 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) 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)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) The administrators will look very unfavorably on any open persecution of anyone. You can be quite sure of that. (...) Precisely. (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) I disagree. (...) Explain why the actual act has been forced to take place privately. Are you for allowing public displays of sexual acts? (...) Well, I think it's both their problems. (...) So what? (...) How do you know how I treat (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | | (...) That's not what's being debated here. The public display of sexual orientation is. There is a hugely vast difference between having an orgy in the nearest intersection and publicly acknowledging that your SO shops in the same section of the (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, before you snipped it, the particular point being discussed was PDA. (...) The point I was trying to make is that sexuality is private thing and that overt attempts to disclose personal matters is appropriate IMO. (...) ARRRG (not (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) overt (...) I'll accept that if you never mention your wife... Or indicate that Ross is your son (since that also comes with pre-conceived baggage about your sexuality - or even firm baggage if some folks have their way and only man-woman (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) No, many people are bi. Gays are gay and straights are straight. Everyone else is bi. Chris (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Maybe we should get rid of the Clikits and Primo groups, too, since they go mostly unused. And keep your eye on Quatro and Galidor--they're both ripe for culling, by this use-it-or-lose-it criterion. Dave! (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | (...) No. (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) In the Western world, Victorian prudishness is the primary closeting force. But before I answer further, can you give me an ironclad reason why sexual acts must be private? And I caution you against such moral relativism as "society has (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) I believe sexual intercourse is an intimate bonding experience physically, emotionall, spiritually, and psychologically. It is the ultimate "giving" of oneself, and thus should be considered to be a highly meaningful experience. It should be (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Oddly, this is straight out of Mircea Eliade's "The Sacred and The Profane," which speaks of the investment of "sacredness" into certain places/customs/actions so that those places/customs/actions are preserved against alteration due to (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Though I've never even heard of Eliade or his/her? work, why would that be "odd"? That you aren't a fan and that I sound like (okay, I googled it...) him should sound about right, no;-) (...) Again, the ultimate expression of society isn't (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, just in terms of parallel evolution of ideas re: sacred v. profane. And whatever other oddity you'd care to contribute, of course. (...) I do not believe that there are any absolute standards for society, and all standards are determined (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | (...) Since that happened well before the civil rights movement, the only applicable legality that I can think of is the 5th Amendment (nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law), but I believe they were classified as (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) Oh, absolutely, but I was giving situation-type examples, and today's racial profiling (of black drivers, of Arab airline passengers, etc.) is of the same species. And regardless of the civil rights movement, it was wrong of the government to (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Internment (was Re: Lavender Brick Society —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) US citizens of Japanese descent were classified as POWs? I did not know that. It's scary if true. It also gives ammo to the Bushies and their Enemy Combatant thingie. I hope you're wrong... I'm scared you're right. Also I thought the Geneva (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Internment (was Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | (...) Officially all J-A citizens/residents were termed "dangerous enemy aliens" (technically, so were all German- and Italian-Americans, but everyone collectively turned a blind eye to them). Once you've classified them as enemies, it's pretty easy (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Internment (was Re: Lavender Brick Society —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) There were German internment camps also. The numbers were much smaller, so they have got less exposure. (...) Except most of the "enemy combatant detainees" are not citizens. And those who are citizens should certainly have the constitution (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —Kevin Blocksidge
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Clarity, Chris. That's all I want. I think you will find that your views are in the vast minority. (...) Excuse me??? What exactly do you mean by "get off"? Why don't you just shut your ignorant piehole, Chris. And who is this "most of us" you (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | | (...) Okay, so put your money where your mouth is and give the pudding a chance to prove itself. If it goes unused, you're right, and no harm done, except the loss of Todd's time in setting up the newsgroup. If it sees use, you're wrong, and there's (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) John, I think you're starting to cross the line here, even for off-topic.debate... take a stress tab and think about the success of the mission. (20 years ago, 19-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Why don't you mind your own snipping beeswax? JOHN (20 years ago, 19-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | human sexuality —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | John, I know my views are in the minority. I'm not sure what made you think that I didn't know that. (How could I not?) That doesn't make them wrong. There have been a great many people through history who had unpopular ideas that are now widely (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: human sexuality —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (I'm at a client, so it's a hassle to switch identities, but I'm wearing my Admin hat in this post) This post is not just directed at Chris. (...) To clarify. we did not censor anyone, nor did we wish to. LUGNET does not practice censorship. I (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: human sexuality —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) Are you saying that you're a closeted Admin some of the time? How long will you persist in this dual life? Dave! (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: human sexuality —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes, typing fast. And I think you all have been handling it fine. Chris (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —Amy Hughes
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
