Gay marriage vote fails in Maine

[quote name='berzirk']Not sexually attracted to dudes. Sorry to disappoint. I can say with complete straightness though, that I understand the facial features of people, man or woman that would be considered handsome/pretty.[/QUOTE]

Disappoint?

Btw, saying you can understand what features might be attractive to someone is nothing more than assessing features other people have said they are attracted to and then applying that knowledge to other people. It doesn't really say anything about why someone is attracted to them in the first place, or give you any insight.

[quote name='berzirk']So no, I do not have the desire to have sex with a guy. If I did have the desire, I'd choose not act on it.[/QUOTE]

So you have no desire to, but hypothetically you wouldn't do it if you did. Awesome. I love it when I can definitively speak about something I know will never happen to me, especially when I can also claim to be morally superior because of that choice I will never have to make.

So when did you choose to be attracted to women, but count men out?

[quote name='berzirk']I have the desire to eat a bunch of really fatty, not good for me food. I choose not to...but I do like dill pickles. Sweet pickles...not so much.[/QUOTE]

But you still do eat some food that isn't particularly good for you, don't you?
 
[quote name='lilboo']I'm not very political and I'm not some angry lesbian whom has all the time in the world to protest everything, so the whole gay marriage thing--to me--just comes down to just being able to legally be with my BF.

Like you said.. we can ban divorce but people will still be together.
We can ban gay marriage, but gays are still going to live a married life together. I have been with my BF for 4 years, and living together for the last 3. We have a joint checking account, we fight about sex & money, and
 
[quote name='spmahn']The jury is still out on this one. There has been a lot of research abou what exactly causes someone to be gay or straight, but as of now its all been inconclusive. If the scientific community cant figure it out, then what hope do any of us have of making an educated judgement?[/QUOTE]
Here's the test: round up several thousand gays, and ask them. Let's not leave it up to the scientists.

lilboo, if you wanna perform the research, totally cool. It'll save us a lot of time and bullshit in the process.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HpTBF6EfxY

I think Keith wins.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
I could be totally wrong, but I *think* what he is trying to say is that sexuality, in general, is a choice. In other words, a man can be totally hot for a woman - but if he doesn't act on it, ignores it, controls it, etc. he can get over it and move on to other things in life; he doesn't have to let his sexuality define who he is.

It is basically an argument that comes down to how much your hormones should define who you are. How much your sex drive should determine your identity. [/QUOTE]

The amount of cognitive dissonance one must contain in order to make these statements one after another makes my brain eat itself.

Sexuality is a choice, except for heterosexuals, due to sheer majority rule.
But not acting on sexuality means you change it invariably at will.
But sexuality doesn't define you anyway! It's all hormones!

I'd sit down if I weren't already sitting the fuck down.
 
[quote name='Strell']The amount of cognitive dissonance one must contain in order to make these statements one after another makes my brain eat itself.

Sexuality is a choice, except for heterosexuals, due to sheer majority rule.
But not acting on sexuality means you change it invariably at will.
But sexuality doesn't define you anyway! It's all hormones!

I'd sit down if I weren't already sitting the fuck down.[/QUOTE]

You really aren't paying attention. I thought I made it clear that sexuality was a choice, even for heterosexuals. If you can't get past that part of my post, then you might as well keep sitting down
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I could be totally wrong, but I *think* what he is trying to say is that sexuality, in general, is a choice. In other words, a man can be totally hot for a woman - but if he doesn't act on it, ignores it, controls it, etc. he can get over it and move on to other things in life; he doesn't have to let his sexuality define who he is.

It is basically an argument that comes down to how much your hormones should define who you are. How much your sex drive should determine your identity.

For me, yes I have a sex drive. Yes I sometimes think about sex. But I have made strong efforts to keep it under control most of my life and refuse to let it define who I am as a person. If I chose to let my sexuality run rampant into my personality, I feel that is opening the door to all kinds of possible social and health consequences. I feel it's generally a bad idea to "embrace" my baser instincts so I don't. Because of this, I tend to frown on those that do live life through their genitals, of any sexual orientation. (I think that's what berzirk was getting at, I could be wrong)[/QUOTE]

I think we can all agree that we don't think it's a good idea for people to start banging on park benches, of whatever sexual orientation. So there's always some restraint of sexual energy. But that has nothing to do with anything.

Berzirk clearly has a problem with homosexuality that he does not have with heterosexuality. I don't know if he really treats public affection equally or if that was just his initial smokescreen, but that doesn't really have anything to do with marriage, etc.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You really aren't paying attention. I thought I made it clear that sexuality was a choice, even for heterosexuals. [/QUOTE]

But then you negate it by saying it's all just hormones, which still act at the behest of one's sexual drive, which of itself doesn't determine someone if you void it, and then I DON'T GIVE A CRAP BOUT WHALES SO GO AND HUG A TREE
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I could only make it through half of that video. It's no wonder Keith's viewership rarely gets to the five digits.[/QUOTE]
Because someone finally eloquently states their position on the whole gay marriage thing without devolving into the false assumptions that we'll start teaching kids that it's okay to be gay (which it is) and that people will start marrying trees (which they won't)?
 
[quote name='JJSP']Here's the test: round up several thousand gays, and ask them. Let's not leave it up to the scientists.

lilboo, if you wanna perform the research, totally cool. It'll save us a lot of time and bullshit in the process.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, not sure if you're being serious or not, but anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much of anything at all. I can get you hundreds, if not thousands of people who will look you in the eyes and tell you with absolute conviction that they have been abducted by Aliens. Does this mean that Aliens must exist, because so many people claim to have come in contact with them?
 
[quote name='SpazX']I think we can all agree that we don't think it's a good idea for people to start banging on park benches, of whatever sexual orientation. So there's always some restraint of sexual energy. But that has nothing to do with anything.

Berzirk clearly has a problem with homosexuality that he does not have with heterosexuality. I don't know if he really treats public affection equally or if that was just his initial smokescreen, but that doesn't really have anything to do with marriage, etc.[/QUOTE]

Uh...hello...of course I do. Is that really hard to figure out? I probably could've saved you a lot of time while you applied the scientific method to that one. I think it's an inappropriate lifestyle. I don't think gay marriage should happen, and I'm disgusted that sexuality is so dominant in conversations, the media, and other outlets, when it's really a bedroom issue. But I do sincerely treat public affection the same way, straight or gay. I've been pretty damn transparent, realizing that I'm in the very small minority on these boards. Having an unpopular opinion doesn't make me want to change it so people will say, 'Man, I like that berzirk guy I've never met in real life, and probably never will.'

Want to go out on a limb and take a guess at my thoughts on the Pride Parade that takes place in San Francisco and crams a lifestyle down people's throats? Go ahead, flip a coin on this one. Der, der, der.

Edit: Actually, I should further clarify. If two dudes want to hump until their peckers fall off, in the privacy of their own home, I sincerely don't care. So I guess in that sense, while I may disagree with their lifestyle, they're not doing anything to impact mine, so more power to them. If they want to tongue-kiss on a city bus, I've got a problem. If a guy and a gal want to tongue-kiss on a city bus, I've got a problem.
 
In hope of reaching the core of the argument here, I would pose this basic question to bizirk:

How should marriage be defined and why? Is marriage about making babies to you? Is it simply about setting up a family to raise kids? A deep relationship between two? Anything else not covered or a combo of a few?

Secondly, why would these concepts be incompatible with same sex couples?

If it is due to personal prejudice, while I may not agree with you, I would personally respect you for your honesty. I have a few prejudices However, I'd like to know why that prejudice is justified in your mind.

(And if possible please don't bring up sexuality unless you feel it's required, hypothetically two straight people could apply for same sex marriage. I have a good feeling this has happened many a time with opposite sex marriages.)

Who knows, maybe you could sway the opinions of some of us pro-samesex marriage folk... Although I've always thought same-sex marriage should be legal, there was a period of my life where I sided with the anti-gay marriage proponents.
 
In hope of reaching the core of the argument here, I would pose this basic question to berzirk:

How should marriage be defined and why? Is marriage about making babies to you? Is it simply about setting up a family to raise kids? A deep relationship between two? Anything else not covered or a combo of a few?

Secondly, why would these concepts be incompatible with same sex couples?

If it is due to personal prejudice, while I may not agree with you, I would appreciate if you enlightened us about how that prejudice is justified in your mind.

(And if possible please don't bring up sexuality unless you feel it's required, hypothetically two straight people could apply for same sex marriage. I have a good feeling the opposite has occurred many a time with opposite sex marriages. Legally speaking the samesex marriage laws won't require one to be of any one sexuality)

Who knows, maybe you could sway the opinions of some of us pro-samesex marriage folk...
 
[quote name='berzirk']Uh...hello...of course I do. Is that really hard to figure out? I probably could've saved you a lot of time while you applied the scientific method to that one. I think it's an inappropriate lifestyle. I don't think gay marriage should happen, and I'm disgusted that sexuality is so dominant in conversations, the media, and other outlets, when it's really a bedroom issue. But I do sincerely treat public affection the same way, straight or gay. I've been pretty damn transparent, realizing that I'm in the very small minority on these boards. Having an unpopular opinion doesn't make me want to change it so people will say, 'Man, I like that berzirk guy I've never met in real life, and probably never will.'

Want to go out on a limb and take a guess at my thoughts on the Pride Parade that takes place in San Francisco and crams a lifestyle down people's throats? Go ahead, flip a coin on this one. Der, der, der.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to thrust. You weren't just saying you don't like sexuality in public and that having sex is a choice, you were saying you don't like sexuality in public and gay people are immoral because they made a choice you didn't like. Thrust's interpretation was making you look less against homosexuality than you've expressed you are.

And I was saying how that doesn't have anything to do with marriage.

[quote name='berzirk']Edit: Actually, I should further clarify. If two dudes want to hump until their peckers fall off, in the privacy of their own home, I sincerely don't care. So I guess in that sense, while I may disagree with their lifestyle, they're not doing anything to impact mine, so more power to them. If they want to tongue-kiss on a city bus, I've got a problem. If a guy and a gal want to tongue-kiss on a city bus, I've got a problem.[/QUOTE]

The media isn't saturated in gay people tongue-kissing, it's simply talking about them being able to get married or not, so what I'm getting at here is your disgust goes much further than sexuality in public. So, to be clear, gay people can't hug or hold hands, or touch each other affectionately in public either right? Just like straight people? Two people should have a least a 2-inch gap between any part of their bodies at all times in public or it's disgusting, right?

Btw, gay people getting married has the same effect on you as gay people having sex in private.
 
[quote name='AfricanFruitWaynely']In hope of reaching the core of the argument here, I would pose this basic question to bizirk:

How should marriage be defined and why? Is marriage about making babies to you? Is it simply about setting up a family to raise kids? A deep relationship between two? Anything else not covered or a combo of a few?

Secondly, why would these concepts be incompatible with same sex couples?

If it is due to personal prejudice, while I may not agree with you, I would personally respect you for your honesty. However, I'd like to know why that prejudice is justified in your mind.

(And if possible please don't bring up sexuality unless you feel it's required, hypothetically two straight people could apply for same sex marriage. I have a good feeling the opposite has occurred many a time with opposite sex marriages. Legally speaking the samesex marriage laws won't require one to be of any one sexuality)

Who knows, maybe you could sway the opinions of some of us pro-samesex marriage folk... Although I've always thought same-sex marriage should be legal, there was a period of my life where I sided with the anti-gay marriage proponents.[/QUOTE]

Good question.

How should marriage be defined, for me, carries a religious/moral component. It should be one that opens up the allowance of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman who have elected to partner up for life (that's the goal at least). Having kids certainly isn't a requirement.

Why would this not be welcomed among gay couples to me? Well, since a part of a marriage, by my definition, is the allowance of a sexual relationship between a man and woman, there wouldn't be a circumstance where a same-sex couple having sex would be appropriate. So in allowing gay marriage, a portion of that would mean validating a sexual relationship between two men or two women, which I don't think should be validated.

Now where I probably vary from people of my general opinion, is in the fact that I feel if a couple want to create a civil union in order to make inheritance, or visiting their partner in the hospital easier, then that should be allowed. I don't think they should get access to a parter's social security, or government benefits, or health benefits, unless the policy itself already allows for a domestic partner of any kind to be added.

I sincerely doubt I'm swaying any opinions, but your questions probably made me have to do a better job of laying out my position. Thanks for that.

As much as some people are enjoying trying to demonize me, it really just comes down to people keeping their bedroom activities in the bedroom. Someone agreeing or disagreeing with my stance isn't going to change my life one iota, and I would hope that none of you give me enough power over your lives to change yours.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to thrust. You weren't just saying you don't like sexuality in public and that having sex is a choice, you were saying you don't like sexuality in public and gay people are immoral because they made a choice you didn't like. Thrust's interpretation was making you look less against homosexuality than you've expressed you are.

And I was saying how that doesn't have anything to do with marriage.



The media isn't saturated in gay people tongue-kissing, it's simply talking about them being able to get married or not, so what I'm getting at here is your disgust goes much further than sexuality in public. So, to be clear, gay people can't hug or hold hands, or touch each other affectionately in public either right? Just like straight people? Two people should have a least a 2-inch gap between any part of their bodies at all times in public or it's disgusting, right?

Btw, gay people getting married has the same effect on you as gay people having sex in private.[/QUOTE]

That's actually not true at all. If you elect not to believe me, that's fine, but I have a big problem with people all over each other in public. I'm cool with holding hands, a friendly hug, but I think we've all lived enough life to know when lines are being crossed. Believe it or not, some faceless dude on cheapassgamer isn't really going to change my life. The media most certainly is saturated with messages saying gay lifestyles are A-OK. I don't think they are.

Thrust can speak for him/herself, and I'll speak for me. Like I've said repeatedly, I'm not crafting my opinion based on what I think will make me most loved at CAG. I'm crafting it based on life experiences, my upbringing, the way I choose to live my life, all these things. I'd make the world's sh**iest politician cause I'm a terrible panderer.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Sorry, not sure if you're being serious or not, but anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much of anything at all. I can get you hundreds, if not thousands of people who will look you in the eyes and tell you with absolute conviction that they have been abducted by Aliens. Does this mean that Aliens must exist, because so many people claim to have come in contact with them?[/QUOTE]
Depends. Can you prove that aliens don't exist? Once we stop answering questions with questions, we might actually get somewhere.

I fail to see how scientific evidence on homosexual behavior collected without actually testing, you know, homosexuals proves anything. If that's the case, I'm going to prove that black people are genetically predisposed to live a life of crime by gathering evidence from rich white people.
 
[quote name='berzirk']That's actually not true at all. If you elect not to believe me, that's fine, but I have a big problem with people all over each other in public. I'm cool with holding hands, a friendly hug, but I think we've all lived enough life to know when lines are being crossed. Believe it or not, some faceless dude on cheapassgamer isn't really going to change my life. The media most certainly is saturated with messages saying gay lifestyles are A-OK. I don't think they are.[/QUOTE]

As long as you feel the same about gay people hugging, holding hands, etc. Otherwise you're not against sexuality in public, you're against extreme sexuality in public by heterosexuals and any hint of gayness in public by homosexuals.

[quote name='berzirk']Thrust can speak for him/herself, and I'll speak for me. Like I've said repeatedly, I'm not crafting my opinion based on what I think will make me most loved at CAG. I'm crafting it based on life experiences, my upbringing, the way I choose to live my life, all these things. I'd make the world's sh**iest politician cause I'm a terrible panderer.[/QUOTE]

I don't care what you're crafting your opinion on, I just don't want you to try to be bullshitting anybody. You've tempered your opinion on here and slowly changed it (or revealed it), whether you say so or not.

Now you've said that you don't care if two gay people are having sex in private, but they can't get married because then it would be like it's okay for them to have sex in private.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Good question.

How should marriage be defined, for me, carries a religious/moral component. It should be one that opens up the allowance of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman who have elected to partner up for life (that's the goal at least). Having kids certainly isn't a requirement.

Why would this not be welcomed among gay couples to me? Well, since a part of a marriage, by my definition, is the allowance of a sexual relationship between a man and woman, there wouldn't be a circumstance where a same-sex couple having sex would be appropriate. So in allowing gay marriage, a portion of that would mean validating a sexual relationship between two men or two women, which I don't think should be validated.

Now where I probably vary from people of my general opinion, is in the fact that I feel if a couple want to create a civil union in order to make inheritance, or visiting their partner in the hospital easier, then that should be allowed. I don't think they should get access to a parter's social security, or government benefits, or health benefits, unless the policy itself already allows for a domestic partner of any kind to be added.

I sincerely doubt I'm swaying any opinions, but your questions probably made me have to do a better job of laying out my position. Thanks for that.

As much as some people are enjoying trying to demonize me, it really just comes down to people keeping their bedroom activities in the bedroom. Someone agreeing or disagreeing with my stance isn't going to change my life one iota, and I would hope that none of you give me enough power over your lives to change yours.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for answering, but I'm still in the dark.

I'm glad you're stating how you feel, but I'm more intrigued as to why you hold these feelings. You explained that there's a religious/moral aspect in effect for you, so could you expand on that so we can all understand a bit more?
 
[quote name='berzirk']
As much as some people are enjoying trying to demonize me, it really just comes down to people keeping their bedroom activities in the bedroom.[/QUOTE]

Yes.
All we do as a gay couple is just have sex. Just sex. We don't have financial problems, relationship problems, other problems. We just have sex. That's the only thing gay people do. We are not like other people. We do not have jobs nor go to school. We have sex. ALL the time.
 
Yawn. I'm having thai food right now, and I really like thai food, plus I've pretty much said my whole part on the issue. Don't really care to discuss it more. If anybody'd really like to go on, feel free to PM me and maybe we could have it over email.

Keep the debate lively!
 
[quote name='berzirk']Yawn. I'm having thai food right now, and I really like thai food, plus I've pretty much said my whole part on the issue. Don't really care to discuss it more. If anybody'd really like to go on, feel free to PM me and maybe we could have it over email.

Keep the debate lively![/QUOTE]

If this is extended fully so that we no longer:
1) wear wedding bands
2) get married
3) talk about being in any kind of relationship whatsoever
4) talk about our sexual activity at all
5) get divorced
6) pay alimony and other settlement funds
7) get annulled

then ok. But equality for all, ok? I haven't read this thread, but heteronormativity's the word, hombre. "lifestyle shoved down someone's throat" is what you evidently go about seeing day to day, only being bothered by it when it's two men. But a straight couple holding hands is likely ok by you, or a coworker bitching about how the boyfriend pisses on the toiler seat or the girlfriend doesn't put the tv remote in the right spot - that's shoving a lifestyle down your throat. But just one you find ok.

That's hypocrisy, and that's heteronormativity. You don't notice that you're getting a lifestyle crammed down your throat like a big, throbbing, pulsating, metaphor.

Me? PDA in any form can fuck right off. Romantic comedies can be set on fire, too.

Bigots can fuck off.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If this is extended fully so that we no longer:
1) wear wedding bands
2) get married
3) talk about being in any kind of relationship whatsoever
4) talk about our sexual activity at all
5) get divorced
6) pay alimony and other settlement funds
7) get annulled

then ok. But equality for all, ok? I haven't read this thread, but heteronormativity's the word, hombre. "lifestyle shoved down someone's throat" is what you evidently go about seeing day to day, only being bothered by it when it's two men. But a straight couple holding hands is likely ok by you, or a coworker bitching about how the boyfriend pisses on the toiler seat or the girlfriend doesn't put the tv remote in the right spot - that's shoving a lifestyle down your throat. But just one you find ok.

That's hypocrisy, and that's heteronormativity. You don't notice that you're getting a lifestyle crammed down your throat like a big, throbbing, pulsating, metaphor.

Me? PDA in any form can fuck right off. Romantic comedies can be set on fire, too.

Bigots can fuck off.[/QUOTE]

Hear hear.
 
[quote name='lilboo']Yes.
All we do as a gay couple is just have sex. Just sex. We don't have financial problems, relationship problems, other problems. We just have sex. That's the only thing gay people do. We are not like other people. We do not have jobs nor go to school. We have sex. ALL the time.[/QUOTE]


No wonder gay is a synonym for happy.
 
I really feel Gay Rights advocates would get further if they'd drop the nature vs. nurture argument and simply push the idea that the Federal and State governments should have no right to determine that two people should not be allowed to enter into a private contract based on the gender of those two consenting individuals of sound mind...
 
More or less. We can be sure that nature vs nurture is far more complex than an "either/or" debate. What we know is that it's a bit of both, really, but not much more than that.

But, second, who the fuck cares? Name one thing y'all did other than eat, sleep, and shit today that was dictated by biological influences. Because I'm going to start wholesale trying to get politicians to prohibit your rights to make the choices you make since they're not based on nature.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I really feel Gay Rights advocates would get further if they'd drop the nature vs. nurture argument and simply push the idea that the Federal and State governments should have no right to determine that two people should not be allowed to enter into a private contract based on the gender of those two consenting individuals of sound mind...[/QUOTE]

What they really need to do is tell the guys in their subculture that act stereotypically flamboyant and have all those ridiculous pride rallys with the guys in leather dancing naked on floats down Castro St to knock that crap off, they're only hurting the cause. I think thats the bigger problem, middle non-religious America seems to associate gay people with that over the top stereotype, whether thats fair or not, and it hurts the public perception.
 
Nobody extrapolates college party environments to represent the whole of heterosexual america.

Likewise, it's naive to extrapolate a couple glitter-covered leather daddies to represent the whole of gay america.

An entire population of people don't need to suffer because of the benign actions of a few - and the christian right doesn't rule this country, so they shouldn't get to dictate how other people should live. Not to mention you're incorrectly assuming that the christian right would be cool with homosexuals as long as they wear turtlenecks and blazers.

And if we're going to talk about fashion statements, I have a few requests of my own. Pentecostals must not be permitted to wear ankle-length denim skirts, be allowed to cut/color their hair, and wear makeup. Because these bland, pallid, middle-aged-by-24 lookin' christians really fuck up heterosexuality for me.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Nobody extrapolates college party environments to represent the whole of heterosexual america.

Likewise, it's naive to extrapolate a couple glitter-covered leather daddies to represent the whole of gay america.

An entire population of people don't need to suffer because of the benign actions of a few - and the christian right doesn't rule this country, so they shouldn't get to dictate how other people should live. Not to mention you're incorrectly assuming that the christian right would be cool with homosexuals as long as they wear turtlenecks and blazers.

And if we're going to talk about fashion statements, I have a few requests of my own. Pentecostals must not be permitted to wear ankle-length denim skirts, be allowed to cut/color their hair, and wear makeup. Because these bland, pallid, middle-aged-by-24 lookin' christians really fuck up heterosexuality for me.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that the Christian right would begin to accept gay people if they dressed better, they wouldn't. As I did say however, Americans do like their stereotypes, they want everyone to fit in one nice little box, and that is one thing that probably won't change. Take black people for example. Not all young black males are pimps, gang members, drug dealers, criminals, and / or drug users, but since a small subculture of their community has glamorized these things, and no one in their community really speaks out against it, a lot of people associate those things with all black males as a result. Part of the problem is the media which likes to perpetuate stereotypes, it makes things more accessible or something, but if we want to eliminate bigotry , the first step is to stop embracing the stereotypes, because then it just becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
 
[quote name='lilboo']So, people shouldn't have equal rights because a part of them dance around in a once a year gay pride parade? I
 
WTF does Obama have to do with this? LOL Obama didn't get elected president because of Steve Urkel and The Huxtables.

There's still a ton of racism out there. The thing is, there are now soo many laws protecting blacks from any form of racism, that's what is making it seem like it's not there. Sadly, it still is very much.

People didn't vote FOR Obama, they voted against Sarah Palin getting near Washington :lol: :nottalking:
 
^ That's absurd, and that's hegemony.

White folks do some dumb-as-shit stuff in their lives every damn day; why don't the people at www.peopleofwalmart.com not reflect on whites as a whole? Why? Hegemony. Telling people to "behave" to satisfy straight white folks reinforces that hegemony, and that's absurd.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^ That's absurd, and that's hegemony.

White folks do some dumb-as-shit stuff in their lives every damn day; why don't the people at www.peopleofwalmart.com not reflect on whites as a whole? Why? Hegemony. Telling people to "behave" to satisfy straight white folks reinforces that hegemony, and that's absurd.[/QUOTE]

I think you're thinking too largely. How many non-Walmart shoppers make posts here in regards to their feelings about those who shop at Walmart, using the stereotypes found on PeopleofWalmart?

I can assure you, at least in my store, PeopleofWalmart is not a reflection on Walmart shoppers as a whole.
 
I think part of it might be that gay people often consider their homosexuality to be a part of their identity, in a way straight people do not. Perhaps I am wrong and out of line here, but it often seems to me that the few gay people I know, and those I meet are overt about establishing that fact as though it really matters. It's cool to be proud and celebrate whatever it is that you are, but rather then attaching lables to ourselves that allow others to group people together, can't we all just self identify as being people, since that's the one common trait we all share?
 
Overt/covert, spmahn. Go back to how you many more cognitive steps you're consciously aware of when someone says "my partner" or "my boyfriend/girlfriend" if male/female, respectively.

We all do. I was in a car w/ some folks in Massachusetts last year, and one of them (a woman) was bitching about her wife's parents the way one bitches about in-laws. It took me half a moment to realize that MA was a gay marriage state, and here was a woman who had taken a legal wife. I thought "dude, how cool that these folks get to experience the hardships and pain-in-the-assitude of in-laws that I do!"

So while, on one hand, you may think *they* interpret it as a big part of their identity, the other side of that coin is that you experience more cognitive discomfort (perhaps simply in the form of awareness) when someone talks about a same-sex relationship and you don't notice how normative discussions of hetero relationships are.
 
Some homosexuals consider their homosexuality part of their identity because heterosexuals consider their homosexuality as part of their identity.

Straight people don't consider their heterosexuality as part of their identity because they've normalized it (same with white people and their whiteness). So anything different from the norm is considered an identifying factor for the out-group. Those factors end up being used by both the in-group (as a source or pride, to separate from the norm, etc) and out-group.

Do you think there would be gay pride parades if gay people were just accepted as normal from the beginning? If nobody ever made a big deal of it? Is that the fault of homosexuals?
 
We obviously all identify as being one way or another through the contextual clues in our speach whether we are aware of it or not, and no one should have an issue with that. I'm referring however to those who feel that their being gay somehow makes them different or special, from the rest of society. If you believe that you are different than everyone else, then the obvious result of that people are goig to treat you differently. We all self identify as something simply as a matter of fact, but it really shouldn't go beyond that.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Some homosexuals consider their homosexuality part of their identity because heterosexuals consider their homosexuality as part of their identity.

Straight people don't consider their heterosexuality as part of their identity because they've normalized it (same with white people and their whiteness). So anything different from the norm is considered an identifying factor for the out-group. Those factors end up being used by both the in-group (as a source or pride, to separate from the norm, etc) and out-group.

Do you think there would be gay pride parades if gay people were just accepted as normal from the beginning? If nobody ever made a big deal of it? Is that the fault of homosexuals?[/QUOTE]

I think it just comes down to being a minority. Just as black/hispanic/asian identity and culture is more acceptable then "white" culture.
 
I only have time to make a few quick points here.

1) Heterosexual identity is all over the place, like lilboo said. People display pics at their desks, idiots on XBL talk about dem titties, tons of PDA, commercials, etc. It's not even a fair fight in terms of quantity, quality, volume, etc. Hell, check some avatars on this site, and even some of the ads. Talking about it being shoved down one's throat and ignoring all the stuff one side does intentionally/unintentionally/CONSTANTLY is absurd. Heteros don't understand that their identity and endorsement of it IS broadcast all over the place nearly nonstop simply because there's no one hounding them about it otherwise.

2) There's a schism inside the gay community re: the flamboyant versus the ...not-so-flamboyant. And there's a TON of arguments that could be raised from that one point alone, far more so than most heterosexuals have actually sat down and considered. I'll have to drag up some articles I read on the subject that made good points, because they phrase it far better than I can remember. Relegating it to "if they just calmed down a bit it would be ok" is too simplistic. There's dozens of sleazy heteros to hold up to examination, but we don't do that as a society. The other side of the coin, though, gets trounced all the time for it, for ambiguous reasons little beyond "it aint normal."

3) Further pandering to the outspoken idiots who think GAYS R $$$S, and thereby choosing to not see them as actually people, shouldn't necessitate some sort of argument toward "normalizing" some culture they don't like or understand. They are NEVER going to like them. Why even bother with that anti-teabagging group of teabaggers when they have no interest venturing outside their stupid, narrow minded, stringent little box?

Again, I really think it's just an EW EW EW! for most people, who make absolutely no attempt to think beyond that.
 
While I disagree with the idea, is holding up pictures of overly-flamboyant homosexuals at a gay pride parade and assuming that all homosexuals are like that really any different than holding up pictures of over the top conservatives at a anti-tax rally or over the top liberals at an anti-war rally and implying that all conservatives/liberals are like that?
 
When it comes to legally designating different categories of rights for different kinds of American citizens, of-fucking-course it's different.

It's not about stereotypes or normalization. I fuckin' hate lots of people and wish death upon them, from SUV drivers to Wal-Mart shoppers to Ohio State University football fans to vegans to you name it.

I'm not trying to deny them any rights.

The issue here is about designating second class citizens, not whether or not stereotypes hold true.

God damn, you bat about .750 in terms of fucking up threads you post in.
 
Looks like I might have hit a nerve there, Mykie. Sorry to point out your contradictory actions. I'll try not to do it in the future.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']While I disagree with the idea, is holding up pictures of overly-flamboyant homosexuals at a gay pride parade and assuming that all homosexuals are like that really any different than holding up pictures of over the top conservatives at a anti-tax rally or over the top liberals at an anti-war rally and implying that all conservatives/liberals are like that?[/QUOTE]

Preaching hatred and intolerance and motivating others to do the same and lobbying for support from the majority versus someone expressing themselves in a hyperized way.

Totally equal.
 
[quote name='Strell']Preaching hatred and intolerance and motivating others to do the same and lobbying for support from the majority versus someone expressing themselves in a hyperized way.

Totally equal.[/QUOTE]

I'm not talking about the actions of the individuals of the people in the photos. I'm talking about the actions of what people do with the photos. They take people on the extreme fringes and try and convince the general population that the extremes are the norm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top