Subject:
|
Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:48:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1602 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Well, even hetero PDA can be offensive. Sex should be a private thing.
|
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.
| |
When people make private things public it is at the least embarrassing and
at the most offensive.
|
It may be embarrassing or offensive to the viewer and not the practitioner, but
that’s the viewer’s problem, not the practitioner’s. I would argue that some
private things could also be quite beautiful when made public.
| |
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.
|
I think it your attitude regarding homosexuality most certainly affects the way
you treat homosexuals, and it strikes me as really bizarre that you can’t see
it. You advocate the prohibition of gay marriage while insisting that gay
marriage isn’t a “gay issue.” You’ve have repeatedly referred to biblical
condemnations of homosexuality--never once saying “yeah, that 2000 year old book
is out of date on that subject”, and now you’re insisting that the revelation of
homosexuality causes you to treat homosexuals with less respect than they
deserve. How can you claim not to treat gays differently, while you’re
simultaneously asserting that you do treat them differently?
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
You’re the one making the positive assertion, so it’s up to you to prove your
claim. It is not up to Larry to prove that you’re incorrect.
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
Maybe not everyone, but you’ve stated clearly that you want homosexuals to hide
their sexuality in effect, to make themselves appear more like you. You
frequently condemn differing worldviews as “hating Freedom® and Democracy®,” and
you’ve declared that certain views differing from yours should be ignored, even
at the cost of subverting the Constitution.
Why is that, do you suppose?
| |
| |
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?
|
It seems unlikely that everyone would ignore it. Almost all of LUGNET ignores
ot.clone-brands, so do you assert that the presence of that forum does not
contribute to the strength of the hobby?
| |
See, what is so disingenuous of you with that attitude is that everyone has
certain flowers that they don’t want to see bloom.
|
What is truly disingenuous is the pretense that all potential groups are equally
marginalized or repressed by the majority. However, I recognize that you
fundamentally seem not to comprehend or acknowledge this.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
