Subject:
|
Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:13:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1576 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Explain why the actual act has been forced to take place privately. Are
you for allowing public displays of sexual acts?
|
That’s not what’s being debated here.
The public display of sexual
orientation is.
|
Well, before you snipped it, the particular point being discussed was PDA.
| |
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 nearest department store.
|
The point I was trying to make is that sexuality is private thing and that overt
attempts to disclose personal matters is appropriate IMO.
| |
| |
How do you know how I treat homosexuals? If I don’t know that they are gay,
how can I treat them differently?
|
I think that’s the main sticking point here. The whole point of coming out
of the closet, as I see it, is so you aren’t only being socially accepted
based on false pretenses.
|
ARRRG (not directed at you). This is one of the things that disturbs me about
many gays-- that their entire identity is wrapped up in their sexuality. It
is a disturbing trait for heterosexuals, too, BTW.
| |
| |
For instance, I find gay activist parades to be a diliberate snubbing and
tweaking of heterosexuals.
|
Do you also find the civil rights marches of the 60’s to be a deliberate
snubbing and tweaking of whites?
|
Ah, an equivocation of the gay rights movement and black civil rights movement?
The two are nothing like one another.
| |
| |
I wonder if there would still be such displays if everyone were gay?
|
Of course not. If everyone were gay we’d have succumbed to Darwinism quite a
few generations ago.
|
Many gays are bi, no?
| |
But we, as a species, aren’t limited by natural
selection. Look at the vast number of charities that are set up to help those
who, for whatever reason, can’t survive without assistance of some sort.
|
This whole topic is wearing me down. LUGNET is about bringing people together
who love LEGO. LEGO should be the binding factor (pun intended:-) I’d miss
.off-topic, but frankly it really has no place on LUGNET either IMO.
But it sounds like Todd has made up his mind (to me, anyway). I predict that
the group will perhaps get some initial posts, but will go unused for the most
part. And what will that prove? I don’t know.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
