User Tag List

First 89101112 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 130

  1. #91
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Hey, I've got a great idea. Remember back in the '60s when people would have sit-ins or be-ins when protesting for civil rights or against Vietnam or something? Who wants to go to Austin for a sodomy-in?
    Okay. That's funny.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #92
    Senior Member burymecloser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Hey, I've got a great idea. Remember back in the '60s when people would have sit-ins or be-ins when protesting for civil rights or against Vietnam or something? Who wants to go to Austin for a sodomy-in?
    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    The people of Austin would likely join in...tis a very alternative-lifestyle-friendly city. The San Francisco of Texas, if you will.
    eagleseven is right. I like the idea, but screw Austin, let's have it at Lark's place.

    Queers and allies, changing the world one lawn at a time.

  3. #93
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    I was just watching a jaw-dropping documentary about how the Mormons set up the Christian Coalition and coerced their members to contribute all the money they could from anywhere they could dig it up (children's college funds, life savings, etc.) to contribute to the passage of Prop 8, so the sums of money behind it were astronomical, and then they recruited non-mormons to go door to door selling the idea, making blogs and youtubes about it, and spreading the word, and when the final push came, tons of people from Utah showed up in California to finish the push. Now it makes me wonder where this stuff is coming from in Texas.

  4. #94
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I hear that, in more modern terms its likely to be framed that is shameful to be anyone's "bitch", although it borders on sexual politics, gendering and that whole can of worms.
    So, engaging in passive sex makes you a bitch? Is that what you're saying? Or at least, is that what you believe it's been framed as? That concept would mean that women are bitches. Freaking ace.

    Also, man, that's kind of a fucked up thing to call someone who's been raped - calling them a bitch, that is. Methinks the real bitch is the one who can't get an actual lay.
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



  5. #95
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiltyred View Post
    I was just watching a jaw-dropping documentary about how the Mormons set up the Christian Coalition and coerced their members to contribute all the money they could from anywhere they could dig it up (children's college funds, life savings, etc.) to contribute to the passage of Prop 8, so the sums of money behind it were astronomical, and then they recruited non-mormons to go door to door selling the idea, making blogs and youtubes about it, and spreading the word, and when the final push came, tons of people from Utah showed up in California to finish the push. Now it makes me wonder where this stuff is coming from in Texas.
    The Mormons were fined [a pittance] earlier in June by the court system for failing to disclose the proper amount of their contributions to Prop 8. It still seems people are arguing about how much they actually did give.

    Mormon Church to pay fine over Prop 8 donations

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    Those are good questions Jenn and prehaps it does allow me to clarify my position, provided that this is a private or personal affair then you're point is entirely correct, my issue is when it goes beyond that into legislating or financing with tax money either sex changes themselves, the promotion of the identity or scene, making it normative or seeking to suggest a single (supportive, approving, enabling) response to private lifestyle choices. As you've said yourself there does not exist that level of consensus within scenes or integral to trans-communities. A lot of this is done under the headings of "education", "tolerance", "diversity" or "sensitivity", would that the expectations you've outlined here where shared by more people and there'd be no issue to speak of.
    As far as this goes, have you actually looked at what health insurance (public and/or privatized) actually covers today? (Although, again, you are not in the United States. If you want to have this discussion with me, you should educate yourself on what happens in the United States and stop speaking about the context of YOUR country.) For one, it covers penile implants and medications to help old men achieve erections. Nice. I guess because the people in power find that important ... or because it increases quality of life ... it is considered a valid expense to be covered by the other insurance holders and/or the public in general.

    There is a solid use case built on 30-40 years of data that confirms GCS is effective at curing gender dysphoria with properly screened patients as opposed to the main alternative of "reparative therapy," which doesn't cure anything whatsoever and only seems to help the few people who have such strong religious beliefs ingrained in that that transitioning is unthinkable for them. It can help people cope but overall doesn't seem to make them happy and fully productive.

    In fact, this case is so strong that the AMA declared in 2009 that they support insurance companies covering medical treatment for those diagnosed with GID, and in 2010, the IRS held a trial and at the end decided to change by a solid majority the labeling of GCS as "cosmetic surgery" and instead now call it a valid medical treatment that is tax-deductible on one's income tax. This is a Big Deal, and probably spells the beginning of the shift to making insurance companies provide treatment. The cost is actually much less in the long run than treating a GID person's depression and health issues for life, improves quality of life; and better yet, the one use case created in San Francisco back in the early 2000's (where the city agreed to cover the surgery for city employees), the insurance company increased premiums a bit across the board to cover the expected numbers who would want to work from the city in order to have their surgery paid for... and within a few years stopped charging extra because the projected costs never manifest themselves. IOW, the cost was far lower than they had anticipated. Overall, it's cheaper to put someone to approach GID from a medical issue and improve their quality of life within a few years amount of time than leave them in therapy and on anti-depressants their whole life and taking more money away from the taxpayer/insurance pool member. (And that's the sort of argument -- long-term cost analysis -- that will have the most teeth here.)

    Colleges are starting to cover the surgery now as well. It might take another decade for things to filter through, but considering the medical establishment is validating this sort of treatment for GID patients, I'm still not sure what your complaint is... considering some of the crazier stuff that is covered solely because people in power to make such decisions are very good at making sure THEIR needs have been met, and the minority groups typically are ignored until enough people hear and understand their plight.

    Meanwhile, you offer no detail to explain your case or seem to show any understanding of what sort of precedent exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    Yeah, I understand that's what you think. You think I shouldnt express opinions on any US cultural or political issue or just this one? Should we all restrict ourselves to topics succinct only within our own national contexts? If we do will we only post and let it stand at that, no one else being able to offer an opinion pretty much?
    I have been very explicit in this context, yet you continue to not actually read the totality of my posts.

    My issue is that you do not educate yourself on a foreign country's contexts and situations before commenting and argue as if you have some authority amid your factual ignorance. I would have qualms trying to project my knowledge of US standards on top a country I did not properly research first. Barring that, I would make comments but very open to correction from members of said country, because I know they know far better than I do what's happening there and why. You do none of this.

    Educate yourself and then engage. I never said you couldn't engage, you just don't seem to want to take the responsibility to educate yourself first before engaging.

    What you mean as opposed to being dismissed as a bigot, sophist, soap boxer?
    You know the solution to that, right, sweetie?

    Show us the money.
    Present a real, tangible argument with data.

    That's all you have to do, but it looks like you skipped over lots of my comments again and instead just go back to your talking points. At this point, you're verifying you really don't have an argument... so I guess we're about done.

    Now I do understand you strongly disagree but you've said its not just a matter of disagreement, you've said its my whole style of posting and use of the forum, which I'd question, I think its more to do with a disagreement on politics and culture which are dear to your heart which has coloured the rest of the interaction but that's my perspective and appreciate you dont share it. To be honest I dont mind hashing it out this way, a PM would probably have bothered me as I'd have seen it as a mod intervention, whereas here its one forum member to another (with all due respect to your station as mod).
    I'm not responding to you as a mod, I'm responding to you as a member. And why on earth would I want to tie my mod authority up in a scenario that you described as something I'm not nearly objective enough on? Read your paragraph again. You PREFER I start muddying my power with my preferences? I would like to retain credibility, thanks.

    I also think your "live and let live" commentary is a cop-out so that you can blurt out any point of view you want to believe, yet never support it with facts and details or an understanding of context. This is a typical modus operandi too of yours... someone challenges you and you can't offer proof, you immediately drop back into the "Let's just live and let live, because I disagree with you and don't feel like actually investing enough energy to examine my view and maybe changing it, or at least supporting it."

    You can't even seem to accept a simple correction about whether Betrand Russell thought himself an atheist or an agnostic; this would have been a five-minute investment, to check yourself on that fact, but you just glossed over your mistake and instead bitched about how mean the other guy was to you in his response.

    If I did that, I would consider myself intellectually irresponsible.

    Yeah, your "working model" of me is pretty divorced from the reality, I'd even say divorced from the reality of me as presented in the threads, Halla's been so kind as a couple of times to post that I shouldnt doubt myself, you maybe missed the threads where I asked people about their experience of doubt and it didnt take too much reading between the lines to see that of late I'd been dealing with a crisis in which I began to doubt the existence of God or an afterlife (major things for me personally).
    I probably have, because I don't read nearly the totality of the forum due to my commute, my job change, and now having a life outside of here. I look at threads of interest, and I review threads that are reported to Mod Staff. That is it.

    In my experience, I have to stick by my words at the moment because I've never ever seen you behave the way you describe; if you would like me to examine threads where you bared your soul and expressed doubt about your beliefs, then feel free to PM me or link me to them. I actually DO bother to listen and check out the details of the other side's viewpoint, if they bring things to light, even if they don't seem to return the favor.

    EDIT: I just found the post you are referring to. You made it at 7:15am this morning, my time.
    I'm hoping there were earlier posts describing the onset of your doubting period.
    (Most of my life my life involved a mid-life spiritual crisis. My final "bottom out" was around age 30-31, and after that my faith reformed but just on a different foundation.)

    I've been advised that I'm both self-critical and reflective to a fault, give people the benefit of the doubt when I shouldnt and should be in a position to provide direction boardering on reprimands as a result of my knowledge and reflectiveness. I reckon that you're suggesting that I'm unreflective and fail to engage in self-analysis is because I dont read other peoples views on the topic of homosexuality, examine my conscience and decide that I'm wrong. That's a different matter from failing to engage in self-analysis.
    Last time I'm going to explain this: You are not required to examine it and then decide you were wrong. You MIGHT examine the whole topic and decide in the end you were right. I don't really care either way... as long as you show you've examined it and can actually understand the opposing view.

    You should be able to legitimately argue my point of view to others, if you truly understand it and then decide it's wrong.

    If I have any issue with anything, it's that you show a deplorable inability to actually make an ARGUMENT that is supported by something from your end and a lack of understanding of the other side's issues.

    Now this isnt restricted to the issue of homosexuality, it is the same with other cultural issues, for instance if a theocrat wished the public adoption of a religious law/code of conduct I'd feel the same way.
    Do I see you arguing against theocrats in the United States who are trying to legislate their point of view? No, it looks to me as if you are siding with them.

    If you don't understand that nuance, again you need to educate yourself more with what happens here in the States and the tone of politics. Religious people are always bitching about putting prayer back into schools as an official practice, people bitching about Obama not attending a National Prayer Breakfast and/or the prayer breakfast including lots of other religious values besides Christianity even though all of us are Americans, there's arguments over the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, which actually was added in the 1950's and not part of the original pledge, and all these other religious/political skirmishes where the religious people claim the non-religious are creating a "war on America" (the America they want to live in) versus those who think they are trying to impose Christian religious beliefs on a public unjustly. It's pretty heated.

    One whole side is trying to Christianize the United States, the other side is fighting against theocrats trying to legislate religious values.

    In your arguments here, you consistently are supporting the latter. I don't know what you do in your country, but you're in over your head and apparently doing something you claim to be in disagreement with.

    I do feel the same way about certain sorts of permissive heterosexual behaviours too, especially when "free love" is a flag of convenience for people acting out disordered mental or emotional states, as does happen, I'm not merely being prudish about that and I'm not at once suggesting that everyone be celibate.
    Yes, you are. You're suggesting that homosexuals need to be celibate.

    This thread is about outlawing sodomy in Texas.
    That means gay people will be considered outlaws unless they are celibate with the people they are attracted to.
    This is like saying heterosexuals are outlaws if they are not celibate.

    It seems pretty clear to me.

    However homosexuality is one of those incendiary topics, comment is free on the other issues and you wont be provoking rage or distress, most of the time by expressing the view. Why is homosexuality different?
    If you were a heterosexual minority treated as second-class citizens, not allowed to marry like "normal people," told you were "morally bad" by others, told people did not approve of you but they would "love the sinner while hating your sin" ... all for something you feel is inherently part of who you are, leads you to be the best person you can be, is associated with anything deep and meaningful in my life...

    ... well, that's quite a personal slight, and is quite a stigma to carry.

    Do you get that this is not a "politics as usual" issue but is very personal?
    Why wouldn't people be heated about it? You can't expect them not to be.

    Frankly, I'd either fighting to change the rules (after all, this is MY country too, why should I be treated a second-class citizen in my own country?), or I'd want to get the hell out and go somewhere where people love and accept me as myself.

    The prop 8 lawsuit ended a week or two ago and is before the judge. Either way, it's going to be appealed and will end up in front of SCOTUS. It's going to be ugly either way. At least in the original case, though, it seemed like the lawyers arguing against Prop 8 (ironically, they were the opposing lawyers in the Bush vs Gore case in 2000, so it's funny to see them both in agreement here) made a very detailed case, while the other side barely presented any witnesses and seemed to just appeal to precedent. It'll be interesting to see what happens, since the appeals court is only interested in whether the original judge followed proper procedure and handled the case correctly.

    ....

    in any case, I've spent a lot of time on this explaining my side, and I really still don't see you investing that much detail from your end, and you're still missing really basic points without addressing them. So it's not a good investment of my time, except for calling you out and trying to get you to put your cards on the table. At this point, it just looks to me like you don't have anything in your hand, so I'll move on.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #96
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Hey, I've got a great idea. Remember back in the '60s when people would have sit-ins or be-ins when protesting for civil rights or against Vietnam or something? Who wants to go to Austin for a sodomy-in?
    Done already.

    [YOUTUBE="1wCtvco1FRU"]Hair - Sodomy[/YOUTUBE]

  7. #97
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,126

    Default

    wow... I decided to watch how the thread went for a while before contributing... out of morbid curiosity in a way

    Putting forth of that sort of platform is merely a symbolic act, as I seriously doubt that the state will be willing to fund security cameras in every home to prevent "lewd and unnatural acts" from occurring... and the fact that it's the state party's platform really is mostly just a symbolic act anyways... just because it's on the platform doesn't mean that it's even really going to be advocated by the candidate

    in the long run, who really cares where the pole is hidden in a game of "hide the pole" as long as it's consentual and between adults? Wasting political attention, ink and paper on such a rediculously unenforcable law is pretty stupid really... just because some stupid committee members want to point out that if it's not a penis in a vagina (probably preferably of a married couple and for the purpose of procreation :rolli that it's not sex... and now I have to wonder about other sexual acts... how did titty fucking suddenly become more normal than blow jobs? Are pearl necklaces in, but you're a very bad person if you slip and hit the wrong hole in the dark?

    Basically, like Jeffster said way earlier- it's just a platform statement from a committee... it's chance of coming to existance is about the same as the chances that I'll travel to the moon... anyways, getting an anti-sodomy law to fly after Lawrence v Texas would be a rather difficult task

    in other words, too much overreacting about some loonies in Texas that even other Republicans from the state probably think are going too far
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  8. #98
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    I realize this was from pages ago, but still:

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Yes it certainly requires one gain a perspective on how these acts were seen in society. Magic or anybody else is mistaken in arguing that there were no stigma attached to "homosexual" activities. Actually there were, although it may not make sense to modern sensibilities. To the Greeks there were two main positions for sex: active and passive. For a man to be in the passive role was indeed very shameful and disgraceful. This mentality also existed among the Romans, in the form of the Lex Scantinia, which made same-sex activity among free-born citzens a capital offense. Slaves were another issue, but as the link explains: "same-sex activities with slaves were however not encouraged as a form of sexual pleasure. In fact, same-sex activities were rather regarded as punishment for bad slaves, inherently identical to beatings."

    Actually, the consensus seems to be that attitudes were far more varied that that by time and place. See Homosexuality in ancient Rome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The introduction reads:

    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    Homosexuality in ancient Rome features in many literary works, poems, graffiti and comments on the sexual predilections of single emperors. Graphic representations are, on the other hand, rarer in ancient Rome than in classical Greece. Attitudes toward homosexuality changed over the time and from context to context, ranging from strong condemnation to quite open acceptance. Indeed, it was also purported to be one of the cultural facts of certain provinces.

    In discussing such attitudes, it is fundamental to recall that the term homosexuality is entirely problematic for the ancient world since there is no single word in either Latin or ancient Greek with the same meaning as the modern concept of homosexuality. Although it again and again becomes apparent that bisexuality was more common, even the ancient authors agree that there were ancient Roman men who had sexual relations exclusively with men.
    I agree that's taking the "passive role" was generally looked down upon. One could argue that the attitudes relates to the lower status of women at the time. In some cultures even today (or at least in the recent past), you can have male/male sex and not be considered homosexual as long as you take the active role.

    I think the introduction's caution about using the term "homosexuality" is interesting from a modern perspective. To a modern gay man, being gay is as much about who you fall in love with (and emotionally bond to) as it is about the sex. (Okay, at least for this INFP.)

    Of course, the modern conception of marriage is also quite different in its emphasis on emotional closeness and compatibility. It makes me wonder if the idea of "homosexuality" partially falls from culturally seeking to align marriage with sexual attraction and emotional intimacy, as opposed to being about political and economic ties between families.

  9. #99
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    ...Of course, the modern conception of marriage is also quite different in its emphasis on emotional closeness and compatibility. It makes me wonder if the idea of "homosexuality" partially falls from culturally seeking to align marriage with sexual attraction and emotional intimacy, as opposed to being about political and economic ties between families.
    Now THAT is an interesting point I don't think I've seen anyone bring up before.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #100
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,126

    Default

    I'm still confused as to what sort of asshole has something against blowjobs... blowjobs are AWESOME!

    I don't think I could trust anyone who based a platform on the idea that oral sex is bad... or anal for that matter, even though I'm not the biggest fan... I express myself through sex, banning that is an infringement of my first amendment rights!
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

Similar Threads

  1. Gay marriage and black people
    By great_bay in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-22-2016, 10:30 PM
  2. Polygamy and Gay Marriage
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-03-2014, 08:59 PM
  3. Gay Marriage and SCOTUS: Hi ho and here we go
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 07:20 AM
  4. Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Gay-Marriage Ban
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 04-12-2009, 12:58 PM
  5. Gay rights, marriage, and adoption
    By Kiddo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 206
    Last Post: 06-09-2008, 10:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO