A rational argument against free sexuality, anybody?

[Safe_Bet]

Meh. Don't sweat it Louise, they can't hear you over the roar of their own rhetoric.

'Sides, this thread is starting to reek too much of condescending, straight, white male arrogance. Neither of these dudes (if in fact the arent the same troll using different Alts) really give a shit about any of this, they just like to argue and " expound".

It let's us lowly women and uppity queers appreciate their brilliance, dont'cha know.


Let's see, now both (or the same one) should be roaring in all self righteous and offended in 4... 3... 2... 1...

(at least as soon as they can type up another 40 - 50 paragraphs of what they consider to be brilliant, enlightening and awe inspiring BS. . )

 

[Stella_Omega]

Slavery wasn't stopped by rational arguments. It was stopped by the emotional appeals (many were VERY over the top) of abolitionists, some of which were injured by mob violence and even killed.

Women's rights weren't won by rational arguments. They were won by the emotional appeals (many were VERY over the top) of suffragettes, some of which were injured by being arrested and subjected to what would today be called police brutality and torture.

Racial rights weren't won by rational arguments. They were won by emotional appeals of Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, Caesar Chavez, and others. They were jailed, beaten, and even killed for their belief in equality.

The right to be gay and not face prosecution for it has its birth in the Stonewall Riots in Greenwich Village. When the AIDS epidemic broke out, public attention was bought by the lives of thousands of gay men. ACT UP, among others, participated in street theater and protests specifically designed to break the hardened hearts of America.

Equality is never granted because someone calmly lays out a case for it. It is won when a group organizes and fights for it. And part of fighting for it is appealing in terms that motivate people to fight and to see the injustice of the status quo.

Thank you, Louis.
Let me add that the Stonewall rioters were mostly drag queens.

'Sides, this thread is starting to reek too much of condescending, straight, white male arrogance. Neither of these dudes (if in fact the arent the same troll using different Alts) really give a shit about any of this, they just like to argue and " expound".

Naw they both give big, big shits about this. It's just that they both really think that arguing and expounding are going to make a difference, and neither of them can understand any other form of argument.

When lustatopia claims that I am NUKING THE GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT OH NOES because of my words of scorn and that must mean HATRED OH NOES -- he really thinks that. He has tears in his eyes as he types.

As it happens, I have a couple of scars on my face and arm that are the result of str8t hatred expressed with beer cans on a public street, so I don' think he's ever actually experienced the expression of hatred.

Dude! You're a wimp! And you probably aren't getting enough sleep or enough sunshine.

ETA: I suggest that both of our debating gentlemen take a look at wolfman's latest tale of hideousness in the news forum. And then you two can debate on how best to debate those folks.

 

[Etoile]

Don't throw your temper tantrum at me for trying to keep this place from ever getting out of control.

But only when I feel that I can safely leave this place without any one side taking over this forum. It's a debate forum, not a promotional forum. It's sorta hypocritical, but I want to keep this place open to all groups.

That's my job, thanks - don't worry yourself about it!

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's my job, thanks - don't worry yourself about it!

That was when I realised that this was a well-meaning person who hadn't quite gotten the memo

 

[Etoile]

That was when I realised that this is a well-meaning person who hadn't quite gotten the memo

Oh yes, I agree completely. But still, I do have my eye on this thread, if things go bad I'll handle it appropriately. I don't think it will though - everybody seems pretty rational to me!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh yes, I agree completely. But still, I do have my eye on this thread, if things go bad I'll handle it appropriately. I don't think it will though - everybody seems pretty rational to me!

I rest in your care.

 

[TallOne]

Well talk about a step backward.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13449895

Two years after Texas became one of the last states to allow transgendered people to use proof of their sex change to get a marriage license, Republican lawmakers are trying to roll back the clock.

 

[Stella_Omega]

yes, the repubnicans are attacking minority rights across the board.

Join credo, cuentame, courage campaign, also True Majority. If we don't hang together we'll hang separately.

 

[lustatopia]

You guys remind me of a hackney movie plot. But you know, it just might sell…

We don't need to "practice rational arguments."…I have to fight for MY LIFE every fucking day….Dude I have managed to not slaughter anyone yet. I'm doing okay on that front. Just don't try to police my tone, thank you. Venting on the internet is how I avoid screaming at.. yanno.. strangers….Dude! You're a wimp!

-Stella

Then what should you do for your life? Go and slaughter a family of straight religious zealots?….A fight never ends unless someone stops fighting.

-M2VIDS

Do you really want to know what I’m thinking right now? I want to punch that pretty little face of yours until it’s black and blue. I want to punch you and kick you until you can’t breathe.

--marieR19

Slavery wasn't stopped by rational arguments… Women's rights weren't won by rational arguments… Racial rights weren't won by rational arguments… Equality is never granted because someone calmly lays out a case for it…

--Louise Loves

First, my apology. All these quotes are taken totally out of context - not to belittle them, but because I found them to be eloquently inspiring and to be culturally teleconnected, a part of a gestalt. They echoed in my head like snippets out of a film trailer.

And then I remembered what Stella said in post #42:

Mostly on this forum which is, let's face it, a porn site, you're going to get sex talk…That's why I came here in the first place. I came here to get way from politics. Sometimes I have to remind myself about that…

Wow, Stella’s right, you know!... So in the spirit of playing the fool and getting away from stupid boring old politics and maybe, just maybe, stop being so bloody uptight…I dashed out a film plot inspired by this thread.

Cheers, Lusty

 

[lustatopia]

Here’s the rough plot:

Place: Near future. Suburbia.

Stella (played by Steve Buscemi) and Safebet (Angelina Joli) just married in a classy church wedding, running down the steps, laughing and kissing, surrounded by same-sex couples tossing rice, wedding bells ringing. Their limo speeds off as their gay families and friends wave the happy couple off.

Next Scene: Namibia, Africa.

Swooping chopper vistas of a vast rain forest… Stella (Steve Buscemi) is a doctor who trying to save the last gay tribe in the dark jungles of Africa. But the tribe is dying of an unknown tropical disease. Safebet leaps from chopper with a case of vital medicine for Dr. Stella to administer. It’s too late the whole tribe is dying in their arms.

But then Safebet sees a small baby in the arms of her dead mother. It’s an autistic, bisexual, black and beautiful. Its heart is still beating. Back on the chopper with the baby.

Bethesda Medical Centre’s Gay Ward.

Dr. Stella and a team of gay doctors headed by Chris Rock have saved the baby. Stella and Safebet talk about adopting the child with their friend Elton John. Elton says it’s the right thing to do.

Happy Farms, a closed gay lifestyle community modelled on the Stepford Conn. and inexplicable placed in the middle of the Californian desert:

Stella (Steve Buscemi) and Safebet are living the blissful marital life with their adopted child. Stella works at the local needle exchange and free health clinic and Safe_bet stays homes to work their organic veggie patch. Scenes of her ploughing the hard earth with her forearm, just so we know what this peace-loving gay husband is capable of inflicting real damage.

The neighbourhood is one of total gay peace and love. Gay couples mowing the lawn, gay children frolic in the garden and gay joggers waving as they ride by. Stella jokingly hugs Safebet. “Don’t you just love our new gay ghetto, Honey?” They laugh. Sighs. Life is good.

Then suddenly the skies darken and a low rider full of tough looking het skinheads cruises by. Trig Palin (Lindsay Lohan) is the driver. She tosses an empty beer can out the low rider. Stella (Buscemi) yells, “Hey, you het bitch there is a fine for littering, ya know!” Safebet restrains Stella from chasing after the low rider with one finger.

That night Trig Palin and the het skinheads return and kick over a few garbage cans, trench some lawns. Next morning, nice gay families emerge from their houses to clean up their yards, shaking their heads. One gay couple is shown embracing. “I’m frightened,” she says to her same-sex husband.

Next night. Same shit, Trig and the hets are back trenching lawns, but this time they leaflet the street with pro-life pamphlets as well.

Next morning. Everyone is gathered at the gay community hall. A heated debate about what the closed gay community response should be to het gang oppression. Pastor Lustatopia (played by Brad Pitt) rises to lecture them with “love thy neighbour…turn the other cheek…respect others as you wish to be respected.” He councils they must try to understand het skinhead Christianist scum, to love them and embrace them.

So the gay community sends Pastor Lustatopia in his VW painted with rainbows into the slums of East LA to talk reasonably to the hets. Last image we see of Pastor Lusty (Brad Pitt) is Trig Palin backed by her gang bangers walking right up into his face. Fist rises. Screen goes black.

That night the het terrorize the gay community again. This time razing the gay community center and robbing the needle exchange clinic of a year’s worth of methadone.

Next morning. Stella (Steve Buscemi) yawning in her bathrobe steps out the front door to pick up the morning paper. He’s shocked to see all up and down the street his neighbours packing their cars and moving vans pulling out. Stella yells to his neighbour, “What the fuck is going on?” “Haven’t you heard” the neighbour yells back not stopping his packing, “Trig’s hets have robbed the clinic, all the methadone is gone. We’re getting the hell outta here.”

Stella and Safebet are sad to see most of their neighbours move away, but they resolve to stay. That night huddled in their blacked out house listening to distant sound of lawns being trenched, Stella begins to whine as only Steve Buscemi can, “I knew we should have gotten some gates. Like, it’s a closed gay community, right? To keep it closed you need fucking gates. And a fucking fence. To keep the Hets and fucking wannabe bis out too. Fucking fetish shit. That’s what a real gated community does. We need a fucking ghetto with a fence. Fucking big fence. Maybe with spikes and shit… I mean like I hate half the gay people in here too, but….”

“Shut the fuck up, Stella, I’m trying to think.” Safebet says glumly.

Next day, Stella is an emotional wreck, she needs her hormone treatment drugs, the free health clinic is trashed, Safebet volunteers drive across the inexplicable desert to Wal-Mart to get Stella's hormones. It’s long drive. She gets back too late.

Back home Safebet surveys a scene of total devastation. The flower beds are trenched and the front door swinging open in the breeze. Stella (Steve Buscemi) is dead, apparently died of fright while being threatened with multiple beer cans. And the baby is gone! Signs of hets are everywhere in the house. For instance, all the toilets had been flushed instead of letting it mellow.

Safebet picks up a can of Old Milwaukee off the floor and crushes it in her hand. Close up on her face while it hardens and the veins begin to pop out of her forehead. Then she lets out a blood curling cry as the camera rapid zooms back through the roof for an aerial view of the whole suburban gay community and all the trenched lawns. The gay community centre is still smoking and Safe_bet’s anguished scream can be heard all the way into outer space.

Next scene is frantic. Safebet is in the garage toss shit, whole refrigerators, quad bikes, drill presses, whatever out onto the lawn. Finally, in the back of the garage she reaches a dusty tarp, which she rips off to reveal a red Ford Gran Torrino. She rips out of the drive way and roars across the desert to Wal-Mart. She goes into the store. Gunshots, flashes, smoke, people fleeing the store. Quiet.

Then stepping out of the smouldering ruins of the Wal-Mart and into the setting sun emerges a totally new Safebet dressed in camo, body armour laced with bullet and grenade belts. She sporting several saw-off shot gun pistols, AK-47, night vision gear, grenade launch, couple of cans of skoal, a few dildos.. etc. You know, all the usual shit you can buy over the counter in the states.

She cocks the AK-47 and does a little target practice on the het cars in the parking lot, just to get her hand in. She finds a phone booth and we see her searching for Trig Palin's address under T. Then she smears black face paint on and looking up at the rising moon, snarls “Time to die, het muutherfuckers.” Then slouches toward her Gran Torrino.

* * *

Yeah, we all know how it ends. Only question is how high can we push the body count in under 40 minutes...

I’ll write the rest of the plot when I see da money. Heck, if a producer’s dick is already hard for the rights this far into the presentation then I’ve lost the pitch... Beside, I’ll need to see a budget and get with the F/X guys before the gang bang chase and climatic sequence can be worked out.

btw, I really do look like brad pitt.

 

[girlsmiley]

You don't look like Brad Pitt. You look like a fucking moron.

Adding Lustatopia to my ignore list...

*sigh*

 

[Safe_Bet]

You don't look like Brad Pitt. You look like a fucking moron.

Adding Lustatopia to my ignore list...

*sigh*

Oh come on... this last piece of fiction was more believeable then him having studied Margaret Mead's hand written notes about a type of girl scout cookie...

http://www.bdgsc.org/cookies_and_more/cookies/09lineup.aspx

 

[warl0ck1]

I take a hard line on this I don't think marriage should be n the hands of the government period.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I take a hard line on this I don't think marriage should be n the hands of the government period.

But you know-- there's a problem with that. Parts of marriage are about legal stuff, like who is responsible for taking care of each other. Things like who gets to visit someone who is in intensive care in a hospital?
What about social security benefits? Can the cops force your spouse to bear witness against you?

The government should be a neutral party that recognises marriages in whatever form they come. It should not be allowed to dictate which types of marriage are legal between adults. And it should not allow the churches to make those designations.

dopia, dude. Nice try. Don't quite your janitor job just yet. We'll call you, don't call us. Ciao baby.

 

[warl0ck1]

actually I disagree with you, I believe that it is a legal agreement. and like any other contract its all spelled out. if you want to get married why do we have to have the government involved. that's most of the problem we have today. I am not saying you can't get married, just that the government should not take money from you and me so they acknowledge we are. if I go to a church with my girl/boyfriend and they marry us why is it we need a paper from the government to make it official. taxes are easy. if you file jointly then you get double the income. if you want to leave your partner a house then there is legal means for that. if you want him to be able to visit you if your ill there should be legal means for that. not sure if there is right now.

 

[girlsmiley]

Oh come on... this last piece of fiction was more believeable then him having studied Margaret Mead's hand written notes about a type of girl scout cookie...

http://www.bdgsc.org/cookies_and_more/cookies/09lineup.aspx

I wonder when it comes to that creep...


Angelina sips the wine slowly and gazes lovingly at Brad, her blackened eye glistening in the firelight.
"Wow Angie you really know how to take a punch!" Informed Brad. "You even cowered in fear a little bit. What a woman!"

 

[Stella_Omega]

actually I disagree with you, I believe that it is a legal agreement. and like any other contract its all spelled out. if you want to get married why do we have to have the government involved. that's most of the problem we have today. I am not saying you can't get married, just that the government should not take money from you and me so they acknowledge we are. if I go to a church with my girl/boyfriend and they marry us why is it we need a paper from the government to make it official. taxes are easy. if you file jointly then you get double the income. if you want to leave your partner a house then there is legal means for that. if you want him to be able to visit you if your ill there should be legal means for that. not sure if there is right now.

No, there isn't.

And we see lots of cases right now where one partner dies and their family takes over regardless of the will because legally, family has precedent over "best friend" which is all that a life partner is without a marriage contract. And cases where joint property isn't acknowledged, either.

So how do you separate "legal" from "government?" The branch of government that issues marriage license etc is the legal branch. Courts are government offices. Our legal system is part of our government.

And in fact, a marriage license is a real bargain. To create a contract that outlines the more than 500 rights and responsibilities that simple peice of paper symbolises, would make some lawyer a rich man and you a much poorer one.

 

[warl0ck1]

There already is a separation between laws there is,
tort law and there is constitutional law. my point of contention is that the Government should not be in the business of marriage. if you and your partner are married why do you need a paper from the document to acknowledge t. you are married it is a legally binding contract between you and your partner. you then legally you are married. no government intervention needed. all legal rights are confirmed even without the paper. I am not talking about how it looks today because it is a piece of paper.

2 things are fixed with this first Tort law which governs contracts has to treat a contract between a man/woman, man/man, an woman/woman equally. justice is blind supposedly. secondly constitutional law is fixed equal protection under law is now satisfied.

oh an a third thing is fixed the government is now out of our bedrooms.

funny how smaller government involvement would fix so many things but we don't want it to we want (Them) to tell us what is right and wrong.

 

[warl0ck1]

but the thing is basically I think the government should not be in the marriage business. and there has been a few hundred years of case law on marriage no new work needs to be done.

 

[Safe_Bet]

but the thing is basically I think the government should not be in the marriage business. and there has been a few hundred years of case law on marriage no new work needs to be done.

You've got everything back asswards. There is a few hundred years of marriage case law that says blacks can marry whites, too. Does that mean that was right?

RELIGION and fundie hate mongers are what needs to get out of my freakin marriage and bedroom. Marriage is a legal contract that gives the parties to it certain legal rights and benefits that they can not otherwise receive. The key word here is LEGAL. LEGAL as in LAWS. LAWS which supposedly are meant to be applied equally... as in EQUALITY.

When they aren't I have LEGAL avenues to see that they are. I certainly don't want to have to rely on getting my rights from some hate filled preacher who "talked to god" and says that I don't deserve them because of his purposeful misinterpretation of some made up old book.

You sound like a tea bagger, dude. I get the impression that you think that EVERYTHING the government does is wrong and impinges on your freedom. I would bet that you are a str8, white male, right? I'd also bet that you've never had a group of fundie haters tell you that you are not equal and in fact deserve to be eradicated.

Why don't you just pick a fundie church some Sunday, walk in and say "I'm queer, I'm equal and I have the RIGHT to get married, just like you do".

I'll send a get well card to your hospital room. Promise.

 

[warl0ck1]

the case law i am talking about is how property and medical rights are handled. not some ass backwards social laws that were put in place that was in fact not constitutional.

 

[Stella_Omega]

the case law i am talking about is how property and medical rights are handled. not some ass backwards social laws that were put in place that was in fact not constitutional.

Oookay.

I'm not sure how you can say that the constitution is not constitutional. I agree that you can say that certain parts of the constitution need revamping.

You might like to add your voice to others because democracy works best that way: http://couragcampaign.org

 

[Safe_Bet]

Oookay.

I'm not sure how you can say that the constitution is not constitutional. I agree that you can say that certain parts of the constitution need revamping.

You might like to add your voice to others because democracy works best that way: http://couragcampaign.org

Fixed your link:
(cuz it's a good one)

http://www.couragecampaign.org/




or, based upon his location:

http://www.massequality.org/


'Course, I doubt 'ol Mr. Tea Bagger is willing to put his ass on the line for OTHER people's rights. He'd just much rather sit collect his social security and Medicare while bitching about the "damn guberment" being involved in people's lives.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thanks for the links correction!

If nothing else, Warl0ck here demonstrates the real problem with debate: How do you debate someone who has a severely limited vocabulary? lustatopia and what's-his-name are welcome to marshal all the arguments they can find. But unless people like this dude can comprehend what you're saying-- your argument fails.

In fact, unless I can comprehend what he's saying, my argument fails. And frankly, his argument is so ineloquent, both Amy and I are trying to figure out what his motive for it is. I'm thinking tea bagger as well.

 

[warl0ck1]

its not always good to make assumptions. I have my foot in the game just not in the same way you do. I have an second cousin that is celebrating he's 40th anniversary with his partner.
while our goals are the same our paths differ greatly.


as to the constitutionality of something there are basic right that are explicit written in the constitution. not given to us by the constitution but mentioned what I am talking about you may have guessed is life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. there are also things written that may not have been so obvious specifically the 1st through 27th amendment of things that were at times thought to be not so obvious. some were later decided to be wrong like the 18th. but the most relevant here is the 14th amendment. the equal protection clause. so basically the government should either accept marriage of anyone or no one.

your one the everyone side I happen to be on the no one side. both will do the same thing.

on a humorous note my cousin who is much older than me. he happens to be my god mother.