| |
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?
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. So what are you talking about?
| |
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. I think to dislike that is to admit that
you’re repressed. I think you are in the minority, and most people are good and
kind and open and tolerant.
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. 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.
| |
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.
| |
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.
| |
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?
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.
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.
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? 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, 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.
But no one has satisfactorily demonstrated what HARM will come of this. Let us
try the experiment and find out. 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.
| |
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.
| |
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.
Up until yesterday I was rather proud of our little community as to how well
we’d been doing discussing this but this direction of discussion is just getting
more and more disappointing to me.
It’s a moot point anyway, in my view.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) I think the most demonstrable harm that could come of this is open persecution in lieu of pretending that they don't exist. But if the LGBTs feel strongly enough about this that they're willing to risk that, I can't see why they should be (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) I was speaking specifically about sex with the same sex-- you know, GAY. (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz wrote: (snip) (...) Being gay presents a special problem, because their behavior is repulsive to heterosexuals. I don't mean to offend gays, but it is the truth. And it goes beyond mere intolerance. We are (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.general, 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
|
|
|
|
