Final tidbit was a bit worrisome though

Post #348,859 by crazy 10/8/11 9:23:36 PM Reply	Final tidbit was a bit worrisome though We don't need you to insult non-gays for not being gay whilst you're celebrating. I dunno about what YOU (not speaking for me, I assure you) need, but in THEIR celebration they can do or say anything they want. Hell, they can even scare the horses, I don't mind. And if I did, it wouldn't matter. Note: I'm trying to figure out what insults you are referring to. Toss a clue my way please.
Post #348,867 by static 10/9/11 7:35:05 AM Reply	The clue. There's a difference between heteros being afraid of gays and heteros actually not interested in gay sex. Some who would promote acceptable of gay people don't get this difference. "You're anti gay! Maybe you are gay and you're repressing!" Uh, no. That's insulting. The vast majority of individuals - gay or otherewise - are not like this, fortunately, but pro-gay events have veered this way before. Wade. Static Scribblings http://staticsan.blogspot.com/
Post #348,872 by crazy 10/9/11 8:19:35 AM Reply	Understood (well, imagined) I imagine (have never witnessed it) a gay event, with a gay speaker, giving some type of speech to rile the crowd up. He'll do some history, he'll point out the repression and deaths, and he'll be pissed. He'll list the large array of anti-gay people who turned out gay. He'll then produce a list of current opponents of gay rights, and possibly "accuse" them of being gay (remember, to him, being gay is NOT bad). On the other hand, I HAVE seen many on the other side tell their people that gay people are simply deviants, EVIL, that way by choice, who need to be cast out of society, and if they refuse to go it is ok to physically harm them and sometimes kill them. In our country we have the concept of free speech. Dunno about yours. Note: I say concept because it doesn't always work out that way. The 1st example is perfectly permissible. The 2nd is not. The 1st is a harmless (really, HARMLESS) example. Or at least it should be. If gay people aren't targeted for violence or second class citizenship, than the accusation of being gay should be about as bad as saying (hey peter, thanks for the example that I'm now warping) "You are evil for liking new Star Trek, I like old Star Trek." The 2nd example is a call to arms to inflict pain on people for no reason. So while I may have a hint of understanding what you are saying, I'm not sure where it is going, and when you say: "The clue", you are forcing me to imagine. And my imagination does NOT map to you or the context you live in. And as far as "not interested", so, change the channel. Do you react AGAINST other things you aren't interested in? You are interested, it affects some portion of your life. If you weren't, I don't think you'd have such a firm opinion on the matter. I have no opinion of baseball. I'm not interested in it. It screws up an occasional show I want to watch, so it does affect me. It also adds to traffic. So it does affect me. So it annoys me. Hey, I have an opinion. I didn't think I did when I started writing this, really. Not an opinion on an individual team or player, I'm not qualified, but an opinion on how the sport in general affects me. I'm interested in the scheduling aspects of baseball. But I am not going to make a public comment on the badness of all of it. It has positive aspects for some people. My sysadmin loves his baseball. He lives for it. His positive viewpoint on baseball screws up scheduling activity at work. Wow, baseball directly harms my ability to make an income. I really don't like baseball at all now. How many more steps until I make it evil? Steroids! Done. Bad examples for little kids. Peer pressure. uh oh. Gay sex in locker rooms. Abolish it!
Post #348,875 by static 10/9/11 10:44:16 AM Reply	Imagining not needed. I posted "The clue" to mean that that was what I realized was missing from my earlier post: Like the last piece of a puzzle. Sorry to confuse you into guessing what I might have meant. I didn't intend you to do that. I was taught at a young age that homosexual proclivities was bad, but not taught how to separate this out from a person who might otherwise be perfectly fine. But then, that is hard to teach and always has been. I later learnt how to do this myself in quite a different context. Living in white middle-class suburbia did not teach me much about sexuality. Again, that was learnt largely on my own and quite a bit of the most useful parts was during and after a failed marriage. I'm definitely not gay, BTW. I had cause to ask this of myself and found an answer. But before then, my strongest emotion over images of the Sydney Gay And Lesbian Mardi Gras was one of confusion: the girls were usually good to look at, but the guys were not (to me) and the guys dressing up as girls didn't make sense, either, and the majority on display were in the last two groups. Much of the early movement around that that I saw and remembered did not have a totally clear message. There was a lot of invective on both sides. I know now that they were just asking for acceptance, but there was a lot of corner-painting going on in both directions. That "You might be gay" line was spouted as an insult far too often: the implication was that the person being anti-gay was being a hypocrite. Eventually, it was hard to not see it as an insult. Remember, too, that Australia was in the forefront of promoting safe-sex decades ago because of the rise of HIV and the biggest problem with HIV was in the gay community. So. In any case, it is only relatively recent that I even knew any gay people that I knew were gay. Our laws about free speech do differ both substantially and subtly from yours. We don't have a bill of rights; instead a lot of things like that are in common law and sometimes actual case law. We do have groups who would decry support for gay-friendly activities, but they don't advocate violence. Or if they do, the media carefully looks the other way. Our different history, and particularly lack of a war of secession means we have a substantially different outlook on patriotic fervour. This means people who would lead by demonisation discover it tends to not work, particularly in the court of public appeal, or at worst only works for a short time. In recent years, we'd rather vilify racial differences, anyway. I personally think Australia is somewhere between a few years and a few decades away from recognising gay marriages in law. But I think there is still a lot of difficult road between now and then. Wade. Static Scribblings http://staticsan.blogspot.com/
Post #348,876 by crazy 10/9/11 11:09:29 AM Reply	Love the sinner, not the sin ehh Your use of proclivity is interesting. It can be taken as both a natural state of being or simply a habit. http://dictionary.re...browse/proclivity As long as it's "bad", a significant portion of the population will react in an antagonistic and sometimes violent way toward the sinner. As long as it is both bad and a choice, then the sinner is always at fault. Religion is horribly freaked when someone simply turns around and says something is not bad, especially when it considers it a sin. Not only is it not bad, it is CORE to their being, and the only way they might find happiness in life. And it is what religion has been actively denying them for their entire lives. Just like us heteros feel. Strip the religion away and what do you have in common with whatever person you fall in love with. And then live your life happily, not trying to satisfy some 3rd party. Religion says love through them is the answer to all life's problems. Love through any other method is to be controlled. So, I hope you think a little deeper on the badness of it. And who told you what, and why.
Post #348,878 by Another Scott 10/9/11 12:43:20 PM Reply	Here in the US, several things are wrapped together. In the USA there are several, often conflicting, schools of thought that are all tied together: 1) There are historical religious prohibitions on certain sexual activities that have been tied to Sodom and Gomorrah - http://en.wikipedia....h#Religious_views 2) Traditions of religious tolerance (no established church, etc.). But, "The USA is a Christian nation." wink, wink, nudge, nudge. 3) Suspicions of science and "elites". 4) "Live and let live." 5) "We must protect the children and everyone knows that gays are pedophiles!!!!" 6) "Keep your government out of my bedroom!" 7) "The Bible is always right." 8) "Sex is sinful unless it is within marriage." 9) "Sex education is indoctrination by the state and promotes promiscuity." 10) "Being gay is a choice. Therefore, they are choosing to be sinful and are dangers to children." 11) "Married men who have gay affairs do so because their wives aren't obedient to their husbands." 12) "Abortion is sinful because conception is a gift from God. Birth control is sinful because it promotes sexual mania and is contra to God's wishes that people "be fruitful and multiply". Masturbation is sinful because it wastes "seed" that could be used to bring more souls into the world. (See the story of Onan in Genesis 38:8-9.)" 13) "Humans are naturally sexual animals. There are many documented examples of homosexual behavior in other animals - http://en.wikipedia....mosexual_behavior Science tells us that people are complicated, so they shouldn't be judged and put in boxes solely based on old writings from people in an ancient desert culture." And so forth. (Personally, I'm of the sexual-continuum and pro-sexual-freedom-among-adults and keep-your-religion-out-of-my-private-life - school.) I think the problem with the "do what you want, just don't throw it in my face" school of thought is that it trivializes 'the other'. No one forces me to go to gay pride parades. No one forces me to go to Carnival or Mardi Gras or St. Patrick's Day parades. No one forces me to watch Washington Redskins games or put their logos on flags on my car. America is a better place because people can have those parades if they want. But Redskins fans aren't in danger of being fired from their jobs, or accused of abusing children, or randomly beaten by gangs of thugs or randomly shoot by the police (see e.g. http://unfinishedliv...r-injuring-three/ ) or being denied the opportunity to buy a home in a certain neighborhoods. Being gay isn't like picking a sports team to support. :-) I understand the views of those who view the world as a place created by God and still undergoing battles between Good and Evil with Satan being an active participant. I was once quite religious myself. But even among those who are quite doctrinaire, there are different schools of thought. It's not at all clear to me that one (not you) must look down upon and repress others to be the best possible Christian. My reading of Jesus's life and works tells me that he wanted people to live their lives by their own choices; he wasn't Moses II and didn't lay out a new set of Commandments. He said to pray in private; to give to the poor; to recognize that the Kingdom of God was here (not in Heaven) - see, e.g. Mark I. FWIW. Silence and "going along" doesn't change society's attitudes toward members of minorities. As someone above said, "Gay Pride" isn't about "pushing the gay agenda" or whatever - it's about fighting the "gays are evil degenerates" meme. "Black is Beautiful" wasn't about fighting "whitey" - it was about fighting the "negroes are scary and a threat to America" meme. The Irish in America went through a similar fight for their right to be treated as Americans. It's about being treated like anyone else. We don't any longer think that brown eyed/short/Irish people are fundamentally worse than blue eyed/tall/Welsh people. Thoughts (and rules and laws) that gays are different need to go away just like those old prejudices did. People shouldn't be discriminated or lumped together based on innate characteristics. Until they do, and the discrimination ends, gay people need to push the envelope. http://graphjam.file...1/gaymarriage.gif ;-) I hope this is clear. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #348,873 by crazy 10/9/11 8:27:34 AM Reply	Also, very specifically, a response *"You're anti gay! Maybe you are* gay and you're repressing!" Uh, no. That's insulting.** When someone says I might be gay, here's what runs through my head: #1 - I'm graceful, my movements flow. #2 - I look good, either in straight physique or matching of clothes. I then thank them. Note: I've seen you. In your full regalia. You are very graceful. And your clothes were interesting. You might get that comment a bit more than most. It's not an insult. It's only an insult to those who think it is bad. To those who think it is unacceptable. To those who would then cause harm based on the label. Like schoolyard: LOOK AT THE FAGGOT! Which is then followed by a beating. Nah, don't accept your core point obviously. Oh well.
Post #349,104 by mhuber 10/13/11 4:16:18 PM Reply	Anti- but Gay & Repressing Probably a bit of correlation there. The really down-to-the-core straight are completely un-tempted by gay sex. Which makes it un-threatening. So yeah, not too surprising when an anti-gay crusader turns out to be... Self-loathing is a powerful motivator. --------------------------------------- Badass! (and delicious)

Welcome to IWETHEY!