User Tag List

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 130

Thread: Texas GOP Platform: Criminalize Gay Marriage and Ban Sodomy

  1. #81
    A window to the soul

    Thumbs up The Lone Star State

  2. #82
    Senior Member Array Lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    That's funny. Maybe you just misunderstood my spirituality and philosophy from the beginning. I try very hard to be polite and give credibility to everyone I meet and respect them, usually because I feel I'm not yet sure of who they are as an individual. Few people typically lose my respect, but the more information I get on someone from their posts, the more my opinion can change.

    I found it very odd you had similar accusations leveled against you in other forums (by your own words) and that you had been glad I and others had been more accepting, at the beginning. The more you posted, the more I could understand why you had had trouble at other forums and venues (such as Amazon, I think you've described months ago on this forum).

    If a wide spread of people of people of varied personalities all start to arrive at the same conclusions about you, then maybe it's worth actually trying to understand why they all end up viewing you a certain way. I've been really disappointed in seeing you continually stonewall and blame others for any hostility you've been receiving around the 'net.
    Maybe you're right, I could have misread you, stranger things have happened. Its maybe equally the case that's become impossible to talk about the topics at stake here. I dont believe that's a good thing but anyway.

    I do think about it, honestly, and that's why I have you on Ignore... because I'm so frustrated with you as a poster at the moment that it's just better for me not to engage you anymore. I've actually had you on Ignore for months, but occasionally someone will quote you and I'll stupidly feel compelled to respond... yet again. It's usually a waste of my time.
    I didnt know you could do that, since you're a mod, I've tried to put someone who was a mod on ignore in the past and was unable to (not yourself). Whatever works for you Jennifer, I'm sorry you feel this way and would hope in time you could think about it. I'm not villain you're imagining I am. Pretty sure of that.

    You should not be using me as a basic for American liberalism, since I'm far more moderate in my politics. I also dislike the way that you assume our friction is all my fault... instead of also challenging yourself. I've already tortured myself sufficiently for becoming exasperated with you the other day. I would apologize, except I feel like no one ever just says what you need to hear.
    Not entirely understanding this but anyway. I'd hope people can tell me what they like and provided its not outright personal or trolling or something similar I'll give them a hearing. You could honestly believe I'm a bigot, I know that I'm not.

    I am also not a "transsexual poster child." I often disagree with people on trans support forums and certainly do not support the more extreme political opinions I see. I also take issue with cultural critics who frame EVERYTHING as some sort of cultural oppression of transsexuals or gays. Despite how I've faced some prejudice in my life, I think they go way too far and need to relax a bit.
    I would then suspect that objectively there's not as much distance between your view and my own but I know you'll not see it that way. I'm sorry to hear you've faced prejudice, its always hard to deal with and an experience far removed from abstract theorising and debate.

    Well, thanks. And when I don't like someone, I try even harder to be fair. I have infracted and moderated people because they broke the FAQ in their communications with you, because that's my job... even if I felt like your comments really deserved the response they got. And after our last exchange, I happened to run across another thread where someone insulted you directly and I made sure a member of the Mod staff dealt with that situation as per the FAQ. I take my job very seriously regardless of how I feel about someone personally, and perhaps even moreso when I dislike someone. I police myself pretty hard.

    Maybe you should take that knowledge into account of how you read me on this topic. It seems rather odd for me to be crazy on one topic and very objectively everywhere else; usually madness/lack of perception will infiltrate someone's entire vision.
    I'd expect nothing less Jenn, like I say you've always been fair in my experience, I dont know who's insulted me lately, there's a couple of people I have on ignore but that's the reason why, they regularly insult me and dont bring much else by way of contribution. If its the thread about telling members what you think of them, yeah, I didnt know what provoked that.

    So far as being crazy, I could say the same about myself, unless you reckon I'm mad on any topic and my opinions on this one have coloured your opinions of all my posts or any topic. I'll think about it if you will.

    You don't have to wear kid gloves for me. I'd actually like to see you cut loose once in awhile. Civility doesn't mean your points are actually correct. I feel like it's just a defense of yours -- "They can't claim I'm being a jerk if I'm nice in terms of social etiquette, even if the inherent content of my post is really offensive." What hogwash. I might be able to perceive the world through Fe and be etiquette minded, and I like people to generally be civil in groups; but my rationality is offended by that sort of thinking, etiquette is NOT a free pass for saying anything that comes to mind. Ideas have inherent implications, and some of those implications can be offensive, and you must be prepared to explain and defend your views and also engage the other viewpoint and see why it might seem offensive.
    Always prepared to. Although, like I say, taking offence is a highly subjective thing, there's occasions people have posted things in the spirituality and philosophy threads for instance on the topic of God or other occasions on more political topics when people have posted stuff which really offended me, although I've known its my sensibilities which have been offended, most of the time other people dont see it that way and its easy enough to gauge.

    I dont believe that eloquence is a free pass to insult people, there have been threads where I've said as much, for instance one in which people where discussing a member who was banned who had expressed racist eugenic views. I've said as much when the topic of free speech comes up, that there are limits.

    However, equally, and I'll not retreat from this, the sort of closing of minds involved in simply making topics anathema is not a good thing. Neither is the sort of articulation and wordy sumersaults required to try and make a point without being simply dismissed as a bigot or hater when that happens. Now I suspect that you'd like me to "cut loose" because perhaps I'd conform closer to some stereotype of a hater or bigot that you got me pigeon holed as, or at least to share the sort of hot headedness or emotiveness that this topic evokes for yourself, sorry but that's not me.

    (posted reply in a couple of parts)

  3. #83
    Senior Member Array Lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009


    (carrying on reply to Jennifer)

    No. I think you are consistently misinterpreting me as to being angry that you would deny people rights I think they should have -- i.e., your stance on specific issues like LGBT rights. That's NOT it.
    I'd just like some clarification on that because I dont believe my position is one of denying rights to anyone. My position is one of defending heteronormativity, its always what its been, I'm skeptical about the good which the homosexual agenda has done for homosexuals or society at large too, I'm skeptical about other claims made for or about homosexuality too but I've never suggested it be policed, prohibited or anything else. Its unfeasible, if it where I would suggest its wrong.

    As I said, I can speak very constructively with friends and family who hold very different opinions from me, and I can actually argue to support their view if I so desired, when I think they are unfairly being criticized by outsiders.

    I don't hate your views, even if I don't like that; I don't like how you arrive at your views, and I don't like how you discuss things (or worse, don't really discuss them). My feeling is that you are merely a list of talking points. That's it. You come across as a list of talking points, and in a discussion all you seem to do to me is find ways to dismiss, trivialize, or sidestep any issue someone has with one of your talking points. There is no actual communication or give and take. I have a very small number of members here on Ignore, and that is the common denominator among all of you. I don't honestly know why you bother to post. You already know what you believe, and from my perspective you use this forum as a soapbox for your views, and then claim you're being silenced or mishandled if someone tries to tell you you're full of it.
    Good to know. Its interesting to see how you frame my participation in the forum, I'm afraid no, I dont intend to use the forum as a soap box, for instance I didnt start this thread and I dont believe that every occasion I can that I should megaphone my views. I participate here because there's a lot of interesting views and I like to hear other peoples views. However discussion does not mean eventual agreement Jenn, neither does disagreement mean dismissing, trivializing or sidestepping, its simply disagreement. You're right enough that I know what I believe, I dont think I'm looking to be silenced or anything like that, I've no persecution complex.

    Here's another issue I have with you: I've been tolerating your posts on this forum for months but lesser confrontations between us have had no effect... so when I finally blow a gasket and yell at you... now it's my fault yet again. As I said, instead of dealing with my content and thinking, "Gee, I used to respect Jen, and she's so level-headed elsewhere, she rarely yells at anyone else on this forum... why on earth would she be upset with me now? I want to understand why she's so upset, maybe it's something important."

    No, instead I get, "she's just trying to denigrate me, she's calling me names, it's not a sound argument, it's an emotionally charged reaction. There, now I can just dismiss her comments without thinking about them, because she's obviously gone off the deep end."

    Dude, stop coddling. Don't downplay my blowout. I had a blowout the other day. I hope my comments today, after I've had time to work through things, sound more civil and measured to you. I'm trying. Partly it was my fault for letting my frustration with you as a member of this forum bottled up for so long... and I had finally just had enough of the way you approach things that I let you have it...even though I was still trying to keep a grip.

    I am going to try and just focus on your process. It's your process that frustrates me. I wish you actually would seem to engage, rather than just soapbox.
    Alright. Just so you know I dont consider a blow out or angry reaction to be a substitute for a point or to validate a point. Which I read as being what you're saying here, correct me if that's wrong. I'm not coddling, I dont know how to react to you pretty much, whatever I say is wrong and you've as much as said that I shouldnt say anything at all. Now I'm not crying foul and suggesting you're out to silence me or anything like that, as you've said already, I'm simply summing up what I see to be your approach. You've managed to "tolerate" me? OK, well done.

    I said earlier that I do not devalue gut reactions. Some people operate from that method. I have experienced rejection from family and friends that have hurt me immensely, yet in my conversations with them, they state it more clearly than you -- "This doesn't have to make sense, I just feel it's wrong and I don't want to accept it or you." I can respect that far more than how you seem to cloak things in fake arguments and act as if you have some sort of rational basis for your belief. As far as I have seen, your line of reasoning is habitually used not to reach conclusions, it is used to justify conclusions after they have already been made.
    OK, that might not mean my conclusions are wrong you know, it may just mean I'm not you.

    I'm simply saying that biologically even a gynocologist can't distinguish a post-op transwoman from a biological woman who has had a hysterectomy. From a medical standpoint, she has to get mammograms. Legally, a transwoman is considered and accepted as a female. Socially, a transwoman has lost male privilege in society and has no more male status whatsoever, she is treated as a woman; and no one who knows her past. In many cases, no one will ever recognize she used to be male. If nothing is ever said about it, she is perceived completely as a woman, and since she identifies completely as a woman... what's the point of making an arbitrary distinction? To me, it's about as relevant as forcing someone who has been divorced and remarried to stamp on her ID that she is on her second marriage -- it might be TRUE but it's IRRELEVANT and it serves no purpose except to enable potential discrimination.

    If a transwoman wants to be "out," she can be. If she doesn't want to be, she shouldn't be forced to be. There is no practical reason for her to have to be habitually outed; and outing her against her will anywhere she has to show an ID is not just irrelevant (since in every aspect of life, she's a woman, aside from a record of birth long in the past) but even dangerous. It just opens her up to potential discrimination. The government doesn't even ask for male/female anymore on job applications, honestly; they are forbidding to discriminate because of gender, and at core this is all this is. It doesn't matter to anyone except those who would discriminate what gender someone is (aside from personal romantic relationships).

    Does it make sense yet how I have arrived at the likelihood that someone who would so strongly try to out transwomen for no practical purpose whatsoever is not acting out of rationality but some sort of discriminatory basis? If there is another reason, please tell me; but the ONLY one I can think of that has validity is in regards to dating... because you don't want to inadvertently get involved with someone you later find out spent the earlier part of her life as a male, and that would bother you only if you still saw her as a male and not as a woman.... OR if you had some sort of religious/ethical value where you believe people cannot or should not undergo this process.

    That's another topic, and in this case I am not discussing personal feelings within personal relationships, we have just been discussing the legality and fairness of codified law (i.e., the sodomy thing and related issues).
    OK. Alright.

    BTW, thank you for asking these questions. I feel like you are engaging me within this segment of the conversation, and if you want to respond to these points, I'll of course listen. I need to know if I've misunderstood the rationality behind your views here, or if what I said above is actually fundamentally correct. Right now, I have trouble seeing it any other way.

    Right now, dude, is the time to explain and support your views if you are able to rationally do so. You have everyone's attention and a chance to get it all on the table.
    I hope you dont believe I'm being disingenous or playing games Jenn because to be honest everything you've said up to now in this post would suggest that's exactly how you see it when I post. Either that or I'm trying to find a platform for bigotry and inviting outbursts to cry foul about.

    So what inconvenience would you suffer by accepting people as they appear to be in society? I'm still not sure on this. Someone who appears and who in all ways seems to you to be a woman or a man -- if you are not involved in an intimate relationship with them, why do you need to know what gender they were born as? It does not affect you at all. If you don't like it, why can't you just ignore them and not associate much with them, or keep things on a professional basis?
    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.

    Or, in regards to the sodomy issue, why do you care what sort of sex people are having in their homes? When het couples have non-missionary sex? Or gay couples have some sort of sex? Why should you care enough, especially from a foreign country, to comment on people over here on what they do in the privacy of their homes? Why do you feel comfortable policing people you will never ever meet and whose lives never will impact yours?
    Why are you typifying my views in that way? Where is there the suggestion of this being my perspective?

    If you check back to my first response in this thread you'll see I said explicitly that this legislative idea was wrong, I responded to your own post not by suggesting that the original policy idea was legitimate but that it wasnt inexplicable as to how it became a political issue.

    To be honest I dont care about other peoples sexual habits, I'll make my position clear again 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.

    I'm still trying to understand what you have at stake. It's not like the law is saying you have to change your own gender, or you have to make transpeople your best friend, or that you have to have a gay marriage or attend a gay marriage -- it just means you have to allow people to have the same rights as you, and you have to allow them to live their lives just as you live your life.
    Jenn what would the rights, the same rights, I enjoy be worth to someone who isnt like me at all? The right for me to matrimony with a woman isnt going to be any use to either a gay man or a gay woman, they wouldnt want to enjoy the kind of relationship involved in matrimony with some of the opposite sex. So you see that idea of equality or fairness as like treatment or sameness simply does not hold in this instance at all.

    This is where it becomes a cultural issue, I dont want to accept the changes in culture which are proposed and insisted upon in order for some individuals to feel accepted and equal in the eyes of others, there are a great many reasons and they can not be reduced to my feelings, a dislike, a prejudice or anything like that.

    Culture does matter. Its very important and not altogether conscious even. Which is why there are not as many deliberate defenders or received cultural norms as there are those attempting to change them and replace them with something new, something they with the best intentions in the world believer are better. Changing the content and meaning of words to something entirely different from what they have time honoured as being, such as marriage, is one example of attempting to change culture, that before you even begin to try and legislate or use state power to enforce that its so.

    This is why I think it matters to me. When it crosses over from people living after their own fashion to attempting to get me, my loved ones, and in certain instance (because I have a social conscience) vulnerable others, to change our received norms and especially when the proposed alternatives are to my mind questionable anyway, then it matters.

    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. 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. 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?

    What is your inconvenience here?
    Please, spell it out for everyone in this thread to see.
    If you're going to fight this hard on this issue, you should be able to explain your reason and be willing to support it.
    Hope I did do, any queries you or anyone else can ask.

    Okay, here it is:

    Lark, I grew up within conservative Christianity. I grew up feeling like I was an abomination and that something was wrong to me. I experienced crushing depression. I tried to accept that transsexuality was sick and I just must be a sexual pervert of sorts.

    I also tried to accept that gay people were just products of bad parenting and confused and broken, and that God wanted everyone to be straight. I did not want gay people telling me what to do. I felt that endorsing same-sex marriage was wrong and just 'enabling them to be unhealthy.' I wrote pieces on it. In discussions, I would side with that perspective. I was always gracious and kind about it, because I really empathized with gay and trans people (for obvious reasons), but at that time in my life, based on what I had seen so far and what I had been challenged with, that was my conclusion.

    As I got outside of that single mindset as an adult and allowed myself finally to entertain new viewpoints and look at things from other perspectives, my views slowly changed. I became horribly confused that I might be wrong on such a large important topic. It took me another decade or more to work through all that. This has been a very long, arduous, painful, shame-wrestling process for me to challenge my original beliefs and allow myself to change in accordance with what I started to see actually being in accordance with experiential reality rather than someone's abstracted and imposed sense of truth. I had cognitive dissonance and I had to resolve it. I had intellectual integrity. Although it cost me my family's respect (they used to ask me to explain their faith to them and no longer trust me), cost me my church family (because I hold views that differ now somewhat politically from theirs), and it cost me having to allow myself to change, I did so because I believe it was right... and not just because I happen to be trans. In every fiber of my mind, I saw finally that I had to accept this, or I would not possess integrity.

    At this point, you seem to be assuming I wholeheartedly support anything that shows up in a gay political agenda. That's not true at all. I don't really agree with LGBT thinking that "queers up the Bible" (for example, insinuating that Jesus was gay, or David and Jonathan) or people that try to say the Bible explicitly endorses transsexuality. The truth is that I do not know the answer to that, and I don't feel like the Bible speaks directly at all about transsexuals. All I know is that I was in terrible bondage, it was destroying me, I was very unhealthy as a person despite my best efforts and open heart, and over time I have found freedom and become healthy. If you would compare who I am today to who I was even ten years ago, it would be ridiculous to suggest I was more healthy then as a human being; just absolutely ridiculous. I also know many same-sex unions that show as much love or more than many het unions, and they raise healthy kids. It offends me when people keep insisting that these acquaintances and friends are "unhealthy" without ever having met them, when I can look at the accusers and view them as even aside from LGBT issues being unhealthy in some ways. Maybe you have dealt with a segment of your population where it seemed unhealthy to you; I cannot speak on your experience; but in mine, I haven't seen the same things.

    So, yes, I do feel that I understand your POV. I used to believe that way myself. Over time, as I allowed myself to actually reason through things rather than just believing what I was told had to be true, I realized in a lot of ways that perspective made no sense anymore.
    OK, thanks for sharing that, I think I can understand you better. This is not my experience or views and I dont believe I'll experience a similar change in perspective (I dont believe I've had a particularly conservative religious upbringing) but anyway.

    See? I must have the baggage -- how predictable.
    What you mean as opposed to being dismissed as a bigot, sophist, soap boxer?

    I think I've just explained some of my baggage above, and if you ask me what my baggage is, I can tell you even more in excruciating detail, until you'd probably get embarrassed and ask me to shut up. I always look at myself first and am far more critical of me, before I'm critical of others. In contrast, I don't think you like doing much self-analysis. I don't see it in your writing, at least. You seem to focus far too much on why everyone else is wrong, as a way to protect yourself against self-analysis. Again, another reason I was very frustrated with you.

    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'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.

    As far as your gay baggage: Your biggest complaint that I can see is that you feel that you are being forced to accept gay politics in your country/life, that they are imposed on you and others, and you hate that. If I misread the countless times you have said this on this forum, please correct me.
    No, you're pretty much right.

    What you then do is project that framework and experience of yours on the culture of a different country, where you do not really understand nor have experienced the same forces at work. You make an assumption that your culture's experience is the same as my culture's. You also don't seem to really appreciate how bad the discrimination was here a few decades back, you don't really seem to understand the nuances. You just say, "Well, they're trying to force approval of same-sex marriages over there, and I hate it when gays push for their rights here because I feel violated -- so it must all be the same!" and then you feel warranted in trying to comment on our situation when I personally feel you don't have any real clue, nor take the time to really understand.
    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?

    Again, the GAY ISSUE is not why I really dislike your posts nowadays. I just loathe your typical soapboxing process. I don't like it when people don't actually engage.

    In the center of this post, you actually did ask questions and engage. I appreciate that. If you would do that more often, I would not have an issue with you.
    OK, I dont believe that, we'll just differ on that point I'm afraid. It would be interesting to see if its a shared thing, I tried to solicit opinions when in the past yourself, and I think it was Jaguar, suggested I was too prolific in my posting, and I was a lot more prolific back then, and the feedback I got was divided to be truthful.

    Again, you did not understand what I meant, even if I tried very hard to clarify it for you. It was not about the fact you disagree with me, nor has it EVER been. It is about how you choose to enter discussions. If you think that I would tell someone to shut up just because I disagree with their opinion, you don't know jack; I usually only want people to shut up, if they consistently like to bullhorn their views without actually engaging in discussion.

    You don't need a forum to do that on. Go write a journal if you don't want to actually engage other human beings.
    Alright, I dont agree with your perspective about how I'm using the forum but that's alright.

  4. #84
    Senior Member Array Lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009


    (final post in reply to jennifer)

    That's pretty much been my focus my whole life, thanks.

    But I'm going to stick up for this forum if I think someone is not playing well with others or just using it as their own soapbox without engaging.

    I hope I sounded more reasonable and measured in this post than I did the other day. I should have PM'ed you far earlier and hashed this out in private, until waiting until it blew up here. I also apologize for a partial derail of this thread, which was specifically focused on Texas sodomy laws and I tossed in a comment about Michigan (?) politics on the trans angle and suddenly it became a point of contention, I should have been more careful.

    I hope you have a better understanding now of why I strongly disagree with you, and I hope you are able to find it within yourself to actually answer the questions I have once again asked you.
    I didnt think you where being particularly unreasonable, you've been consistent in how you've reacted to my entering or creating threads like this and its become something I expect. I was strongly tempted to not bother any kind of response at all (apart from anything else because these humungous posts are bound to get old, they take time and concentration to give them the proper attention they deserve, I've not responded to Oberons yet or read it).

    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).

    If it helps, learn from Peguy. He and I might not come to the same broad conclusions on topics like this, but I listen to him and typically respect his opinion because of how he engages. And I almost always learn something in the process.
    Peguy's a poster who I respect and find I'm in broad agreement with on a lot of topics, I dont know how the style is appreciably that different but I'll give it due consideration.

    You'll likely not see this because you'll have me on ignore. Anyway, thanks for contributing.

  5. #85
    Senior Member Array Lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    In the grand scheme of things, homosexuality is largely irrelevant. In my view, the fact it's been brought to the center of attention is indicative of the wider trend of emphasising the "importance of unimportant things" as Chesterton put it.
    I wouldnt give you the argument that economics, public safety or power/violence are more pressing concerns if that's what you mean, although I've got to say that it registers on my political radar, not all the time and I do think that each side in the debate can over state their respective positions.

    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."
    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.

  6. #86
    Ghost Monkey Soul Array Vizconde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009


    Well at least the gay lobbying may help protect strip clubs/porn not to mention heterosexual sodomy. Apathetic on the marriage issue but otherwise I am on their side on this one. Hmmm (thinking about how odd a coalition of beer drinking strip clubers/porn aficionados and straight laced gay professionals would look)
    I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"

  7. #87


    Can someone clarify what kind of benefits getting married entails in America?

  8. #88
    Vaguely Precise Array Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    5w4 sx


    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    Can someone clarify what kind of benefits getting married entails in America?
    Let the wikipedia speak:

  9. #89
    Order Now! Array pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008


    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?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #90
    Senior Member Array eagleseven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010


    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?
    The people of Austin would likely join in...tis a very alternative-lifestyle-friendly city. The San Francisco of Texas, if you will.

    Hence their slogan "Keep Austin Weird!"

Similar Threads

  1. Marriage or Spiritual Marriage?
    By Winds of Thor in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-19-2012, 01:22 AM
  2. >:} Texas ENFP Here
    By Clownmaster in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-15-2009, 02:55 PM
  3. Texas Hold 'em
    By Grayscale in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 01-11-2009, 04:16 PM
  4. Create your own platform
    By Noel in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-16-2008, 04:05 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