Subject:
|
Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:55:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1737 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz wrote:
(snip)
| |
If someone says “I’m gay”
people say “Why did you need to tell me that? I don’t care and don’t what
to know about what you do in bed.”
|
Being gay presents a special problem, because their behavior
|
What behaviour are we talking about here?
|
I was speaking specifically about sex with the same sex-- you know, GAY.
| |
Being together? Flirting? Significant glances? Holding hands? Dancing? More
specific acts of affection?
|
Well, even hetero PDA can be offensive. Sex should be a private thing. When
people make private things public it is at the least embarrassing and at the
most offensive.
| |
None of those behaviours, except perhaps flirting, can happen in a virtual
forum like this one. So what are you talking about?
|
This sidebar isn’t about the forum-- it’s about keeping private things private.
| |
| |
is repulsive to heterosexuals.
|
Perhaps the above behaviours are to some. Not to me. Not to my wife either.
And, hopefully, not to my kids. I would like to think I’ve raised them a lot
better than that. I think you have to be TRAINED to dislike seeing people
enjoy life and enjoy the company of each other.
|
Oh really, Mister Tolerant? So I suppose you have no problem with people
copulating in public, and in the view of your children.
| |
I think to dislike that is to
admit that you’re repressed.
|
What is wrong with repressing private things? Why does EVERYTHING have to be
public?
| |
I think you are in the minority, and most people
are good and kind and open and tolerant.
|
About what? I have no problem with gays! Nobody here has said anything to that
effect. I dislike the thought of gay sex, but that doesn’t affect the way I
treat gays. In fact, to insure that it doesn’t I’d rather NOT know someone was
gay so that I WILL treat them with respect as they deserve.
| |
But worse, the behaviours I contemplate being carried out in a
lugnet.people.glbt group aren’t even those behaviours anyway. You’re straw
dogging! I see people talking about things like how the rest of their friends
accept their hobby and how the rest of their hobby friends accept their
choices, at the most.
|
GAYS ARE PEOPLE. What is wrong with those conservations happening in .people???
| |
PLUS some neat MOCs. I think this fear that people seem
to have about what would be discussed there is so vastly overblown that it
boggles my mind.
|
Fine. Open Pandora’s box. Start including groups BASED ON BEHAVIOR. .glbt
will be the first. And somehow I think it will be the last. Preferential
treatment.
| |
| |
I don’t mean to offend gays, but it is the truth.
|
Nonsense. There is no way you can prove this to be an absolute truth, it is
merely your opinion.
|
First, I didn’t say this was “absolute truth”. Second, a simple poll of a
random sample would prove this to be true.
| |
| |
And it
goes beyond mere intolerance. We are probably talking on the DNA level here
or something, but it is deeply ingrained.
|
Nonsense again. You’ll have to provide some cites for such a bald assertion.
|
Why is it nonsense? Do you have proof to the contrary?
| |
| |
Now I believe most people want to be tolerant and respectful of gays as
people, but asking heterosexuals to accept their lifestyle is too much.
|
Just how is it “too much” to be accepting of the choices that others make?
Why do you want everyone else to be like you?
|
What makes you think that I want everyone else to be like me?
| |
I think you’re going to have a hard time to say that you’re “tolerant” if you
are not willing to accept the mutual, nonviolent associations that others
choose to enter into.
|
What do you mean by “accept”?
| |
I understand you don’t care for them. I understand that in your view the
state should discriminate against certain kinds of associations.
I’ll even
tolerate your holding those views. But I would prefer that we not do that
sort of thing here. LUGNET to me is a meritocracy, not a theocracy.
|
LUGNET is a monocracy.
| |
If a group of people choose to discuss their special issues and concerns in
an area where they feel more kindred spirits, why is that wrong?
|
It’s not wrong. That place, however, isn’t LUGNET.
| |
My
expectation is that there will be a number of subgroups of .people soon,
targeted at a number of audiences that have special issues and concerns,
|
Why? What is wrong with .people? The only reason why we have become
compartmentalized dorks in the first place is because the traffic volume became
too great. Is .people so busy that subgroups have become necessary?
| |
and
that their existance will make the hobby stronger. I may choose to
participate or not. I may not understand why it is wanted. I may skip list
it. I don’t know.
|
Well, if it is created and everyone ignores it, how does that make the hobby
stronger?
| |
But no one has satisfactorily demonstrated what HARM will come of this. Let
us try the experiment and find out.
|
Ah, so you will be instituting these suggestions soon I presume? Or does the idea of “let us try the
experiment and find out” suddenly disappear?
| |
Groups have been tried before. Some
worked. Some languish, unused. And some, having been proven to not be a good
idea, have been archived, no longer visible from the main menu of groups, no
longer actively postable, and so forth. But LUGNET survived and grew because
of each experiment.
Let a hundred flowers bloom, I say. Don’t spread weedkiller before you see
what comes up. Wait. Grok it in the fullness of time.
|
See, what is so disingenuous of you with that attitude is that everyone has
certain flowers that they don’t want to see bloom.
| |
| |
It
is too much of an afront to their sexuality. Wouldn’t the world be a more
tolerant place if we were all bisexual-- well it ain’t gonna happen.
|
Maybe, maybe not.
|
Again, more disingenuousness.
| |
| |
And this goes beyond religion and beliefs, so I’d rather not see them
dragged into the discussion (until the end, eh Lar?).
|
Hardly. I think you *already* dragged your beliefs into this, because most of
what you assert above is merely the belief of some people. I’m completely at
a loss here as to why you want to go in this direction.
|
I meant religious beliefs.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) Whether or not you think sex should be private is irrelevant. Sexuality has never been private, even if the act of sex has been forced to take place behind closed doors. (...) It may be embarrassing or offensive to the viewer and not the (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) Oh ya, I forgot that you can say anything you want and it's assumed true until someone can prove otherwise... In that case, can I start ribald rumors about you? I bet I can come up with some that you can never truly refute. ~Kevoh (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) I have NO problem with that. It should be the norm. (...) Because to lock it in taboo damages people. I know you get off on people being harmed in various ways, but most of us do not. (...) ??? What a crock. (...) The historical body of (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) Knowing someone is gay doesn't tell you anything about their sex life any more than knowing someone is heterosexual tells you anything about their sex life. It doesn't tell you if they've ever had sex, or if they ever will. Maybe I'm naive. (...) (20 years ago, 19-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) What behaviour are we talking about here? Being together? Flirting? Significant glances? Holding hands? Dancing? More specific acts of affection? None of those behaviours, except perhaps flirting, can happen in a virtual forum like this one. (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
106 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
