Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've said everything that needs to be said to you. I won't continue this discussion because you are not contributing anything novel or substantial to it. You believe it's a parody. I don't. Period.
Fair enough. Nice to see that you no longer argue that I am a racist or a bigot. You're growing.
Quote:
I'll continue to celebrate the achievements of my fellow gays and lesbians and rejoice as they flourish in their lives and love. That's what matters to me. Not engaging in this circular, ad hominem discourse about what marriage means to one as opposed to another. It's childish.
The only childishness in this thread has been the name-calling from which I refrained and which you and your friends have consistently used with -- well, childish abandon.
I join you in celebrating the achievements of gay Americans in al walks of life. May they live full and happy lives.
Why? Because your opinion is admittedly unqualified and baseless. You admit you know little about homosexuals yet impose judgements upon them without offering any sort of facts to back up your statements, ignore all that's been contributed to the thread wholesale, and repeat same unqualified message.
And what judgements might those be?
Quote:
The origins of your opinion are rooted in a civilization that's been perpetrating information warfare against homosexuals for eons, and your arguments are typical of that brainwashing. You don't want to be called a bigot/egocentrist, you'd have to quit participating in that behavior by commenting only on the things you've educated yourself about, and admitting honestly where your education ends. It's not a crime to be humble about that, you know.
What warfare? Educated in a redefinition of marriage which is, what -- twenty years old? By people who are not even married? Speaking of humility...
Quote:
I can listen to people with opposing viewpoints best when they offer me facts & anecdotal experiences, not vague supposition, and certainly not party line dogma that has hurt everyone with ignorance. Your methods of articulation come at the expense of your actual message. If you care about your ideas, I ask you to make improved efforts to explain yourself. Attacking saganista will not yield a greater body of information in this thread. It only detracts from the issue and keeps everyone forever stupid. G dubbya 101.
Fact: the definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Anecdoctal expriences: virtually every married couple since the beginning of time, in the culture of which we are a part, has consisted of this pairing. Improve yourself by carefully reviewing this. saganista attacked and attacks me personally on a regular basis. It impresses people like you but detracts from the open forum and keeps everyone except me and a few others too intimidated to contribute. J stalin 099.
I've said everything that needs to be said to you. I won't continue this discussion because you are not contributing anything novel or substantial to it. You believe it's a parody. I don't. Period.
I'll continue to celebrate the achievements of my fellow gays and lesbians and rejoice as they flourish in their lives and love. That's what matters to me. Not engaging in this circular, ad hominem discourse about what marriage means to one as opposed to another. It's childish.
No matter how intelligent someone is vs claims to be, you cannot educate the unwilling, and that's ALL about THEM. Ultimately self imposed ignorance should be paid by the ignorant themselves, right?
I'm chuckling over the word parody here. I should be offended by men dressing as women? Mimicry is the highest form of flattery. If they look better than I do, should I be jealous?? hahahaa Hell no, I need them doing my hair!
I've got a theory- and let me know if you think I'm off base- that women have an easier time accepting gays than men do because men have very strong attitudes towards women attached to their sexuality.
That is to say they see women from a more predatory attitude (physical or visual cues) as part of their arrousal process vs being attracted to women based on character, personality traits or intelligence.
Married men I've known tell me they came to know deeper love of their wives when their sexual performance diminished, and expressed a regret at having wasted years on juvenile male behavior. Not sure if that's attributed to the male psyche in motion or a reflection of older/wiser.
saganista attacked and attacks me personally on a regular basis. It impresses people like you but detracts from the open forum and keeps everyone except me and a few others too intimidated to contribute. J stalin 099.
I'm not impressed, and you are the attacker of both gays and saganista. You are not the victim of anything but yourself here.
Go live your hetero life happily, no one is stopping you. Imposing your personal values and baseless characterizations on others when you aren't paying the price for it has no legitimacy in fact nor in law. Your unwillingness to consider new information that's contrary to your bias is also your right, but leaves you empty handed. I feel no need to discuss this further with you by virtue of your unwillingness to bring evidence to support your conclusions.
No matter how intelligent someone is vs claims to be, you cannot educate the unwilling, and that's ALL about THEM. Ultimately self imposed ignorance should be paid by the ignorant themselves, right?
I'm chuckling over the word parody here. I should be offended by men dressing as women? Mimicry is the highest form of flattery. If they look better than I do, should I be jealous?? hahahaa Hell no, I need them doing my hair!
I agree completely. If one's mind is perniciously closed, there is no use in trying to pry it open. At any rate, you're correct, they pay the price themselves. People are apt to throw words and ideas around without really understanding their true meaning and how they affect others when applied. You see it all the time.
Quote:
I've got a theory- and let me know if you think I'm off base- that women have an easier time accepting gays than men do because men have very strong attitudes towards women attached to their sexuality.
That is to say they see women from a more predatory attitude (physical or visual cues) as part of their arrousal process vs being attracted to women based on character, personality traits or intelligence.
Married men I've known tell me they came to know deeper love of their wives when their sexual performance diminished, and expressed a regret at having wasted years on juvenile male behavior. Not sure if that's attributed to the male psyche in motion or a reflection of older/wiser.
I concur with your theory, harborlady. But I am a bit confused... are you positing that because men do not sexually attract straight men (of course), that they are more unwilling to accept homosexuality in general?
At any rate, I would like to add that there is a prevalent double-standard in terms of the acceptance of gays vs. lesbians, which I think is a product of living in a hetero-normative, male-dominated society. Namely, it is easier to tolerate lesbians than gay men because many men find the idea of two women sexually stimulating. But it should be noted that this does not qualify as acceptance. It's simply the arousal factor and the male ego - the predatory temperament that you mentioned.
Fact: the definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Anecdoctal expriences: virtually every married couple since the beginning of time, in the culture of which we are a part, has consisted of this pairing. Improve yourself by carefully reviewing this. saganista attacked and attacks me personally on a regular basis. It impresses people like you but detracts from the open forum and keeps everyone except me and a few others too intimidated to contribute. J stalin 099.
Yes, marriage has historically been between a man & woman, but do you realize the rest of it's "definition" has changed greatly over the years? Do some research, and you'll see that marriage used to be a business arrangement, usually to join families who could be useful to each other (for instance one has a farm, the other has money to fund it). Women were considered the property of their husbands, marriages were arranged, and usually had nothing to do with love... so if we've changed it this much already, why not continue allowing it to evolve with society? That's the beauty of being humans with free will, living in a free society - we don't have to accept everything "as is." And just because something has always been a certain way, that doesn't mean it's the RIGHT way. Women couldn't vote until the 1920's, and I'm sure people used your same arguments against the suffrage movement... thank goodness people spoke up, or I wouldn't have these rights today.
yes, I'm suggesting that homo phobic attitudes might be attributed to juvenile male guilt and in some ways, what I consider to be very unhealthy attitudes towards the 'object' of their desire. Boys who confuse sex with violence are another example, no matter who they perpetrate against (gay or straight).
I also see many men accepting of lesbians because it fulfills some fantasy they have, and have some objective in the back of their minds to achieve conversion of lesbians to hetero world through exercise of sexual prowesss. Naturally, lesbians don't cease being lesbians because some dude strolled along, but the fantasy remains persistent enough. Turn the equation around, you have vehement revulsion and bible quotes. Weird, huh? All happening in the same brain.
As to "How many heterosexual marriages have been destroyed this week?" (by gay marriage), my answer is: Not enough.
Marriage itself is constantly changing. Increasing numbers of young people today see the divorce rate, the divorces in their own families and circle of friends, and come to the conclusion that there's little value to enter into such an arrangement when its most likely bound to fail. The "family law" lawyers in this nation milk the divorce cow for all it's worth, and its time we ended that gravy train for those leeches.
Social scientists are now talking about having different marital partners for the different stages we all go through, i.e., many 50-year-old empty nesters have outgrown each other or grown apart and find much more happiness and fulfillment with a new partner. Makes sense.
The church has always been a big proponent of marriage, as it fits their orthodoxy of sex as sinful and thus the only way to achieve valid status is to marry (and of course "tithe" 10% of your wealth to the church in order to receive their sanction of the union). No church seems to mind divorce these days, even my twice-divorced sister married Catholic after going through some silly process of meeting and talking with the Priest. IMO, the church world has much to do with the perpetuation of marriage as the norm and divorce as a sin. Declaring something a "sin" is the first step in the guilt, shame and fear campaign to keep the flock in line with the doctrine.
All this emphasis on marriage has led to millions of couplings that never should have been in first place. We teach our young so very little about the realities of life or how to find a compatible life partner. Instead we give them fairy tale images of radiant brides in flowing virginal (hah!) white gowns, living happily forever after in a cozy safe bungalow down the sweetly-scented flower-strewn lane with a white picket fence, a faithful dog and 2.5 way above average kids. Few people have any idea how to pick a mate, the vast majority are totally clueless as to what really matters, instead, we teach girls to marry for money and we teach boys to claw their way up the ladder of wealth and success, after all, the more money you have the bigger the pair of ta-ta's you get to marry. Just marry for looks or money, all else will work out.
Ah, life in America, the "greatest" country of all. (rolls eyes, yet again).
Last edited by Mike from back east; 06-22-2008 at 02:35 PM..
yes, I'm suggesting that homo phobic attitudes might be attributed to juvenile male guilt and in some ways, what I consider to be very unhealthy attitudes towards the 'object' of their desire. Boys who confuse sex with violence are another example, no matter who they perpetrate against (gay or straight).
I also see many men accepting of lesbians because it fulfills some fantasy they have, and have some objective in the back of their minds to achieve conversion of lesbians to hetero world through exercise of sexual prowesss. Naturally, lesbians don't cease being lesbians because some dude strolled along, but the fantasy remains persistent enough. Turn the equation around, you have vehement revulsion and bible quotes. Weird, huh? All happening in the same brain.
Yes. It's weird. It's amazing how conditioned people are to accept one thing and rebuke another, when it's all the same. Perhaps lesbians have it easier.
I'm not impressed, and you are the attacker of both gays and saganista. You are not the victim of anything but yourself here.
Provide evidence of my attacks against gays or knock off the baseless claims.
Quote:
Go live your hetero life happily, no one is stopping you.
I do not apply such silly qualifiers to anyone's life.
Quote:
Imposing your personal values and baseless characterizations on others when you aren't paying the price for it has no legitimacy in fact nor in law.
I am imposing nothing; I am stating my opinions. My right to do so, which is part of the priceless legacy I enjoy as an American, has every legitimacy in fact and in law.
Quote:
Your unwillingness to consider new information that's contrary to your bias is also your right, but leaves you empty handed. I feel no need to discuss this further with you by virtue of your unwillingness to bring evidence to support your conclusions.
My "bias", as you put it, is in favor of the traditional and culturally crucial definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Call it the bias of the sane against insanity. I brought the evidence, by way of definition and by citing our culture's historical adherence to that definition. That you choose to ignore these responses suggests your inability to reply to them and indicates the emptiness not of my hands but of your arguments.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A few stray thoughts
