Subject:
|
Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:52:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1746 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
I disagree.
| |
Sexuality has
never been private, even if the act of sex has been forced to take place
behind closed doors.
|
Explain why the actual act has been forced to take place privately. Are you
for allowing public displays of sexual acts?
| |
| |
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.
|
Well, I think it’s both their problems.
| |
I would argue that
some private things could also be quite beautiful when made public.
|
So what?
| |
| |
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,
|
How do you know how I treat homosexuals? If I don’t know that they are gay, how
can I treat them differently?
| |
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.”
|
Last time I will say this. It is a redefinition issue. Marriage is and always
has been defined as the union between 1 man and 1 woman. Any 1 man is free to
marry any 1 woman. We are starting to go in circles WRT this 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year old book is out of date on that subject”, and now you’re insisting that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.
|
I doesn’t cause me to treat them differently, I said it can cause me to
treat them differently. For instance, I find gay activist parades to be a
diliberate snubbing and tweaking of heterosexuals. I wonder if there would
still be such displays if everyone were gay? There wouldn’t, just as there are
never heterosexual parades. And if there were a heterosexual parade, it would
be to tweak homosexuals.
| |
How can you claim not to treat gays differently,
while you’re simultaneously asserting that you do treat them differently?
|
“Treat them differently”? Are you talking about my views on homosexual marriage
again?
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Not if he claims it’s “Nonsense”. He could have just asked for cites.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Not just gays, but everyone. If we keep the private and intimate stuff private,
then everybody wins, no?
| |
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?
|
Specifics, please.
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
It doesn’t contribute to strengthening the LEGO hobby AFAIC
| |
| |
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.
|
You are correct. Are you saying that gays are particularily repressed?
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
