have to toss in a few cases of duct tape; otherwise people would let the being outnumbered thing get in the way.

Cutie - Pssst! Actually, we use duct tape more on the BDSM board. Keeps them from thrashing around too much when they first wake up from the drugs - and then makes the body roll down the embankment more easily when you dump them afterwards.

 

[BogartSlap]

closet homo

You know what I've found with people who feel very strongly about homosexuality? Either they are afraid of it out of ignorance, or they are heavily into denial about themselves so deep they cannot tolerate those who feel comfortable enough to be out and proud because it is a constant reminder of what they seek to hide...could the latter be BogartSlap's problem?
Catalina

Oh, gosh darn, you figured me out. Yes, I'm just a secretly raging homo in wolf's clothing.

 

[CutieMouse]

Cutie - Pssst! Actually, we use duct tape more on the BDSM board. Keeps them from thrashing around too much when they first wake up from the drugs - and then makes the body roll down the embankment more easily when you dump them afterwards.

Duct tape is a non-discriminatory, multi-use substance, commonly joked about amongst mothers of large families... the kinky possibilities are bonus.

 

[Shankara20]

Just a quick technical question: When you're fucking an antelope, you're not obligated to give him a reach-around, are you?

I have never understood the need for some to connect homosexuality with bestiality - some even connect it to incest and pedophilia.

I feel insulted by the connection - as I do by your question. I assume you were making it as humor - but given your statements about your feelings about male/male sex I am not sure.

I do make love to men. I have never practiced bestiality, nor to I want to.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Oh, gosh darn, you figured me out. Yes, I'm just a secretly raging homo in wolf's clothing.

Now don't you feel better to have gotten that off your chest?!! Now to find you a suitable lover...maybe difficult but I never give up easily.

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

I have never understood the need for some to connect homosexuality with bestiality - some even connect it to incest and pedophilia.

I feel insulted by the connection - as I do by your question. I assume you were making it as humor - but given your statements about your feelings about male/male sex I am not sure.

I do make love to men. I have never practiced bestiality, nor to I want to.

Nor have I or M wanted to fuck upwards of 900 people. Boy are we exceptional or what? They're gonna pull M's buttfuckee card if he doesn't get on it.

Maybe if we're really that fucking uneasy about public health what we need to do is outlow ass sex. Or maybe we don't give a rat's about public health anyhow. I mean no one's ranting about the rise of reproductive/breast/other cancer rates due to a whole host of factors we can only guess at. No one's talking preventative healthcare, or the obesity epidemic. (Both of which are offing us at alarmingly higher rates than HIV)

Nope. It's completely unreasonable to regulate ANYTHING except fag ass sex.

 

[BogartSlap]

It wasn't me!

I have never understood the need for some to connect homosexuality with bestiality - some even connect it to incest and pedophilia.

I feel insulted by the connection - as I do by your question. I assume you were making it as humor - but given your statements about your feelings about male/male sex I am not sure.

I do make love to men. I have never practiced bestiality, nor to I want to.

Hey, I didn't bring up the damn antelope thing - it was Netz!
Anyway, yeah, that was totally intended as comic relief - sorry that I offended you - was not my intention - please forgive.

 

[Netzach]

Hey, I didn't bring up the damn antelope thing - it was Netz!
Anyway, yeah, that was totally intended as comic relief - sorry that I offended you - was not my intention - please forgive.

Uh, no. You were the one to bring up the tired old BS about how same sex marriage is the camels nose under the tent of bestiality pedophelia and who knows what else.

 

[BogartSlap]

Go figure, huh?

I have never understood the need for some to connect homosexuality with bestiality - some even connect it to incest and pedophilia. I do make love to men. I have never practiced bestiality, nor to I want to.

But seriously....you wonder why people might occasionally connect homosexuality and, say, pedophilia? Gee, think it might have something to do with NAMBLA - the fact that the ONLY organization that openly avows having sex with children as morally acceptable ALSO just happens to be homosexual?

 

[Netzach]

But seriously....you wonder why people might occasionally connect homosexuality and, say, pedophilia? Gee, think it might have something to do with NAMBLA - the fact that the ONLY organization that openly avows having sex with children as morally acceptable ALSO just happens to be homosexual?

Which has repeatedly been kicked out of gay pride events, repeatedly been called out for what it is, and repeatedly been disavaowed by gay organizations around the world. NAMBLA is basically a rogue organization usupring the romanticized rhetoric of a "classical past" (hmmmm....) to justify action between adult men and boys.

It's like saying I'm personally responsible for the KKK because I'm white. I may be privileged based on being white, but those clowns aren't my personal homies and most people are able to make the distinction.

 

[SpectreT]

I'll simply pile on to the flood of incredulity at the "500" number. I honestly don't even know anyone who can lay claim to having sex 500 times, let alone with different partners. (well, maybe slightly older married couples, like my parents, have long since hit the 500 mark with each other, but I'm discussing my peer group.)

Personally, at age thirty-five, I've been sexual with exactly three people in all that time, not counting myself, for a total of seven separate sexual encounters. (Two people of the opposite sex, one of the same - the placement of those three people get a little fuzzier if you use the word "gender" instead of "sex".) (And yes, I'm including handjobs, otherwise we'd have to drop the count to two people, and the one same-sex encounter drops off the list.) And it's been well over a decade since I've been sexually active with anyone other than myself.

That shared, I thought we were in the longest hijack in recent memory, regarding homosexual marriage. BS, I'll address this directly to you: Homosexual marriage does not equal endorsing unsafe sex orgies and other forms of irresponsible promiscuity, but the exact opposite. The whole point, aside from bringing justice to the law (I've always felt strongly that the law should be a slave to justice, but often in reality the only purpose of laws are to create and spread injustice), is to create a situation whereby that type of irresponible behavior has a legitimate, legally recognised alternative and can be shown up for the self-destructive idiocy it is, in that relatively small segment of the population that behaves in such a manner. I thought I'd said my last words on this, but I guess I needed to repeat them, since you keep missing the point.

 

[CutieMouse]

But seriously....you wonder why people might occasionally connect homosexuality and, say, pedophilia? Gee, think it might have something to do with NAMBLA - the fact that the ONLY organization that openly avows having sex with children as morally acceptable ALSO just happens to be homosexual?

Really now... equating your average homosexual person to NAMBLA, is kind of like equating your average vegetarian to PETA, or a breastfeeding mom to some of the more extreme lactivist organizations. Just because a radical organization vomits their views all over the place, doesn't mean they speak for (or really represent) the people they claim association with.

 

[Shankara20]

But seriously....you wonder why people might occasionally connect homosexuality and, say, pedophilia? Gee, think it might have something to do with NAMBLA - the fact that the ONLY organization that openly avows having sex with children as morally acceptable ALSO just happens to be homosexual?

And a small group of white supremacists are justification to call all whites racists?

 

[Shankara20]

Hey, I didn't bring up the damn antelope thing - it was Netz!
Anyway, yeah, that was totally intended as comic relief - sorry that I offended you - was not my intention - please forgive.

ok...

 

[BogartSlap]

no (in short)

And a small group of white supremacists are justification to call all whites racists?

But I didn't call all homosexuals pedophiles. I merely answered your question about why people might associate homosexuality with pedophilia. Also, I think your analogy is flawed. As I pointed out, the ONLY group advocating sex with children as "a good idea" is a homosexual group, but white supremacists are not the ONLY group of racists in the world.

 

[Zinfandel]

Well, that's what it was precisely designed to do - it was purely an emotional appeal to get you to dispense bothering with considering the issue thoughtfully, and instead make an emotional decision about it in a flood of tears.

Please refrain from making any assumptions about whether or not I have "bothered to consider the issue thoughtfully". Thanks.

 

[BogartSlap]

apologies

Please refrain from making any assumptions about whether or not I have "bothered to consider the issue thoughtfully". Thanks.

I apologize for it sounding like that's what I was doing. I wasn't saying that you had, or had not, considered the issue thoughtfully - only that the great aunt story you were responding to was a purely emotionally-based appeal for sympathy, rather than any sort of impetus for people to examine the issue in an objective manner, and additionally that it was coming from someone who had just complained about emotion-based, rather than logical, arguments.

 

[BeachGurl2]

...It isn't about anything other than a group of powerful people wanting to keep the status quo trying to use emotion to frighten people into behaving their way. It is the American political system in full tilt action. We should be so proud."

If that's all you think it's about, respectfully suggest you think again.
Yeah, we should be proud, because even on its worst day, our political system is still the best ever put into operation.

"When you can tell me why gay marriage is harmful and therefore should not be allowed, then I'll listen to your argument and have a true DISCUSSION with you."

"...you're just spouting propaganda used by the religious right to scare the American people into behaving irrationally."

I would hope that the homosexual advocacy contingent would have the good sense to shy away from throwing around accusations about spouting propaganda, now that they've freely admitted to unabashedly using utterly false propaganda for years (like the infamous "10 per cent of the population is homosexual" bullshit) in an attempt to further their agenda.

"Saying it's not economically important is stupid."

First of all, I didn't say that. Second of all, I will say that I'm a bit surprised to hear a liberal suggesting that we base social policy on what ought to prove most profitable.

"Allowing gay marriage will not statistically affect HIV/AIDS rates and the 2 aren't related."

That might turn out to be true, but for you to state it like it's an already established fact is less than completely honest.

"Safe sexual practices among those who are sexually active - no matter the gender or orientation - will affect HIV/AIDS rates."

Yeahhh...but the fact remains that male/male sex is the most UNsafe sexual practice in regard to the transmission of HIV.

"The people who will take advantage of gay marriage at this point are largely already in committed relationships. They aren't more or less likely to cheat than their heterosexual counterparts."

Hate to break it to you, but actually it appears that they may be. A self-reporting study done a few years back ('99 I think) showed a significantly larger number of unmarried homosexuals than heterosexuals involved "a committed relationship" engaged in sex outside that relationship. Now, it was a "self-reporting" study, so there's the possibility that more or the heterosexuals lied about cheating, but there's no reason to automatically assume that to be true, and it's unlikely that that would completely account for the vastly different numbers.

"Allowing gay marriage will not statistically affect families nor will it necessarily alter to any statistical degree the number of gay couples raising children."

Since it hasn't been done, who knows? What little data there is contradicts your assertion. In Denmark, for example, where gay marriage has been legalized, overall marriage rates have fallen significantly since then.

"There are many non-traditional families that are better functioning than a lot of traditional families."

Probably more accurate to say that SOME non-traditional families are more functional than SOME traditional ones (agreed, of course). But the way you put it, it starts to lean toward sounding like non-traditional families are, overall, more functional than traditional families.

"What gay marriage will do is give legal standing to those already in long term, committed relationships."

It'll also give that legal standing to any gay couple that's known each ten minutes and feels like running into a wedding chapel in Vegas and getting hitched.

"My great aunt and her partner own a home together. They are in their 80s. They have been together as a couple since their late 20s, so almost 60 years."

"They've spent their entire adult life asking for 2 beds when they travel because 2 women traveling together, especially back when they began their relationship, was not acceptable with one bed. And every morning, one of them would mess up the second bed in their room before the maids came in. Do you know how absolutely stupid the idea of that is?"

Yeah, it is incredibly stupid, as I know plenty of heterosexual women who often travel with other women, get one room with one king-size bed that they share, and never think a thing about it - and I doubt that the maids do either.

"It hurts to see how much love they have for each other and to know how persecuted they could have been if they had been more public about their relationship. No one should have to love in private that way just to avoid persecution from others."

WOAH...wait just a minute. Wasn't there some point in the not-too-distant past when you were complaining about people making arguments from emotion rather than logic? That is absolutely nothing but an attempted heart-string tug. But just for the record, one could make the same violins-playing-sadly-in-the-background plea for Luther who wants to marry his goat, Cindy who wants three husbands instead of just one, or Sam that wants to marry his 18-year-old daughter. Now, do you still feel that "no one should have to love in private"? Should we feel the same heart-wrenching sadness for Sam and his daughter that we do for your great aunt? And Luther and that goat have been in a stable, committed, loving relationship for years, but according to our legal system, if the goat dies first, poor Luther won't inherit a thing. It's just a tragedy.

I'm not going to nit pic you here because you seem to be good enough at that for all of us. What is interesting to me is how you continue to pull one sentence out of context and then assign it meaning in and of itself that has little to do with the context in which it was written. That is one of the issues that I have with 'lawyer types'. Let's dissect every word uttered to see if we can get them off track here. When people begin to do this it's because they can't form a more valid larger argument, and so they are often trying to distract the reader from the points being made. Nice ploy.

There are SEVERAL items you pulled out of context in my thread in order to make it sound like I was saying something I wasn't, such as the economic impact of making social policy. I NEVER implied that I thought it was important to do that. YOU were the one who mentioned the fact that allowing gay marriage had no economic importance so shouldn't happen - I was merely saying I thought to use economic implications when discussing this type of social policy was stupid. In the same way it was stupid to say that women shouldn't have the vote because giving it to them wouldn't economically impact the country. When dealing with issues of discrimination, economic implications have no place in the argument - in my opinion. THAT'S what I was calling stupid. My discussion of my aunt was not an emotional argument in favor of gay marriage, it was an EXAMPLE of their lives in view of discrimination. Because of the social climate and their orientation, they made choices that heterosexual women traveling together may never have considered. But again, you skipped to the part you wanted to dissect, so missed the point entirely.

If you could stop dissecting everyone here and actually LISTEN to what people are saying, you might hear something of importance. Instead, you attack each post line by line. As long as you continue to do that, as far as I'm concerned, you have nothing of any value to add to the discussion. Of course, that's just my opinion, others may feel very differently.

And now I'm off to read the posts between your response to me and this response back, since someone probably said something I am interested in reading. Thanks for confirming my thoughts.

 

[BeachGurl2]

I have never understood the need for some to connect homosexuality with bestiality - some even connect it to incest and pedophilia.

I'm with you on this one, Shank. I've never understood this. Interestingly enough, I did quite a bit of research in grad school regarding pedophilia. The statistics at the time suggested white, heterosexual males as the highest offenders by far. Similar results came out of research into incest. I don't have the studies handy nor the time to look them up at the moment. (I'm kind of posting on the fly here again.) The level of fear that people associate with the unknown makes for interesting decision-making processes, I think. The media and politicians on both sides of the coin use that to their full advantage.

To clear something up here, I chose 'liberal sub' on the poll because that probably most closely relates to me. I make decisions based on each item up for discussion based on the merits of that item. I'm pro-choice, believe in an individual's right to bear arms, less government, and pro-personal freedoms. And I'm against the war in the middle east, although I'm very supportive of our armed forces. So I don't really fall anywhere on the spectrum because each issue would put me somewhere else.

 

[BogartSlap]

no doubt

... Interestingly enough, I did quite a bit of research in grad school regarding pedophilia. The statistics at the time suggested white, heterosexual males as the highest offenders by far.

I wouldn't think that would surprise anyone. But those dastardly heterosexual pedophiles - unlike homosexual pedophiles - haven't founded an international organization with the aim of trying to convince people that pedophilia is a morally defensible action.

 

[BogartSlap]

Let me try this one more time

YOU were the one who mentioned the fact that allowing gay marriage had no economic importance so shouldn't happen.

No. I. Did. Not.
Clear enough?

 

[BogartSlap]

really?

I'm with you on this one, Shank. I've never understood this. (the association of homosexuality with incest, pedophilia, bestiality)

You really, honestly have "never understood" this? Well, if that's true, then one can only assume that you have your head so far...in the sand, as to be woefully ignorant of even the most basic things - like the fact that throughout the entirety of human history (well, till now anyway ) there has been an overwhelming consensus that all of the above are sexual perversions.
I have to ask again - You really have never had any awareness of that simple fact of human social history? Well, here's a dollar - buy a clue.