Escape from Elba

National => Gay Rights => Topic started by: Admin on April 16, 2007, 08:58:57 PM



Title: Gay Rights
Post by: Admin on April 16, 2007, 08:58:57 PM
Share your thoughts on gay rights in America.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 23, 2007, 05:56:19 AM
Share your thoughts on gay rights in America.

Washington Post
Saturday, April 21, 2007; A16

GAY AND LESBIAN couples in New Hampshire took a step closer to gaining
official recognition of their relationships when Gov. John Lynch (D) said
this week he would sign legislation to establish civil unions in the Granite
State. "I believe it is a matter of conscience, fairness and preventing
discrimination," he said Thursday. We agree. Other states should follow
suit.

It seems gay marriage and civil unions are taking root in the Northeast.
Massachusetts is the only state in the union to make gay marriage legal.
Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey have instituted civil unions. New
Hampshire will do the same next week if its state Senate follows the House's
approval of legislation that allows homosexual couples "to enter spousal
unions and have the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations as
married couples." Limited domestic partnerships are provided for in Maine,
Hawaii and the District of Columbia. California has domestic partnership
that offers almost all the state-level benefits of marriage.

As we have said, there is no reason homosexual couples in loving and
committed relationships should not be recognized by their states and have
the rights and responsibilities that go with that recognition. Gay marriage
would be optimal. But the adoption of civil unions and domestic partnerships
by some states is a good thing. Good because the experience of those states
will show their residents and others around the country that there is
nothing to fear from granting gay and lesbian couples rights such as
hospital visitation. Good because -- just maybe -- opponents will see that
gay marriage or similar arrangements are no threat to heterosexual marriage.



Title: Novel argument
Post by: BobN on April 25, 2007, 03:20:28 AM
OK, this is a new one:

"Ex-gays" campaigning AGAINST civil rights protections based on sexual orientation. 

"We call upon Congress to promote legislation that affirms authentic equality and protects our religious freedoms." he said, adding that the legislation "says that we, as former homosexuals, are of less value and worth less legal protection now then when we were living as homosexuals."

I guess they figure that now that they're ex-gay, they have no sexual orientation at all...

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/04/042407hate.htm


Title: Re: Novel argument
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 07:10:56 AM
OK, this is a new one:

"Ex-gays" campaigning AGAINST civil rights protections based on sexual orientation. 

"We call upon Congress to promote legislation that affirms authentic equality and protects our religious freedoms." he said, adding that the legislation "says that we, as former homosexuals, are of less value and worth less legal protection now then when we were living as homosexuals."

I guess they figure that now that they're ex-gay, they have no sexual orientation at all...

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/04/042407hate.htm

Unbelievable.


Title: Civil Unions in New Hampshire
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 09:35:18 AM
This is a printer-friendly version of an article from the Concord Monitor at http://www.concordmonitor.com.

Article published Apr 26, 2007
No plebiscite needed: Lynch right on unions
   

Monitor staff
Apr 26, 2007

A
righteous refrain, heard before in debates over school funding, casino gambling and gay marriage, is being sounded once again by opponents of civil unions. "Let the people decide!" cries the chorus of those who want a public vote to decide the issue. But that's not how the system works.

New Hampshire is probably the most representative democracy on Earth. Its 1.3 million residents are represented by a governor, 424 legislators and a five-member Executive Council. It neither is nor should be a referendum state, where laws are routinely adopted or discarded with a popular vote.

In 1999, the state Supreme Court unanimously rejected then-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen's plan to hold a referendum to decide how to raise money to pay for schools. Referendum supporters cited Article 28 of the state constitution, which says no tax should be levied "without the consent of the people."

That sounds straightforward enough. But citizens give that consent, the court ruled, by voting for legislators and granting them "full power and authority (to) make, ordain, and establish, all manner of wholesome and reasonable" laws and tax decisions.

The state constitution balances power among the people, the Legislature and the chief executive. The "consent of the people" phrase, the court said, appears elsewhere in the document. If interpreted broadly, it could be used to submit any law to a public vote. That would not be constitutional, in accord with history and case law, or wise.
Voters, with the concurrence of the governor and two-thirds of the Legislature, have the power to amend the constitution. Other than that, power to make laws resides in elected officials answerable to the people.

About a third of the 400-member House changes every two years. Work hard and stick around long enough, and pretty much anyone can take a seat and push the red and green voting buttons in Representatives Hall to enact or reject laws.

Civil union opponents overstate their case when they claim that the public is on their side. Poll numbers vary and, as always, depend on how the question is phrased. But the state appears to be roughly evenly split on the issue, with women far more likely to support civil unions than men. Most people probably spend little or no time worrying about the issue since it doesn't affect them.

The fate of a bill that will make New Hampshire the fourth state to legalize civil unions now rests with the Senate, which is nearly certain to pass it, and Gov. John Lynch. He was right to let the debate play out before making his position clear. That helped to assure a fairer hearing for opponents of the bill.

Now Lynch has announced that he will sign rather than veto the bill or let it become law without his signature.

"I believe it is a matter of conscience, fairness and preventing discrimination," Lynch said.

His approval will help the state ease into a transition that was right and inevitable. The march toward equal rights for all can be slowed or dealt setbacks, but it can't and shouldn't be stopped.

------ End of article

Monitor editorial
This article is: 0 days old.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 11:24:15 AM
Thankfully it's still 46-4


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 01:30:57 PM
Thankfully it's still 46-4

You are a homophobe or a bigot?


Title: Next time someone tells you that the gay rights movement needs to slow down...
Post by: BobN on April 26, 2007, 02:40:21 PM
Coutesy of Andrew Sullivan:

Ancient text shows 'gay activist'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/6593281.stm

The battle for gay rights may have been fought more than two centuries before the UK legalisation of homosexuality.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 03:37:45 PM
Thankfully it's still 46-4

You are a homophobe or a bigot?



Depends on how you choose to define it.  I am certainly not in favor of gay marriage.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Kam on April 26, 2007, 03:46:18 PM
Thankfully it's still 46-4

You are a homophobe or a bigot?



Depends on how you choose to define it.  I am certainly not in favor of gay marriage.

Whats the big deal with allowing gay people to marry kid?  How does it harm you?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on April 26, 2007, 03:50:10 PM
Kid's afraid it will take the thrill out of gay sex..... 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 03:50:59 PM
So, tell me - what are the benefits?  Mostly a self-esteem (look at how far we have come, what we can accomplish) thing - or more financial?

And are you just taking the other side to promote discourse - or do you feel strongly in favor of what the select states have done?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on April 26, 2007, 03:55:00 PM
So, tell me - what are the benefits?  Mostly a self-esteem (look at how far we have come, what we can accomplish) thing - or more financial?

Federal Benefits include:

  • Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
  • Bereavement Leave
  • Immigration
  • Insurance Breaks
  • Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
  • Sick Leave to Care for Partner
  • Social Security Survivor Benefits
  • Sick Leave to Care for Partner
  • Tax Breaks
  • Veteran’s Discounts
  • Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

State level Benefits include:

  • Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
  • Automatic Inheritance
  • Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
  • Bereavement Leave
  • Burial Determination
  • Child Custody
  • Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
  • Divorce Protections
  • Domestic Violence Protection
  • Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
  • Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
  • Insurance Breaks
  • Joint Adoption and Foster Care
  • Joint Bankruptcy
  • Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
  • Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
  • Certain Property Rights
  • Reduced Rate Memberships
  • Sick Leave to Care for Partner
  • Visitation of Partner’s Children
  • Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
  • Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Kam on April 26, 2007, 04:10:42 PM
Don't let kid off the hook.  He avoided answering my query (lol).

What harm to you?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 04:16:42 PM
Hahah - it's alright, Kam - you already paint me as a homophobe, as someone who gets the willynillys when around a gay person, who wishes them all gone from the face of the earth.

Continue with that.  History has shown teh liberals prefer that notion, not what is actually true.

And to answer your question - it's more for my kids - and thier kids.  I envision straight people being a minority if things are allowed to snowball in the legal system.

To which some of you will say, "so, what's wrong with that?"

Sorry - just not a world I am in favor of at all. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on April 26, 2007, 04:19:00 PM
Quote
I envision straight people being a minority if things are allowed to snowball in the legal system.

What, do you think gay is a communicable disease?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Kam on April 26, 2007, 04:20:30 PM
Oy.. that wasn't me who called you a homophobe.  This time.  I don't recall if i've uttered that on some other forum.  I can see your point from a fiscal standpoint.  More marriages mean more federal aid. More money going to things that don't give you a benefit.  You don't have to be a homophobe to oppose gay marriage.

But it helps!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 04:23:47 PM
Oh, Liq - almost forgot - thanks for the thorugh list of benefits.

Your wisecrack to me means it is open season on these forums as far as insults go?  Just curious.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Kam on April 26, 2007, 04:24:39 PM
Not to offend you kid. I'll leave your children out of it. Your current ones. But since you bring up children, what if hypothetically on the very miniscule chance that you decide to have more kids and this new child someday who you've raised with love just so happens that he or she turns out to be Gay or Lesbian and wishes for the security of marriage.  Would your opinion be open to change THEN?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on April 26, 2007, 04:25:43 PM
I'm perfectly fine with sarcasm.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 04:26:57 PM
Quote
I envision straight people being a minority if things are allowed to snowball in the legal system.

What, do you think gay is a communicable disease?



LOL

Riiiiiiiiiiiight

Nice thought process there, brother.

Let's just say I don't believe it is purely a natural occurrence.

Some feel you are either born gay or not.   I just don't agree.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on April 26, 2007, 04:31:10 PM
So you think that you could be converted to being gay?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 04:35:58 PM
The word "convert" I think is misused here.

Theoretically, I suppose yes - as that is the basis for my beief.  But NO, not in my case.

The youth of America, even some of the responsible adults are another story.   

I think I've said enough.  Not like I am an activist or something - and I (of course, all of us do) have gay friends, cousins, etc - not that this means anything

I'll let the rest of you continue, maybe check in once in a while.

I will leave you with this:

How do you see gay rights advancing if the Democrats take the White House in 2008 - or would that depend on which Democrat?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 05:34:11 PM
The NH Senate passed the civil unions bill today.  The bill will be signed by the governor.  It takes affect Jan 1, 2008.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 01:32:55 PM
Apr 27, 2007

T
o Pastor Greg Lull ("My Turn," Monitor April 23): Your rallying of the troops against civil unions comes across as dropping the bomb on Luxembourg.

You invoke the Christmas tiff in Hillsboro: a local matter, soon resolved by the good citizens, and with no bearing on civil unions. You are alarmed at the words of militant homosexuals from 1969, who were mad as hell and weren't going to take it anymore, as if they speak for your neighbors today who just want the same rights you enjoy.

You are entitled to believe that the Holiness Code of Ancient Israel and the correspondence of Paul of Tarsus are the literal, inerrant Words of God - a belief that not all your fellow citizens, or even all your fellow Christians, share. Your belief does not entitle you to discriminate against those who differ from you. In our great country, not even an alleged majority is empowered to do that.

This issue is not a war, Pastor. You of all people should know the power of words. To equate the desire to visit committed partners on their deathbeds with the carnage in Iraq, or a nuclear strike on the foundations of society, is tasteless hyperbole.

Your side doesn't have to win. Why not use your bully pulpit to work toward a society where all are winners?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 27, 2007, 01:37:13 PM
Is it true friends cannot visit if you are dying?

Is that ICU rules?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 01:41:12 PM
Depends on the hospital.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 27, 2007, 01:52:05 PM
So then I guess the tough choice at times is to stay in the hospital or go home and die, enabling one to be with partner.

Rough.

But I don't see why this has to be tied in with legal marriage.  One may beget the other, but can't there be a lobby for rule changes at hospitals, whereby a partner IS able to spend time with a patient, if it is so deemed prior to the sickness occuring and/or if the family gives blessing?

In other word - maybe there is a middle ground that could satisfy most on both sides.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 02:07:05 PM
So then I guess the tough choice at times is to stay in the hospital or go home and die, enabling one to be with partner.

Rough.

But I don't see why this has to be tied in with legal marriage.  One may beget the other, but can't there be a lobby for rule changes at hospitals, whereby a partner IS able to spend time with a patient, if it is so deemed prior to the sickness occuring and/or if the family gives blessing?

In other word - maybe there is a middle ground that could satisfy most on both sides.

And if it was your life partner of say 35 years, would that work for you?  Would your partner's family have to give you their blessing?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 27, 2007, 02:09:33 PM
Not to offend you kid. I'll leave your children out of it. Your current ones. But since you bring up children, what if hypothetically on the very miniscule chance that you decide to have more kids and this new child someday who you've raised with love just so happens that he or she turns out to be Gay or Lesbian and wishes for the security of marriage.  Would your opinion be open to change THEN?


Of course not

I'd love and support them, but why should that change my mind on gay marriage?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 02:13:38 PM
If it is good for you why isn't it good for your gay neighbors or family members?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 27, 2007, 02:45:54 PM
I've attempted to see the other side.

Maybe now you can as well.

People live under a certain set of guidelines, beliefs.  You should respect this, especially when there is an attempt to listen to your viewpoint.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on April 27, 2007, 03:39:57 PM
kidcarter,

People live under a certain set of guidelines, beliefs.  You should respect this, especially when there is an attempt to listen to your viewpoint.

I am under no obligation whatsoever to be respectful to racists, misogynists, homophobes, or any other advocate of inequality.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 27, 2007, 04:16:45 PM
I have no qualm with homosexuality and believe it to be a part of natural selection and a population check.

I can fully understand why many people reject the notion of gay marriage. It simply offends their religious beliefs. This goes beyond the notion that it's just "icky". Many simply believe that gay marriage dilutes their own sacred vows, and offends their moral principles.

Legalized gay marriage should not lessen their commitment to their own beliefs, but could actually serve to strengthen them.

I also do not feel that because one does not automatically agree with the concept of gay marriage that this automatically makes a person a "homophobe" or anti-gay.

That said, I have met many "heterophobes", some of whom like to use the term "breeder" to describe folks like myself, who have married, stayed with one person throughout many years, and have children. I don't think much of these folks, either, because they suffer from the same opverly judgemental affliction as their most ardent opponents. 

I would not stand in the way of gay marriage law per se, but I am no ardent supporter. I do favor a partnership benefits plan--a legal status that would be available to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

There are many people who would/could benefit from such laws.

But those laws would have to be carefully written to limit the various kinds of fraudulent activity.

If you really want to examine this issue fairly, it is important to consider all sides of it.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Kam on April 27, 2007, 04:37:25 PM
I agree that the words racist bigot and homophobe are thrown around a little too lightly. 

If we ask ourselves "What is the reason for Marriage" and we leave our religious beliefs aside, the answer is plain. 

And NO, the answer is not "To have children"... otherwise sterile folks should be treated like Gays, no?



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 05:32:29 PM
Actually, in the best of worlds every loving committed couple who wanted to make their committment legal before the state would have a civil union.  If they wanted to be married, then they could go to the church of their choice for such a religious ceremony.  There is nothing sanctimous about a legal contract.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 27, 2007, 05:36:57 PM
I agree that the words racist bigot and homophobe are thrown around a little too lightly. 

If we ask ourselves "What is the reason for Marriage" and we leave our religious beliefs aside, the answer is plain. 

And NO, the answer is not "To have children"... otherwise sterile folks should be treated like Gays, no?



I think we have to expect that the answer varies from individual to individual.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 05:44:19 PM
There was a time, not so long ago, and still in some parts of the world, where marriage binds families together for politcal or power reason.  In these matches, the parents arrange the marriage and the young people accept their parent's choice for them.   I know people from India whose marriage was arranged, and last weekend, I met a young man from Ivory Coast whose wife was also selected for him.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Kam on April 27, 2007, 06:13:46 PM
Good points. In this country, in this age, there really aren't any reasons to marry someone you don't want to marry.  People are typically choosing their partners.  You have Black women marrying Asian men.  You have Indian women marrying Black men.  Not for land, or money, or even to build a famliy, but for love. 

I would have much more respect for the opinion of the "sanctity of marriage as the union between one man and one woman" crowd if heterosexual unions weren't failing 51% of the time! 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 06:18:27 PM
It is very true that heteros haven't done such a great job with marriage, expecially in the last 50 years or so.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 28, 2007, 11:42:12 AM
Therefore it is up to the homos to show the way???

Don't know why you'd want membership in a club that does so poorly, then.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Kam on April 28, 2007, 01:05:04 PM
Therefore it is up to the homos to show the way???

Don't know why you'd want membership in a club that does so poorly, then.

Absurd that you would come to that conclusion.  The point was, Marriage is not regarded as sacred and inviolable by heterosexuals.  Therefore, to act like it should be protected and should only be the province of heterosexuals is laughable.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 28, 2007, 01:09:36 PM
Therefore it is up to the homos to show the way???

Don't know why you'd want membership in a club that does so poorly, then.

Absurd that you would come to that conclusion.  The point was, Marriage is not regarded as sacred and inviolable by heterosexuals.  Therefore, to act like it should be protected and should only be the province of heterosexuals is laughable.

That is exactly the point.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 28, 2007, 03:32:51 PM
 
 " The point was, Marriage is not regarded as sacred and inviolable by heterosexuals.  Therefore, to act like it should be protected and should only be the province of heterosexuals is laughable."
 

  What's absurd is that because someone has a different set of beliefs that makes it so that they find gay marriage intolerable, you return the intolerance for those who enter into marriage as heterosexuals.

And your point that "marriage is not regarded as sacred and inviolable by heterosexuals" is a gross generalization akin to the idea that all homosexuals choose to be so and can be cured.

As was clearly stated before, I am not opposed to gay marriage, but I'm not a supporter of it either, and can clearly see where the notion of it would be offensive to many people, and I can clearly see where being denied the status of marriage would be hurtful to many other people. You simply choose to believe that they should not be so offended.

And that is not only absurd, but ignores the political reality that you would need to understand in order to bring about the changes that you want. You seek tolerance, yet offer none in return.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Kam on April 28, 2007, 04:06:26 PM
You mis-read my post.

There is no intolerance coming from me against heterosexual marriage.  I just question the so-called "sanctity" of marriage when divorce rates are over 50%.  If the majority heterosexuals take marriage to be something that is not inviolable, then why draw the line with homosexuals?



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 28, 2007, 04:17:18 PM
You mis-read my post.

There is no intolerance coming from me against heterosexual marriage.  I just question the so-called "sanctity" of marriage when divorce rates are over 50%.  If the majority heterosexuals take marriage to be something that is not inviolable, then why draw the line with homosexuals?



Personally, I don't see that a civil marriage carries any sanctity about it.  It is a legal contract, and that is what gblt people are asking for.  They can already get married in churches.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Ohioprof on April 28, 2007, 10:24:42 PM

What's absurd is that because someone has a different set of beliefs that makes it so that they find gay marriage intolerable, you return the intolerance for those who enter into marriage as heterosexuals.

And your point that "marriage is not regarded as sacred and inviolable by heterosexuals" is a gross generalization akin to the idea that all homosexuals choose to be so and can be cured.

As was clearly stated before, I am not opposed to gay marriage, but I'm not a supporter of it either, and can clearly see where the notion of it would be offensive to many people, and I can clearly see where being denied the status of marriage would be hurtful to many other people. You simply choose to believe that they should not be so offended.

And that is not only absurd, but ignores the political reality that you would need to understand in order to bring about the changes that you want. You seek tolerance, yet offer none in return.

I cannot answer for anyone else, but I do not want "tolerance." I want to treated equally under the law. That means I want the right to marry my partner legally, just as heterosexuals have that right. I do not care if other people are "offended" by this. They can be offended, and that's their business. What I object to is other people acting to deny us equal treatment under the law.

 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 29, 2007, 06:28:53 AM
Our local paper has been filled with  letters from those who would deny us equality.  Now that the civil unions bill has been passed awaiting the governor's signature which he has promised to sign, these same people are plotting ways to rescind the new law.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 29, 2007, 07:10:18 AM
You mis-read my post.

There is no intolerance coming from me against heterosexual marriage.  I just question the so-called "sanctity" of marriage when divorce rates are over 50%.  If the majority heterosexuals take marriage to be something that is not inviolable, then why draw the line with homosexuals?

Many people get married for many reasons, and all for personal reasons. Few, I would think, marry in order to prove the "'sanctity' of marriage" for the rest of the population. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 29, 2007, 07:15:08 AM

I cannot answer for anyone else, but I do not want "tolerance." I want to treated equally under the law. That means I want the right to marry my partner legally, just as heterosexuals have that right. I do not care if other people are "offended" by this. They can be offended, and that's their business. What I object to is other people acting to deny us equal treatment under the law.
[/quote]

I was speaking to the political reality that you need to recognize in order to accomplish your goal, and not advocating for unequal treatment.

 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Ohioprof on April 29, 2007, 07:55:36 AM

I was speaking to the political reality that you need to recognize in order to accomplish your goal, and not advocating for unequal treatment.

 

I think most of us already recognize the political reality. Many of us have been involved in this struggle for many years. In my case, I've been working for equality for gay people for over 30 years. In that time, you get to know the political reality.

I have never heard any gay rights activist call for "intolerance" of heterosexuals or for denying equal rights to heterosexuals. We need heterosexuals as our allies, of course, and we are winning more and more of them. The obstacles we face are not heterosexuals; the obstacles are well-organized political groups and interests that succeed in using popular prejudice against us to win people over to their causes and their broader agenda. It's an old strategy, really, and it works to the extent that people remain prejudiced and can be mobilized to act on behalf of that prejudice. That's why we need to work to unravel the prejudice and to encourage people to rethink beliefs that they have been taught about us that are inaccurate and harmful. In that sense, you are right that we have to change popular attitudes, which is not the same, however, as seeking "tolerance." We need more than "tolerance." We need to challenge popular beliefs about us that are simply wrong. We won't change popular attitudes by accepting popular prejudice. We need to challenge that prejudice, with personal stories and examples as well as reasoned arguments based on credible evidence.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 29, 2007, 02:30:37 PM
Well, good luck with that. This is America, you know.

Seriously, the tone that comes from much of gay America is full of anger and that never tranlates well to the persons who may be undecided about the issue.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Ohioprof on April 29, 2007, 08:26:35 PM
Well, good luck with that. This is America, you know.

Seriously, the tone that comes from much of gay America is full of anger and that never tranlates well to the persons who may be undecided about the issue.



I don't think the tone from much of gay America is full of anger. I think people get angry for obvious reasons at prejudice and discrimination. That's true of anyone who suffers the effects of prejudice and discrimination. But I think most gay people are quite nice most of the time, to just about everyone they encounter.

It appears that people who know that they know gay people tend to be more accepting of equality for gay people than are people who don't know that they know any gay people. Personal knowledge of gay people, and especially friendships with gay people, tend to lessen prejudice against gay people. That further suggests that when people get to know gay people, and know that we are gay, they tend to like us and to be less prejudiced against us. Far from being turned off by our "tone" that you say is "full of anger," people more often tend to rethink their prejudices against us when they get to know us.

One of the most effective strategies we can use is simply to be open with people about who we are and to get to know them.   


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 29, 2007, 08:28:00 PM
I think there is a general sense of anger in America at this time, related to the incompetence and failure of the Bush Administration.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Kam on April 29, 2007, 11:24:26 PM
Well, good luck with that. This is America, you know.

Seriously, the tone that comes from much of gay America is full of anger and that never tranlates well to the persons who may be undecided about the issue.



Sorry you didn't like my tone.  By the way i'm straight America.  My anger is directed against intolerance and people who take offense to other people's "personal decisions".


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 05:50:11 AM
Anger has been a principle of American thinking for some time.  We are a violent society.  We believe in guns and death.  All one has to do is open one's eyes.  What we call entertainment is pure violence.  It is evil and troubling, IMHO.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 30, 2007, 06:54:32 AM
Anger has been a principle of American thinking for some time.  We are a violent society.  We believe in guns and death.  All one has to do is open one's eyes.  What we call entertainment is pure violence.  It is evil and troubling, IMHO.

Take your obvious anger against President Bush and his administration. You don't think the fact that you're so angry, and that you regularly express that anger impairs your own political analysis? You haven't found it to be the case that people begin to turn a deaf ear because you are always harping about Bush the Bad Guy?

That's what I am saying. Of course, on  personal level people present differently.

The fact is that to many people, Gay America (and its principle spokespersons) comes across as angry, militant, and unyielding, and that creates the situation that is ripe for its enemies to inlfuence the undecided on this issue of gay marriage.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Kam on April 30, 2007, 09:01:00 AM
Interesting.  Who would you have be the spokesperson for Gay america?  What image would not ruffle any feathers? 

"The fact is that to many people, Gay America (and its principle spokespersons) comes across as angry, militant, and unyielding"


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 12:38:47 PM
Anger has been a principle of American thinking for some time.  We are a violent society.  We believe in guns and death.  All one has to do is open one's eyes.  What we call entertainment is pure violence.  It is evil and troubling, IMHO.

Take your obvious anger against President Bush and his administration. You don't think the fact that you're so angry, and that you regularly express that anger impairs your own political analysis? You haven't found it to be the case that people begin to turn a deaf ear because you are always harping about Bush the Bad Guy?

That's what I am saying. Of course, on  personal level people present differently.

The fact is that to many people, Gay America (and its principle spokespersons) comes across as angry, militant, and unyielding, and that creates the situation that is ripe for its enemies to inlfuence the undecided on this issue of gay marriage.



Who are those spokes people?  Rosie O'Donnell, and.....


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 30, 2007, 12:58:05 PM

What's absurd is that because someone has a different set of beliefs that makes it so that they find gay marriage intolerable, you return the intolerance for those who enter into marriage as heterosexuals.

And your point that "marriage is not regarded as sacred and inviolable by heterosexuals" is a gross generalization akin to the idea that all homosexuals choose to be so and can be cured.

As was clearly stated before, I am not opposed to gay marriage, but I'm not a supporter of it either, and can clearly see where the notion of it would be offensive to many people, and I can clearly see where being denied the status of marriage would be hurtful to many other people. You simply choose to believe that they should not be so offended.

And that is not only absurd, but ignores the political reality that you would need to understand in order to bring about the changes that you want. You seek tolerance, yet offer none in return.

I cannot answer for anyone else, but I do not want "tolerance." I want to treated equally under the law. That means I want the right to marry my partner legally, just as heterosexuals have that right. I do not care if other people are "offended" by this. They can be offended, and that's their business. What I object to is other people acting to deny us equal treatment under the law.

 


Good luck.

I think moving is your best option.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 02:59:53 PM
Ohioprof is probably fortunate that she doesn't live near assholes like you.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 30, 2007, 04:45:59 PM
Interesting.  Who would you have be the spokesperson for Gay america?  What image would not ruffle any feathers? 

"The fact is that too many people, Gay America (and its principle spokespersons) comes across as angry, militant, and unyielding"

Well, sorry but that's not my problem to solve. I was only pointing out that it is a problem.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 30, 2007, 04:48:52 PM
Ohioprof is probably fortunate that she doesn't live near assholes like you.

Well, hang on. In Ohio? no assholes???? I think what kid was saying really is "You can come to New Jersey and get your little civil union deal.     

Lambertville is lovely in the Spring, and the Shad Festival is a blast!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Kam on April 30, 2007, 04:54:10 PM
Interesting.  Who would you have be the spokesperson for Gay america?  What image would not ruffle any feathers? 

"The fact is that too many people, Gay America (and its principle spokespersons) comes across as angry, militant, and unyielding"

Well, sorry but that's not my problem to solve. I was only pointing out that it is a problem.

It is your problem.  You're the one who thinks gay america is too unyielding and militant.  So who would you rather have deliver the truth to you?  Maybe a pretty blond lesbian would help you 'understand'?

Why do these groups have to cater to you?  What makes you worthy that they should change their ways first before you change yours?  How "militant" is it when straight people gang up and kill gay people?  Where is the gay militancy?  Where is the gay threat?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Ohioprof on April 30, 2007, 05:10:59 PM

Good luck.

I think moving is your best option.

Well, no. The people around me are great. Ohio has some terrible laws, it's true, but the people near where I live are accepting of and supportive of my family. And I would prefer to live here, where I'm employed, and work to make change than to move somewhere else. Ohio has many positive features.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Ohioprof on April 30, 2007, 05:13:08 PM

Well, hang on. In Ohio? no assholes???? I think what kid was saying really is "You can come to New Jersey and get your little civil union deal.     

Lambertville is lovely in the Spring, and the Shad Festival is a blast!

Some of my best friends live in New Jersey! ;) Seriously, I have no doubt that sections of New Jersey are wonderful, but I like where I am living now. And yes, there are indeed "assholes" in Ohio, but that's true of New Jersey also, no doubt. You just do your best to avoid them.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 06:15:49 PM
And in a few months, you can come to NH and get a civil union.   We don't have any asssholes here.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 30, 2007, 10:49:32 PM
Interesting.  Who would you have be the spokesperson for Gay america?  What image would not ruffle any feathers? 

"The fact is that too many people, Gay America (and its principle spokespersons) comes across as angry, militant, and unyielding"

Well, sorry but that's not my problem to solve. I was only pointing out that it is a problem.

It is your problem.  You're the one who thinks gay america is too unyielding and militant.  So who would you rather have deliver the truth to you?  Maybe a pretty blond lesbian would help you 'understand'?

Why do these groups have to cater to you?  What makes you worthy that they should change their ways first before you change yours?  How "militant" is it when straight people gang up and kill gay people?  Where is the gay militancy?  Where is the gay threat?


No, it's not my problem. I'm not the one trying to convince the folks in the mainstream that gay marriage is okay and how it doesn't threaten or diminish their own beliefs and values.

No one has to cater to anyone. But then, if you want to get real change, but only on your own terms, you'll never reach the ultimate goal. 

And lose the tone of anger, we spoke of earlier, kammy.

Or learn to handle valid criticism.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Ohioprof on May 01, 2007, 12:52:44 AM
I'm not the one trying to convince the folks in the mainstream that gay marriage is okay and how it doesn't threaten or diminish their own beliefs and values.


This is an interesting statement. Do we really want to deny a  group of people the equal protection of the laws simply because some people may find their "beliefs and values" threatened? People can believe in and value whatever they want, and that is true whether or not same-sex marriage is legal.
A parallel example might be divorce. There are people who believe that divorce is wrong and who value lifelong marriage. But the fact that their "beliefs and values" may be "threatened" by the presence of divorce has not prompted us as a society to make divorce illegal for everyone. Another example might be drinking. Plenty of people do not believe in drinking, and the legal status of alcohol may "threaten" these people's "beliefs and values." We tried prohibition for that reason, and we repealed that amendment.   

I think the test of whether same-sex marriage should be legal or not is whether it threatens actual families or threatens actual harm to the society in some concrete way. "Threatening" people's "beliefs and values" is not real harm. Plenty of social practices are legal that some people disagree with and find contrary to their values. That is always going to be true, because we have a society in which people hold diverse opinions and have diverse "beliefs and values." I think we should certainly not deny some people equal treatment under the law simply because some other people dislike the idea of treating those people equally. There has to be real harm caused by treating people equally under the law in order for us to make equal treatment illegal.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Ohioprof on May 01, 2007, 01:12:13 AM
I'll put this another way. Do we want a society that mirrors our own "beliefs and values?" If so, how do we reconcile this with the fact that our society has in it people of diverse "beliefs and values?"
To bring the question to the issue at hand in this forum, our society has people who believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, and our society has people who believe that same-sex marriage is right, and our society has gay people who are denied the right to marry their spouse because of the beliefs of those who think that same-sex marriage is wrong. How do we reconcile that? Some people argue that we should simply let the voters vote, in each state, on whether they will allow gay people to marry there. That's where we are now, with these state DOMA laws. But is allowing a majority to dictate whether a minority will be treated equally under the law what we really want? Do we really want a fraction of the people, the majority, to impose their will on everyone else when it comes to the rights that others can exercise? What about the "beliefs and values" of the people who happen to be in the minority?

I think that we should all should hold most dear a belief in and a valuing of equal rights for all and equal treatment under the law for all, regardless of whether we like or agree with the people whom we are treating as equals. In other words, one of our highest common values should be the acceptance of equal treatment under the law and equal rights and freedoms for all, including those with whom we disagree. This is the basis for religious liberty in the United States, and it's something we should be proud of. We allow people to practice their religious beliefs freely, whether we as individuals agree with those beliefs or not. Someone else's religious beliefs may "threaten" my own "beliefs and values," but I still accept the right of other people to practice their beliefs, whether my beliefs and values are threatened or not.

I think this is the standard we should aspire to in all areas of our civic lives. I think that we need to grant equal treatment under the law to all people, and especially to those with whom the majority may disagree. That means that people who oppose same-sex marriage need to respect the right of same-sex couples to marry legally, despite the fact that these opponents disagree with same-sex marriage. People who get married to someone of the same sex need to respect the right of opponents of same-sex marriage to hold their beliefs and to practice their beliefs in their churches and elsewhere, and this may include a rejection of same-sex married couples.

I think that we must not resort to the apparently easy solution of letting the majority deny the equal treatment of the laws to people in the minority because the majority dislikes or disagrees with the minority. I think we need to rise above that as a society and safeguard the principle that all must be treated equally under the law.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 01, 2007, 05:58:32 AM
And in a few months, you can come to NH and get a civil union.   We don't have any asssholes here.
Sununu?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh2 on May 01, 2007, 06:00:58 AM
And in a few months, you can come to NH and get a civil union.   We don't have any asssholes here.
Sununu?

Darn, I forgot him.  And Gregg too.  Well, I suppose we could say, we don't have many in NH.  Thanks for pointing that out.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 06:54:28 AM
I'm not the one trying to convince the folks in the mainstream that gay marriage is okay and how it doesn't threaten or diminish their own beliefs and values.


This is an interesting statement. Do we really want to deny a  group of people the equal protection of the laws simply because some people may find their "beliefs and values" threatened?

I didn't make that argument.

I am just pointing out that your opponents won't be convinced until you begin to accept/understand that their beliefs are not something to be tossed so easily aide, merely to grant you your wishes.

When people feel their values and beliefs are threatened they don't take kindly to anything you have to say and they don't tend to roll over and cede to your desire.

The history of the world tells you that.  Remember Galileo?

I don't think you've really thought this through, politically speaking, if you believe that folks should just give you want you want only on the basis that is the "right thing to do".

.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 07:35:27 AM
Many who oppose equality for glbts base their opposition on their religion and in a secular nation like the US, religion should not be the force that makes or determines ones equality or the rights granted by government, IMHO.  Those who oppose equality on a religious basis tend to express their opposition in angry, nasty, lying ways.  Just read some of Tony Perkins, or James Dobson, or Lou Shelton...and hear what they have to say.  As they rile the troops, they also request contributions to help in their struggle, which in turn only makes them richer.  IMHO, they are no more than snake-oil salesmen whose objective is to feather their own nests.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Ohioprof on May 01, 2007, 08:52:14 AM
I am just pointing out that your opponents won't be convinced until you begin to accept/understand that their beliefs are not something to be tossed so easily aide, merely to grant you your wishes.

When people feel their values and beliefs are threatened they don't take kindly to anything you have to say and they don't tend to roll over and cede to your desire.

The history of the world tells you that.  Remember Galileo?

I don't think you've really thought this through, politically speaking, if you believe that folks should just give you want you want only on the basis that is the "right thing to do".


I think we proponents of equality are well aware that people are resistant to changing their beliefs. Most of us were raised with negative beliefs about "homosexuality," and many of us had to struggle to rethink the beliefs that we were taught from childhood. We know it's a struggle, because we have gone through it ourselves.

I for one have thought through our various strategies and approaches to produce change. I personally have been working in the gay rights struggle for more than 30 years, and in that time, I have spent quite a lot of time reflecting on our strategies. I am always open to new suggestions and to criticisms.

I think the best argument that we can and should make is that legalizing same-sex marriage is the right thing to do. Because it is the right thing to do. It's not right just because we want it; it's right because our nation was founded on the principle of equal treatment for all under the law, and not treating people as equals violates that fundamental American principle. Beyond that, legalizing same-sex marriage will concretely benefit our families and notably our children. Not allowing same-sex couples to marry legally does clear and concrete harm to our children. And harming children harms the society.

So there are really two main arguments for legalizing same-sex marriage, in my view. The first is that it is the right thing to do, consistent with our nation's founding principles. The second is that legalizing same-sex marriage will benefit the society, by helping to protect and benefit children and families. I think these are two very compelling arguments, don't you? People who hold deeply to beliefs in opposition to equality for gay people are not likely to embrace these arguments immediately, but the more they hear these arguments, the more they are likely to think about them. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 09:05:03 AM
I don't really see how its any different than women's suffrage or the Jim Crow laws.  No individual should have more liberties or privileges (government granted anyway) than any other.  To discriminate against them simply because of who they choose to marry is an affront to our Constitution.  The Constitution was written to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". 


Amendment Fourteen:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

States do not have a right to determine which people it will grant rights and privileges.  Selective granting of rights and privileges is unconstitutional and frankly unAmerican.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 09:41:05 AM
It will be interesting to see how this will all play out once it goes to the SCOTUS.  With the recent Bush appointments, it is anybody's guess.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 09:48:10 AM
I'm not sure that SCOTUS would choose to hear it if it ever came to that.  Defense of Marriage Acts are in violation of the Constitution.  And if a DOMA amendment was added to the Constitution -- unlikely with Democrats in control -- it would be in direct contradiction to the Constitution itself.  As a result, SCOTUS would probably choose to turn a blind eye rather than hear any case and have to make a ruling on the matter.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 10:02:24 AM
I'm not sure that SCOTUS would choose to hear it if it ever came to that.  Defense of Marriage Acts are in violation of the Constitution.  And if a DOMA amendment was added to the Constitution -- unlikely with Democrats in control -- it would be in direct contradiction to the Constitution itself.  As a result, SCOTUS would probably choose to turn a blind eye rather than hear any case and have to make a ruling on the matter.

That could be; perhaps a more enlightened Congress will vote to rescind DOMA, but I'm not going to hold my breath.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 11:15:21 AM
That means that people who oppose same-sex marriage need to respect the right of same-sex couples to marry legally, despite the fact that these opponents disagree with same-sex marriage.

No.  Not at all.  I don't feel the need to respect a proposed change in law that would adversely affect the quality of life for me and my children and their children.

BTW - in saying this, I am also currently living with it, as I am in New Jersey.  So flexibility (grin and bear it) is often necessary.  What I have to stand on here is the difference between civil union and MARRIAGE.  I hope I always have this and my kids and theirs do as well, no matter how many states (46-4 division, 25-25 or 4-46) decide civil union and the benefits that go with it is proper.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 11:29:45 AM
That means that people who oppose same-sex marriage need to respect the right of same-sex couples to marry legally, despite the fact that these opponents disagree with same-sex marriage.

No.  Not at all.  I don't feel the need to respect a proposed change in law that would adversely affect the quality of life for me and my children and their children.

BTW - in saying this, I am also currently living with it, as I am in New Jersey.  So flexibility (grin and bear it) is often necessary.  What I have to stand on here is the difference between civil union and MARRIAGE.  I hope I always have this and my kids and theirs do as well, no matter how many states (46-4 division, 25-25 or 4-46) decide civil union and the benefits that go with it is proper.

Please do explain to the forum how your marriage and those of your children are affected by the fact that gay people in your state can also have the same CIVIL rights that you have?  Inquiring people want to know.....


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 11:53:34 AM
Most of your brethren DO know.  They see the other side, even if disagreeing with it.

SANCTITY of marriage between man and woman. 

Yeah, I believe in that.

BTW - I am currently at a religious crossroads, being an Episcopal, having my kids in that church.  Not actively seeking alternatives just yet, but sure closely monitoring the situation.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 12:21:30 PM
Most of your brethren DO know.  They see the other side, even if disagreeing with it.

SANCTITY of marriage between man and woman. 

Yeah, I believe in that.

BTW - I am currently at a religious crossroads, being an Episcopal, having my kids in that church.  Not actively seeking alternatives just yet, but sure closely monitoring the situation.

How can there be anything sanctimonous about a civil contract?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 01, 2007, 01:11:15 PM
Most of your brethren DO know.  They see the other side, even if disagreeing with it.

SANCTITY of marriage between man and woman. 

Yeah, I believe in that.

BTW - I am currently at a religious crossroads, being an Episcopal, having my kids in that church.  Not actively seeking alternatives just yet, but sure closely monitoring the situation.
No one is advocating forcing any church to recognize the sanctity of same sex marriage.  Remember, that for many people, marriage has two aspects: the spiritual ramifications of the commitment and the legal ones.  The state has no business imposing itself into the spiritual ramifications of that commitment, and the church's view of marriage should not dictate whether the state feels that recognizing the relationship is proper.

As a Catholic. I can agree with my church that homosexuality is a sin, as is my marriage to a divorced Catholic - the Church considers it adultry.  But whether the Church condemns a relationship as "sinful" does not mean that the state should not respect it if it is in the best interest of the ordered running of the state to do so.  The Church should not tell the state that my wife and I cannot be married, and the state cannot tell the Church that it must sanctify our marriage.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on May 01, 2007, 01:29:47 PM
Quote
if it is in the best interest of the ordered running of the state to do so

so, steve, tell me what the interest is of the state that the state serves, by recognizing an equal right of same-sex couples to marry as opposed to their achieving achieve the same state-sanctioned benefits via civil unions.  is making gays and lesbians feel good about themselves an interest of the state?  if so, i'd like the state to figure out how to make me feel better about whatever isn't working great in my life.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 01:33:48 PM
"........in the best interest in the ordered running of the state"

Interesting wording.

Surely it won't remain 46-4 on civil union.  Accepting civil union, working for more states to approve is one thing. There is a further aim which becomes much more problematic, more testy an issue.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 01:34:40 PM
Quote
if it is in the best interest of the ordered running of the state to do so

so, steve, tell me what the interest is of the state that the state serves, by recognizing an equal right of same-sex couples to marry as opposed to their achieving achieve the same state-sanctioned benefits via civil unions.  is making gays and lesbians feel good about themselves an interest of the state?  if so, i'd like the state to figure out how to make me feel better about whatever isn't working great in my life.

Not Steve.  What is your problem with the state granted two non-relate people the rights of CIVIL marriage, without looking up their skirts to see what kind of sex organs they have?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on May 01, 2007, 01:47:14 PM
my problem is that the definition of marriage for millennia of human history refers to a committed relationship between people of opposite sexes, and there is no reason to arbitrarily modify the legal understanding of the term to satisfy a political interest of the early 21st century moment in time.  how would you feel if the anti-abortionists were lobbying for substituting 'pre-birth murder ' for 'abortion?'


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Ohioprof on May 01, 2007, 01:57:25 PM
Quote
if it is in the best interest of the ordered running of the state to do so

so, steve, tell me what the interest is of the state that the state serves, by recognizing an equal right of same-sex couples to marry as opposed to their achieving achieve the same state-sanctioned benefits via civil unions.  is making gays and lesbians feel good about themselves an interest of the state?  if so, i'd like the state to figure out how to make me feel better about whatever isn't working great in my life.

We can debate whether creating a separate category of civil unions is "separate but equal" all over again. It sounds like it to me. It appears the purpose of separate civil unions laws for gay people is to make some heterosexuals maintain their feeling of superiority over gay people. Is making some heterosexuals feel superior to gay people an interest of the state?

But let's assume that it would be fine to create a version of "separate but equal" to put gay people into a separate institution from heterosexuals. Are civil unions equal to marriage? I will argue that they are not, primarily because they are not portable to other countries or to most states. Most civil governments do not recognize "civil unions," whereas they do recognize marriages from other countries or states. Our own federal government does not recognize civil unions, and our federal government extends pretty significant benefits to married couples. 

Now, you can argue that same-sex marriages are not portable either, especially with DOMA laws, and with the federal DOMA law, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages. That's true. However, I think we are likely, eventually, to have same-sex marriages recognized simply as marriages by the federal government and then by all that states. I do not think it is likely that the federal government will ever extend the benefits of marriage to civil unions, and it's not likely that all states will do so either.

Btw, it's been our fight for full marriage rights that has opened the door to civil unions. By fighting for full equality, we have started to achieve something that is a step closer to equality but is still not there.

Are you afraid of treating gay people as equals under the law? If so, why?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 01, 2007, 01:59:00 PM
Quote
is making gays and lesbians feel good about themselves an interest of the state?
Not to the extent that I would advocate any legislation to the point.  But there are legal aspects of marriage that might be in the best interest of the state to secure for committed couples, regardless of genitalia.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 02:23:23 PM
Quote
if it is in the best interest of the ordered running of the state to do so

so, steve, tell me what the interest is of the state that the state serves, by recognizing an equal right of same-sex couples to marry as opposed to their achieving achieve the same state-sanctioned benefits via civil unions.  is making gays and lesbians feel good about themselves an interest of the state?  if so, i'd like the state to figure out how to make me feel better about whatever isn't working great in my life.

We can debate whether creating a separate category of civil unions is "separate but equal" all over again. It sounds like it to me. It appears the purpose of separate civil unions laws for gay people is to make some heterosexuals maintain their feeling of superiority over gay people. Is making some heterosexuals feel superior to gay people an interest of the state?

But let's assume that it would be fine to create a version of "separate but equal" to put gay people into a separate institution from heterosexuals. Are civil unions equal to marriage? I will argue that they are not, primarily because they are not portable to other countries or to most states. Most civil governments do not recognize "civil unions," whereas they do recognize marriages from other countries or states. Our own federal government does not recognize civil unions, and our federal government extends pretty significant benefits to married couples. 

Now, you can argue that same-sex marriages are not portable either, especially with DOMA laws, and with the federal DOMA law, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages. That's true. However, I think we are likely, eventually, to have same-sex marriages recognized simply as marriages by the federal government and then by all that states. I do not think it is likely that the federal government will ever extend the benefits of marriage to civil unions, and it's not likely that all states will do so either.

Btw, it's been our fight for full marriage rights that has opened the door to civil unions. By fighting for full equality, we have started to achieve something that is a step closer to equality but is still not there.

Are you afraid of treating gay people as equals under the law? If so, why?

YES - and the fight in Canada, led by the MCC, resulted in LEGAL GAY MARRIAGE

So by all means - keep fighting, if that is what you wish.  But show no malice to the other side.

Peace to you, Ohio.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 02:37:20 PM
Malice to the other side is in order when they use their religion to bash glbt people and try to deny them equality.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 04:03:22 PM
Malice to the other side is in order when they use their religion to bash glbt people and try to deny them equality.

So that would be like: "Peace--by any means necessary."

Including, war, of course.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Ohioprof on May 01, 2007, 04:23:05 PM

YES - and the fight in Canada, led by the MCC, resulted in LEGAL GAY MARRIAGE

So by all means - keep fighting, if that is what you wish.  But show no malice to the other side.

Peace to you, Ohio.

I try not to show malice toward anyone, though I'm human, and I doubt I always succeed. Peace to you also.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 04:38:03 PM
Malice to the other side is in order when they use their religion to bash glbt people and try to deny them equality.

So that would be like: "Peace--by any means necessary."

Including, war, of course.

There was a time....but we don't need to go there now.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 06:37:31 PM
The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Thursday on legislation that would add crimes based on sexuality to the federal hate crime law.

The bill passed its final committee hurdle last week.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, also known as the Matthew Shepard Act, would allow the Department of Justice to assist local authorities in investigating and prosecuting cases in which violence occurs.

FBI statistics show that one in six hate crimes is motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 02, 2007, 10:32:06 AM
FBI statistics show that one in six hate crimes is motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation.

NOT TRUE.

The stat you have inflated percentage-wise also includes crimes against heterosexuals.

 Here's the FACTS:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 02, 2007, 11:13:46 AM
The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Thursday on legislation that would add crimes based on sexuality to the federal hate crime law.

The bill passed its final committee hurdle last week.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, also known as the Matthew Shepard Act, would allow the Department of Justice to assist local authorities in investigating and prosecuting cases in which violence occurs.

FBI statistics show that one in six hate crimes is motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation.

Should pass glowingly.  A very good bill.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 02, 2007, 11:32:40 AM
Personally, I have trouble with all "hate crime" legislation, on the grounds that we should be penalizing what you do rather than what you think, other than the typical mens rea aspect of crimes.  To the extent you impose a greater penalty on a person because of the motive behind the crime, it is the thought that you are penalizing and I have trouble with that.

Although I certainly understand the whys and wherefores behind that kind of law.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 02, 2007, 03:57:45 PM
Personally, I have trouble with all "hate crime" legislation, on the grounds that we should be penalizing what you do rather than what you think, other than the typical mens rea aspect of crimes.  To the extent you impose a greater penalty on a person because of the motive behind the crime, it is the thought that you are penalizing and I have trouble with that.

Although I certainly understand the whys and wherefores behind that kind of law.

Hate crimes are based on what you do, not what you think.  When someone commits a hate crime his purpose is to send a message to a community.  It's really just another form of terrorism.  Say, a member of the KKK burns a cross in front of the home of a Roman Catholic (like they used to do), the crime isn't against just that one person or family, it is a message to all Roman Catholics, that you need to be afraid.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 02, 2007, 04:01:58 PM
FBI statistics show that one in six hate crimes is motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation.

NOT TRUE.

The stat you have inflated percentage-wise also includes crimes against heterosexuals.

 Here's the FACTS:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm




14.0 percent were motivated by sexual-orientation bias.
  From this url.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 02, 2007, 04:05:16 PM
FBI statistics show that one in six hate crimes is motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation.

NOT TRUE.

The stat you have inflated percentage-wise also includes crimes against heterosexuals.

 Here's the FACTS:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm
14% is one in seven, not one in six.



14.0 percent were motivated by sexual-orientation bias.
  From this url.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 02, 2007, 04:22:06 PM
I'm not a big fan of 'hate crime' legislaiton myself. 
Personally, I have trouble with all "hate crime" legislation, on the grounds that we should be penalizing what you do rather than what you think, other than the typical mens rea aspect of crimes.  To the extent you impose a greater penalty on a person because of the motive behind the crime, it is the thought that you are penalizing and I have trouble with that.

Although I certainly understand the whys and wherefores behind that kind of law.

I have to agree.   Whereas establishing a 'hate crime' can be used to establish a motive and therefore the degree of crime that a party is guilty, I'm not so sure it should be an additional classification of crime in and of itself.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 02, 2007, 08:24:51 PM
I'm not a big fan of 'hate crime' legislaiton myself. 
Personally, I have trouble with all "hate crime" legislation, on the grounds that we should be penalizing what you do rather than what you think, other than the typical mens rea aspect of crimes.  To the extent you impose a greater penalty on a person because of the motive behind the crime, it is the thought that you are penalizing and I have trouble with that.

Although I certainly understand the whys and wherefores behind that kind of law.

I have to agree.   Whereas establishing a 'hate crime' can be used to establish a motive and therefore the degree of crime that a party is guilty, I'm not so sure it should be an additional classification of crime in and of itself.

If proven that the crime was committed to express hate...isn't the penality greater?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 02, 2007, 10:19:52 PM
Quote
If proven that the crime was committed to express hate...isn't the penality greater?

I don't think it should be. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 05:58:36 AM
Quote
If proven that the crime was committed to express hate...isn't the penality greater?

I don't think it should be. 

Why?  The crime in essence was against not just the one victim but against many victims, as I understand the term "hate crimes."


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 03, 2007, 01:09:59 PM
FBI statistics show that one in six hate crimes is motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation.

NOT TRUE.

The stat you have inflated percentage-wise also includes crimes against heterosexuals.

 Here's the FACTS:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm
14% is one in seven, not one in six.



14.0 percent were motivated by sexual-orientation bias.
  From this url.

And AGAIN, the motivation by sexual-orientation bias crime included bias towards heterosexuals. So when you say that one in 6 hate crimes is based on sexual-orientation, and you get the numbers wrong, and you imply by the context of the original post that there's a lot of crime against gays for being gay, it's simply NOT TRUE!!!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 03, 2007, 01:14:17 PM
-   I am currently at a religious crossroads, being an Episcopal, having my kids in that church.  Not actively seeking alternatives just yet, but sure closely monitoring the situation.

Well, my fellow New Jerseyean, say "hello" to Pastor McGreevey


http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5939


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 01:17:07 PM
Bias-motivated violent crime affects an entire community.A hate crime occurs when the perpetrator of the crime intentionally selects the victim because of who the victim is. While violent hate crimes are a widespread and serious problem in our nation, it is not the frequency or number of violent hate crimes alone that distinguishes these acts of violence from other types of crime. A random act of violence resulting in injury or even death is a tragic event that devastates the lives of the victim and their family, but the intentional selection and beating or murder of an individual because of who they are terrorizes an entire community and sometimes the nation. For example, a 2006 Harris Interactive poll found that 64 percent of gays and lesbians are concerned about being the victim of a bias-motivated crime.

Bias-motivated violent crime is a pervasive community problem.Evidence indicates that hate crimes are underreported; however, statistics show that since 1991 more than 100,000 hate crime offenses have been reported to the FBI, with 7,163 reported in 2005, the FBI’s most recent reporting period.

Violent crimes based on race-related bias were by far the most common, representing 54.7 percent of all offenses for 2005. Violent crimes based on religion represented 17.1 percent, and ethnicity/national origin, 13.2 percent. Violent crimes based on sexual orientation constituted 14.2 percent of all hate crimes in 2005, with 1,017 reported for the year. While the FBI doesn’t specifically collect data on hate crimes based on gender identity we know that all too often the transgender community is affected by some of the most horrific hate violence. The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, a non-profit organization that tracks bias incidents against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, reported 1,985 incidents for 2005 from only 13 jurisdictions, compared to the 12,417 agencies reporting to the FBI in 2005.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 03, 2007, 01:38:53 PM
Again, I understand the whys and wherefores - that phrase is straight from the Department of Redundency Department now that I think about it - behind having hate crime legislation.  But you are still adding a penalty upon the same act based solely upon the admittedly repugnant thoughts of the perpetrator.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 01:43:12 PM
Again, I understand the whys and wherefores - that phrase is straight from the Department of Redundency Department now that I think about it - behind having hate crime legislation.  But you are still adding a penalty upon the same act based solely upon the admittedly repugnant thoughts of the perpetrator.

Well, the thoughts that lead to actions.  If there is no crime, there is no punishment.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 03, 2007, 01:46:47 PM
Right - the ACTIONS get punished, not the thoughts behind them.  Beating someone is a crime, regardless of motive, and that act is prosecuted.  Hate crimes punish MOTIVE which, even though repugnant, is protected.  You are prosecuted for your acts, not your motives.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 01:49:29 PM
My understanding of a hate crime is one which sends a message to a community through an action taken against an individual, and is therefore can be punished not only for the harm done to the individual, but also for the possible harm done to a particular community.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 01:54:21 PM
How interesting is this. There already is a thought crimes law on the books - it protects members of Congress from you and me even threatening them. You go to jail for even saying something threatening to a member of Congress. Yet many GOP members of Congress are opposed to hate crimes laws covering ACTUAL VIOLENCE because they call those "special rights."

The only special rights I'm seeing is that some members of Congress are okay with actual thought crimes legislation protecting them, but they're not okay with violent crime legislation protecting me.

Typical Republican hypocrisy.

The law in question criminalizes threats to assault a member of Congress, and can be found in 18 U.S.C. SS 115(a)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. SS 115(b)(4). Yes, it's not only a "worse" crime if a member of Congress is punched than if your mom is punched, but it's actually a worse crime if a member of Congress is simply threatened with words than if your mom is actually punched in the face.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 03, 2007, 01:55:48 PM
Right - the ACTIONS get punished, not the thoughts behind them.  Beating someone is a crime, regardless of motive, and that act is prosecuted.  Hate crimes punish MOTIVE which, even though repugnant, is protected.  You are prosecuted for your acts, not your motives.

Well, I guess then you want equal punishment for premeditated  murder vs manslsaughter.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 02:00:36 PM
 237-180 Hate Crime bill passes US House 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 03, 2007, 02:06:53 PM
http://forums.escapefromelba.com/index.php?action=post;quote=2774;topic=49.105;num_replies=116;sesc=6713bf20403ec93954e3a7f291bc2752

whiskey, if you would be so kind...can you explain how or if motive is used as part of murder cases, and what the difference is between this and the concept behind hate-crime legislation?

I'm not taking sides, just trying to understand it.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 03:08:18 PM
I guess Bush plans to veto the Hate Crimes Bill if it comes to him.  He's got to keep his rightwing ladies at CWA happy.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 03:14:02 PM
Quote
Well, I guess then you want equal punishment for premeditated  murder vs manslsaughter.

I don't think that is what Wisk is saying.  I think he is questioning why someone should be punished more severely for a pre-meditated murder that is labeled as a hate crime than a pre-meditated murder that  isn't labeled a hate crime.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 03:16:46 PM
Quote
Well, I guess then you want equal punishment for premeditated  murder vs manslsaughter.

I don't think that is what Wisk is saying.  I think he is questioning why someone should be punished more severely for a pre-meditated murder that is labeled as a hate crime than a pre-meditated murder that  isn't labeled a hate crime.



I'm probably wrong, but I still believe it has something to do with the message to the community of the hate crime.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 03, 2007, 03:42:03 PM
So, the message to the community that crime against another human being isn't enough?

If I smack you across the face, it's wrong, isn't it?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 03:58:55 PM
So, the message to the community that crime against another human being isn't enough?

If I smack you across the face, it's wrong, isn't it?

If you burn down my house because I'm black, it says one thing.  If you burn down five black churches it says another.  Both acts are hate crimes, but IMHO, burning the churches says more to a community, than burning the house of one black man. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on May 03, 2007, 04:12:41 PM
ahdunno, if someone paints a swatika on the side of my house--as once happened; was one of my wife's students--seems to me the fact that it was a swastika makes it different than just a little vandalism misdemeanor for defacing someone's property.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 03, 2007, 04:15:45 PM
So, we're punishing people for crime and ignorance?

After all, if you believe that at the root of the problem of hate is a fundamental lack of understanding of what it means to be a Jew, or what it means to be gay,  then having failed to properly educate people should not be the burden of the uneducated, should it?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 03, 2007, 04:59:02 PM
I think treating someone like scum then killing them - that bringing a tougher penalty - is a great leap for this country.  A leap to promoting common decency.  Not unlike past civil rights strides we took years ago.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on May 03, 2007, 05:12:16 PM
that's if you believe that ignorance is at the root of all bigotry.  but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a highly educated person hates just because of that person's particular genetics and acculturation.  i think you know without having gone to law school that ignorance of the law, for example, doesn't get you an acquittal.  you never heard johnny whatsisname say if the hat don't fit, you must acquit.  


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on May 03, 2007, 05:13:29 PM
that was a response to mr. ugly.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 06:25:28 PM
I think treating someone like scum then killing them - that bringing a tougher penalty - is a great leap for this country.  A leap to promoting common decency.  Not unlike past civil rights strides we took years ago.


Hate crimes laws have been part of the code since the 1960s.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 03, 2007, 09:09:35 PM
Garrick,

After all, if you believe that at the root of the problem of hate is a fundamental lack of understanding of what it means to be a Jew, or what it means to be gay,  then having failed to properly educate people should not be the burden of the uneducated, should it?

It's not punishing them for their stupidity.  Rather, it's punishing them for their WILLFUL stupidity.
If in the 21st Century folks have not learned that it is wrong ti single people out for crime because of who or what they are, then the law must teach a lesson - a very hard and belated lesson - but a lesson nonetheless.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 04, 2007, 03:15:55 AM
I support hate crime legislation because I think it addresses a distinct class of criminal conduct, serves as a deterrent, and also (to some extent) educates the public about what is unacceptable to us as a society.

I think if we look back and try to imagine what the last 50 years in the United States would have been like without these laws, and what public values and attitudes would now be instead, the landscape would be quite different.

IOW, I think we are better off, and significantly, as a result.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 04, 2007, 05:57:48 AM
If I smack you across the face, it's wrong, isn't it?

If Joe gets into a barroom brawl and punches someone (trying to stay out of the *action*) in the face, does he deserve as stiff a sentence as Jack - who with Bernard - single out a man they know to be gay, walking down the street (when they know he will be there), stop him, shove him around a bit, calling him names because he is gay - and then, one of them punches him in the face?

In theory, a punch is a punch -- but in the real world, circumstances and intent paint a very different picture.  And it is also unfair to the person whose actions were less malice and intentful - when we equate them as, say, in the example above.

We don't punish people for speech (unless they're making a threat), but that speech combined with other actions creates a whole other behavior in and of itself.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 04, 2007, 06:00:43 AM
And in Europe, I understand, they even punish for speech because of the history there.

The history is important - why we pass these laws and at the time that we pass them.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 04, 2007, 06:05:22 AM
Not a numbers expert here - but I'd also like to suggest the possibility that the statistic is quite high, given the fact (as I understand, but stand to be corrected) that only about 10% of the population is gay. 

But of course, any number is too high.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 06:18:23 AM
I believe that in Canada they have passed laws about hate speech.  The rightwing christers oppose this because hate speech is part of their program.  Bush will veto the bill because he supports hate speech as well, although this bill has no sanctions agains hate speech.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 06:23:32 AM
Right - the ACTIONS get punished, not the thoughts behind them.  Beating someone is a crime, regardless of motive, and that act is prosecuted.  Hate crimes punish MOTIVE which, even though repugnant, is protected.  You are prosecuted for your acts, not your motives.

Well, I guess then you want equal punishment for premeditated  murder vs manslsaughter.
Well, only if you do not understand what I've been saying.  Intent is not motive.  Intent is the voluntary decision to perfrom an act, not the reason why you made that decision.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 04, 2007, 08:55:37 AM
I believe that in Canada they have passed laws about hate speech.  The rightwing christers oppose this because hate speech is part of their program.  Bush will veto the bill because he supports hate speech as well, although this bill has no sanctions agains hate speech.

Without knowing all the details, I think the bill sounds like it would help the gay community and change consciousness about these crimes in the community at large. 

In some part of American consciousness, we find it reprehensible for people to be attacked or targeted for crimes because of their race or religion, but perhaps many do not see that it is the same ugly thing to attack or target someone because of their sexual orientation.

Passing these laws, IMO, helps more people comes to terms with those types of actions – see them for what they are.  Federal involvement carries a serious message, that this is bigger time, and the fed involvement also helps to track down persons who may be indirectly involved in further planned acts through hate groups – all of these further enhancing the deterrence effect.

But I think our national consciousness changes as a result of these bills passing.

Surprising to hear about Canada.  But then again, they never were the cowboys we are either.  Personally, I wouldn’t pass hate speech laws unless they were related to threatening others’ safety.  Though I am sometimes tempted to support such measures based on what I read people express over the internet.  But I also see a lot important first amendment issues there, and, I am sometimes optimistic that people (not necessarily myself though) can reach these more lost causes;  also, I think the Europeans are starting to get some backlash on theirs all these years later.  Time shall tell, I suppose.

Yes, certainly Bush shall veto the bill.  He wouldn't want to ruin his record as the worst president this nation has ever had.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 04, 2007, 10:29:05 AM
Garrick,

After all, if you believe that at the root of the problem of hate is a fundamental lack of understanding of what it means to be a Jew, or what it means to be gay,  then having failed to properly educate people should not be the burden of the uneducated, should it?

It's not punishing them for their stupidity.  Rather, it's punishing them for their WILLFUL stupidity.
If in the 21st Century folks have not learned that it is wrong ti single people out for crime because of who or what they are, then the law must teach a lesson - a very hard and belated lesson - but a lesson nonetheless.

I didn't say make the argument that they were being punished for being stupid. I referenced "ignorance" as a cause for actions that are judged as hate. You can be educated and still  ignorant of another's culture/beliefs/and what they find truly offensive. You may in fact be mad at someone who is Jewish, paint a swatiska on the side of the house, and still be ignorant regarding the harshness of such a message to a Jew. And that doesn't make you stupid. Stupid would be painting it while your friends film it, then posting it on youtube.

 Example--was Don Imus "ignorant" or "stupid"?

In the end, a "hate crime" is a layer of subjectivity placed over the crime itself. It is that subjectivity as applied by the government that we should be concerned with.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 04, 2007, 10:32:46 AM
In some part of American consciousness, we find it reprehensible for people to be attacked or targeted for crimes because of their race or religion, but perhaps many do not see that it is the same ugly thing to attack or target someone because of their sexual orientation.

Can you support this blanket statement with any evidence? Or are you asking a question?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 04, 2007, 11:11:08 AM
"Is Don Imus ignorant or stupid?"

Neither

OVER THE LINE is what he was.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 01:07:25 PM
"Is Don Imus ignorant or stupid?"

Neither

OVER THE LINE is what he was.

And careless.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 02:29:22 PM
   Hate crimes have no place in America, no place in a nation where we pledge every morning 'with liberty and justice for all.'"
--House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as quoted in The Washington Post


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 04, 2007, 03:41:38 PM
"Is Don Imus ignorant or stupid?"

Neither

OVER THE LINE is what he was.

Well, was he "OVER THE LINE" out of ignorance or stupidity?  Or was it arrogance?  I will say that one tactical error he made in the post-ho-comment media frenzy was going on Sharpton's show. By doing so he legitimzed his critics.

I can also say that Boomer Esiason and the right-wing cheerlead Monica Crowley aren't going to recoup that morning lost ad revenue.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 04, 2007, 03:47:29 PM
In some part of American consciousness, we find it reprehensible for people to be attacked or targeted for crimes because of their race or religion, but perhaps many do not see that it is the same ugly thing to attack or target someone because of their sexual orientation.

Can you support this blanket statement with any evidence? Or are you asking a question?

I am expressing an opinion, not what I assert is a fact.  Isn't that clear?

And no, I was not asking a question.  There was not a question mark, was there?

Nor did I mean to imply that was the case for any individual here.

But perhaps people, and perhaps yourself, if you feel touchy about it, and do not support the bill - should ask that question of themselves -- do *you* think this is any different than hate crime bills targeting crimes, for example, those kind reprensible acts towards Jews or blacks?  Did/do you think those laws were necessary, and those acts deserving of the stronger measures, but not crimes directed at people because of sexual orientation?



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 04, 2007, 04:49:37 PM
In some part of American consciousness, we find it reprehensible for people to be attacked or targeted for crimes because of their race or religion, but perhaps many do not see that it is the same ugly thing to attack or target someone because of their sexual orientation.

Can you support this blanket statement with any evidence? Or are you asking a question?

I am expressing an opinion, not what I assert is a fact.  Isn't that clear?

And no, I was not asking a question.  There was not a question mark, was there?

Nor did I mean to imply that was the case for any individual here.

But perhaps people, and perhaps yourself, if you feel touchy about it, and do not support the bill - should ask that question of themselves -- do *you* think this is any different than hate crime bills targeting crimes, for example, those kind reprensible acts towards Jews or blacks?  Did/do you think those laws were necessary, and those acts deserving of the stronger measures, but not crimes directed at people because of sexual orientation?



BTW, Mr. Utley, such a double standard in American consciousness is evidenced by the double-standard in our legislation.  That bills protect one group, but not others, as if crimes against those persons were somehow less important.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 04, 2007, 07:10:08 PM
 
In some part of American consciousness, we find it reprehensible for people to be attacked or targeted for crimes because of their race or religion, but perhaps many do not see that it is the same ugly thing to attack or target someone because of their sexual orientation.

Can you support this blanket statement with any evidence? Or are you asking a question?

I am expressing an opinion, not what I assert is a fact.  Isn't that clear?

And no, I was not asking a question.  There was not a question mark, was there?

Nor did I mean to imply that was the case for any individual here.

But perhaps people, and perhaps yourself, if you feel touchy about it, and do not support the bill - should ask that question of themselves -- do *you* think this is any different than hate crime bills targeting crimes, for example, those kind reprensible acts towards Jews or blacks?  Did/do you think those laws were necessary, and those acts deserving of the stronger measures, but not crimes directed at people because of sexual orientation?



BTW, Mr. Utley, such a double standard in American consciousness is evidenced by the double-standard in our legislation.  That bills protect one group, but not others, as if crimes against those persons were somehow less important.

I am expressing an opinion, not what I assert is a fact.  Isn't that clear?


If your opinion was clear, it would be supported by some facts. To just toss out the statement that “perhaps many do not see that it is the same ugly thing to attack or target someone because of their sexual orientation” is more what one might call speculating. Not really an opinion.

As to whether *I* “think this is any different than hate crime bills targeting crimes, for example, those kind reprehensible acts towards Jews or blacks", I would say that it may be perceived differently by individual prosecutors, policemen, communities, and various juries throughout the land.

Furthermore, I’d prefer to see people putting their energies into building further understanding for the majority population about who they are as minorities than to spend energies seeking ways to claim special victim status. 

As to whether I think those laws were necessary, and those acts deserving of the stronger measures, but not crimes directed at people because of sexual orientation, that appears to be you attempting to frame a debate in your own favorable terms.

I’m not in favor of any criminal behavior, and if current statutes are enforced the perpetrators of crime will likely be punished enough.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 07:16:10 PM
It is my understanding that if a crime is committed that is determined to be a "hate crime", that the federal government can help solve the crime through the use of its resources. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 07:35:07 PM
Over the last few months the religious right has waged a deceptive campaign opposing this pro-equality legislation. They have employed a range of excuses; Chuck Colson compared the law to something out of George Orwell's famous novel 19841, Tony Perkins has stated that the legislation is “contrary to our heritage and our values,”2 and just this week James Dobson told listeners of Focus on the Family Radio, “there’s a vote coming up on some insidious legislation in the United States Congress that could silence and punish Christians for their moral beliefs. That means that as a Christian – if you read the Bible a certain way with regard to morality – you may be guilty of committing a ‘thought crime.”3

Such sentiments beg the question: does the religious right truly believe that hate speech is an integral component of their faith?

This notion is preposterous and simply goes to show just how out of touch the religious right is, not only with real American values, but with mainstream Christian values as well.

While most Americans see the religious right’s campaign for what it is -- an attempt to make gay and lesbian Americans second class citizens -- their bigoted views have found audience with at least one man, President Bush.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 07:38:24 PM
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act would strengthen the ability of law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute hate crimes by:

    * Protecting All Americans. Under the current federal law, enacted nearly 40 years ago, the government has the authority to help investigate and prosecute bias-motivated attacks based on race, color, national origin and religion and because the victim was attempting to exercise a federally protected right. For example, authorities became involved in a Salt Lake Citycase where James Herrick set fire to a Pakistani restaurant on Sept. 13, 2001. Herrick was sentenced to 51 months’ incarceration on Jan. 7, 2002, after pleading guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 245.

      However, under current law, the federal government is not able to help in cases where women, gay, transgender or disabled Americans are victims of bias-motivated crimes for who they are. For example, in Texas, in July 2005, four men brutally assaulted a gay man. While punching and kicking him, whipping him with a vacuum chord and assaulting him with daggers, the offenders told the victim that they attacked him because he was gay. Two of the men were sentenced to six years in prison under a plea bargain that dropped the charges that could have sent them to prison for life. Under this bill, federal authorities would have had the jurisdiction to prosecute the crime or could have provided local authorities resources that might have assisted them in pursuing a longer sentence.
    * Equipping Local Law Enforcement. The act would provide crucial federal resources to state and local agencies and equip local law enforcement officers with the tools they need to investigate and prosecute crimes. While most states recognize the problem of hate violence, and many have enacted laws to help combat this serious issue, federal government recognition of the problem is crucial to its solution. Too many local jurisdictions lack the full resources necessary to prosecute hate crimes. For example, when Matthew Shepard was murdered in Laramie, Wyo., in 1998, the investigation and prosecution of the case cost the community of 28,000 residents about $150,000, forcing the sheriff’s department to lay off five deputies in order to save money.
    * Ensuring Equal Application of the Law. The act would allow federal authorities to become involved if local authorities are unwilling or unable to act. In the hate crime on which the film Boys Don’t Cry was based, 21-year-old Brandon Teena was raped and later killed by two friends after they discovered he was biologically female. After the rape and assault, Teena reported the crime to the police, but Richardson County Sheriff Richard Laux, who referred to Teena as “it,” did not allow his deputies to arrest the two men responsible. Five days later, those two men shot and stabbed Teena to death in front of two witnesses, Lisa Lambert and Philip DeVine, who were then also murdered. JoAnn Brandon, Teena’s mother, filed a civil suit against Laux, claiming that he was negligent in failing to arrest the men immediately after the rape. The court found that the county was at least partially responsible for Teena’s death and characterized Laux’s behavior as “extreme and outrageous.” Had this federal hate crime law been in effect, federal authorities could have investigated and prosecuted the offenders when the local authorities refused to do so.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: realdim on May 04, 2007, 07:56:55 PM
Sod this site; I don't know how it works. Any help would be ... helpful.  Here's what I wanted to post, that may have been posted, I just don't know. Apparently I timed out, but I still can't find out how to post properly.


Surprising to hear about Canada.  But then again, they never were the cowboys we are either.  Personally, I wouldn’t pass hate speech laws unless they were related to threatening others’ safety.


Canada's hate propaganda legislation (sections 318-320 of the Criminal Code of Canada) is fascinating. I don't know if I can post a link here that doesn't explode the page, but you can look it up.

As a Canadian, and an interested observer of other ways of doing things, I think we've got it pretty much right, for now.

The thing about Canadian law that Americans find incomprehensible, however, is that we do get this thing "for now," in that most Canddians can imagine a day when the demagogues can no longer profit from promoting hatred against gay people, but target instead, as explicitly as they've targeted gay people, the obese or the disabled or whomever. Hate speech law will always be behind whatever hatred the demagogues exploit, but being behind is no excuse for not catching up: the general idea is not to protect actual individuals from actual acts, but to protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We know that we can't perfectly anticipate who's next (see Tom Lehrer's great tune of that name), but we do acknowledge that any of us could be the next victim - or next perpetrator or enabler, and we get that we might be those - of systemtic separation from the Charter.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 04, 2007, 08:56:40 PM
MrUtley

You:  If your opinion was clear, it would be supported by some facts.

Well I am sorry my opinion was not clear to you.  I did attempt to clarify it by sharing the fact (you appear to be disregarding) that, our legislation as it stands, IMO, reflects a double standard that I see in American consciousness.

I hope my opinion is now clear to you.

MrUtley:  To just toss out the statement that “perhaps many do not see that it is the same ugly thing to attack or target someone because of their sexual orientation” is more what one might call speculating. Not really an opinion.

Saying "perhaps" is an acknowledgement in itself of some speculation.  Tell me, what is so wrong with that?  I am free to express myself on this forum, including speculation. If you don't like it, MrUtley, tough. 

You:  As to whether I think those laws were necessary, and those acts deserving of the stronger measures, but not crimes directed at people because of sexual orientation, that appears to be you attempting to frame a debate in your own favorable terms.

I frame things as I see them.  Don't you?  Or are you far above the rest of us lowly humans?

BTW, MrUtley, have you communicated with me on a forum under a different handle?  Otherwise, I don't believe we've met before.

Best wishes to you.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 04, 2007, 09:04:27 PM
Sod this site; I don't know how it works. Any help would be ... helpful.  Here's what I wanted to post, that may have been posted, I just don't know. Apparently I timed out, but I still can't find out how to post properly.


Surprising to hear about Canada.  But then again, they never were the cowboys we are either.  Personally, I wouldn’t pass hate speech laws unless they were related to threatening others’ safety.


Canada's hate propaganda legislation (sections 318-320 of the Criminal Code of Canada) is fascinating. I don't know if I can post a link here that doesn't explode the page, but you can look it up.

As a Canadian, and an interested observer of other ways of doing things, I think we've got it pretty much right, for now.

The thing about Canadian law that Americans find incomprehensible, however, is that we do get this thing "for now," in that most Canddians can imagine a day when the demagogues can no longer profit from promoting hatred against gay people, but target instead, as explicitly as they've targeted gay people, the obese or the disabled or whomever. Hate speech law will always be behind whatever hatred the demagogues exploit, but being behind is no excuse for not catching up: the general idea is not to protect actual individuals from actual acts, but to protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We know that we can't perfectly anticipate who's next (see Tom Lehrer's great tune of that name), but we do acknowledge that any of us could be the next victim - or next perpetrator or enabler, and we get that we might be those - of systemtic separation from the Charter.

Nice to see you.  I am still trying to get the hang of the posting mechanisms here too. 

After posting that today, I did consider that perhaps we should think more seriously about joining Canada and Europe in similar hate speech measures.  We Americans tend to view our Constitution at times with a reverence approaching religious sentiments.  (Take 2nd Amendments fanatics, for example.)  And though I highly value the first, when I read some of the dispicable statements aimed at others (for example, on the internet), and how they are clearly intended to deprive others of their right to express themselves, to intimate, to degrade, etc. -- well, perhaps those persons SHOULD be prosecuted.  :-)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 04, 2007, 09:19:03 PM
realdim,

As a Canadian, and an interested observer of other ways of doing things, I think we've got it pretty much right, for now.

As one who spends considerable time in your fair country, I must agree.

Your post is also permeated with the good sense that is the hallmark of most of your fellow countrymen that I have met.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 04, 2007, 09:26:04 PM
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act would strengthen the ability of law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute hate crimes by:

    * Protecting All Americans. Under the current federal law, enacted nearly 40 years ago, the government has the authority to help investigate and prosecute bias-motivated attacks based on race, color, national origin and religion and because the victim was attempting to exercise a federally protected right. For example, authorities became involved in a Salt Lake Citycase where James Herrick set fire to a Pakistani restaurant on Sept. 13, 2001. Herrick was sentenced to 51 months’ incarceration on Jan. 7, 2002, after pleading guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 245.

      However, under current law, the federal government is not able to help in cases where women, gay, transgender or disabled Americans are victims of bias-motivated crimes for who they are. For example, in Texas, in July 2005, four men brutally assaulted a gay man. While punching and kicking him, whipping him with a vacuum chord and assaulting him with daggers, the offenders told the victim that they attacked him because he was gay. Two of the men were sentenced to six years in prison under a plea bargain that dropped the charges that could have sent them to prison for life. Under this bill, federal authorities would have had the jurisdiction to prosecute the crime or could have provided local authorities resources that might have assisted them in pursuing a longer sentence.
    * Equipping Local Law Enforcement. The act would provide crucial federal resources to state and local agencies and equip local law enforcement officers with the tools they need to investigate and prosecute crimes. While most states recognize the problem of hate violence, and many have enacted laws to help combat this serious issue, federal government recognition of the problem is crucial to its solution. Too many local jurisdictions lack the full resources necessary to prosecute hate crimes. For example, when Matthew Shepard was murdered in Laramie, Wyo., in 1998, the investigation and prosecution of the case cost the community of 28,000 residents about $150,000, forcing the sheriff’s department to lay off five deputies in order to save money.
    * Ensuring Equal Application of the Law. The act would allow federal authorities to become involved if local authorities are unwilling or unable to act. In the hate crime on which the film Boys Don’t Cry was based, 21-year-old Brandon Teena was raped and later killed by two friends after they discovered he was biologically female. After the rape and assault, Teena reported the crime to the police, but Richardson County Sheriff Richard Laux, who referred to Teena as “it,” did not allow his deputies to arrest the two men responsible. Five days later, those two men shot and stabbed Teena to death in front of two witnesses, Lisa Lambert and Philip DeVine, who were then also murdered. JoAnn Brandon, Teena’s mother, filed a civil suit against Laux, claiming that he was negligent in failing to arrest the men immediately after the rape. The court found that the county was at least partially responsible for Teena’s death and characterized Laux’s behavior as “extreme and outrageous.” Had this federal hate crime law been in effect, federal authorities could have investigated and prosecuted the offenders when the local authorities refused to do so.


Thank you for this very informative background material.

It further backs the reasons I stated earlier as to why I support hate crime legislation.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 04, 2007, 10:51:57 PM
I frame things as I see them.  Don't you?  Or are you far above the rest of us lowly humans?



Perhaps.

BTW,you failed to address the notion that hate crime legislation is a way of asserting one's victimhood.

and, no, I don't believe we've met before.

Does that change the criticism for you, had we met?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 04, 2007, 11:24:00 PM
I frame things as I see them.  Don't you?  Or are you far above the rest of us lowly humans?



Perhaps.

BTW,you failed to address the notion that hate crime legislation is a way of asserting one's victimhood.

and, no, I don't believe we've met before.

Does that change the criticism for you, had we met?

You seemed to be making this a bit personal.  So I wondered if there was some history here that I was not aware of.

What do you mean by "asserting one's victimhood"?  Is that another way of saying that someone who is beaten up because they are gay (or black or Jewish, etc.) is not a victim?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 05, 2007, 06:14:13 AM
I sometimes find Utley's posts difficult to understand.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 05, 2007, 07:25:00 AM
I frame things as I see them.  Don't you?  Or are you far above the rest of us lowly humans?



Perhaps.

BTW,you failed to address the notion that hate crime legislation is a way of asserting one's victimhood.

and, no, I don't believe we've met before.

Does that change the criticism for you, had we met?

You seemed to be making this a bit personal.  So I wondered if there was some history here that I was not aware of.

What do you mean by "asserting one's victimhood"?  Is that another way of saying that someone who is beaten up because they are gay (or black or Jewish, etc.) is not a victim?

I believe that so far the posts that are reflecting a personal nature are yours, my friend.

"asserting one's victimhood" was clearly explained in my earlier post.

Quoting myself, now, "I’d prefer to see people putting their energies into building further understanding for the majority population about who they are as minorities than to spend energies seeking ways to claim special victim status. "

Try not to read more into what I post than what I actually post.

Quoting my favorite Canadian, Neil Young:

"If you want to get high,
 build a strong foundation
 Sink those pylons deep now
 and reach for the sky
 If you want to get lost
 in the jungle rhythm
 Get down on the ground
 and pretend you're swimmin'."


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 05, 2007, 12:42:52 PM
"If you want to get high,
 build a strong foundation
 Sink those pylons deep now
 and reach for the sky
 If you want to get lost
 in the jungle rhythm
 Get down on the ground
 and pretend you're swimmin'."

And this relates to gay rights how?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 05, 2007, 01:08:34 PM
"If you want to get high,
 build a strong foundation
 Sink those pylons deep now
 and reach for the sky
 If you want to get lost
 in the jungle rhythm
 Get down on the ground
 and pretend you're swimmin'."

And this relates to gay rights how?
I think the point is that gays will gain their deserved equality when they start to listen to more Neil Young.  I could be wrong.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 05, 2007, 01:52:42 PM
I guess it went over my head.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 05, 2007, 08:33:23 PM
I suggest treating all people with dignity and honor America's promise of equality.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 06, 2007, 12:09:09 PM
Apologies to anyone who read my posts and then saw them disappear.  The temptation with the posting mechanisms here was too great.

Mostly, they concerned my support for the legislation because it unties the hands of the federal government; also, a recollection of being in Laramie not long before Matthew Shepard was murdered.  Here’s an article on Bush’s veto threat:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/05/987/


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 06, 2007, 04:34:03 PM
Religious conservatives, including a collection of African American ministers, the Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition, waged a lobbying blitz before the vote, warning that the bill violates equal protection under the law, criminalizes thought and treads on free speech, chilling religious expression against homosexuality by making preachers, rabbis and imams potentially liable for contributing to violence against gays and lesbians

Of course, these are all lies, and send the check...these are really evil people.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 06, 2007, 09:15:33 PM
Sam,

Religious conservatives, including a collection of African American ministers, the Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition, waged a lobbying blitz before the vote, warning that the bill violates equal protection under the law, criminalizes thought and treads on free speech, chilling religious expression against homosexuality by making preachers, rabbis and imams potentially liable for contributing to violence against gays and lesbians.

Now there's something devoutly (YES!) to be wished for.
Let us hope it happens to all who preach inequality and hide behind their "Scripture" while doing so.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 05:40:29 AM
Sam,

Religious conservatives, including a collection of African American ministers, the Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition, waged a lobbying blitz before the vote, warning that the bill violates equal protection under the law, criminalizes thought and treads on free speech, chilling religious expression against homosexuality by making preachers, rabbis and imams potentially liable for contributing to violence against gays and lesbians.

Now there's something devoutly (YES!) to be wished for.
Let us hope it happens to all who preach inequality and hide behind their "Scripture" while doing so.

Their scripture so selectively taken.  No longer is it acceptable for these people to hate Jews and blacks; now it is the gays they must hate in order to get their members to contribute the money needed for their programs of becoming "self-made men."


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 07, 2007, 12:11:42 PM
"If you want to get high,
 build a strong foundation
Sink those pylons deep now
 and reach for the sky

This means to make sure that you solidify your political base before you expect to make changes in the larger population.

 
 If you want to get lost
 in the jungle rhythm
 Get down on the ground
 and pretend you're swimmin'."

And this means, if you want fail to make progress, then play the game of going back and forth and name-calling with your most ardent opponents.

 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 07, 2007, 12:14:03 PM
And to those who are trying to keep up:

As Neily put it: 
"Think of me
as one you'd never figured"


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 12:38:41 PM
OK.  If you say so.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 09, 2007, 10:20:04 AM
Thankfully, this forum has died


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 09, 2007, 10:50:34 AM
Could it be because it is pretty much an issue that is settled in most people's minds?



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 09, 2007, 11:02:50 AM
Sure

And also not much has gone on nationally that would spark debate

I brought up the Episcopal Church thing, but I guess that's a minor issue.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 01:22:36 PM
What about the Epsicopal Church?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 09, 2007, 01:42:21 PM
Ordained an openly gay bishop

Came out in favor of gay marriage

This on the heels of ordaining women, including the head of the entire U.S. faction, Katharine Schori.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/062306episcopal.aspx


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 01:46:12 PM
Ordained an openly gay bishop

Came out in favor of gay marriage

This on the heels of ordaining women, including the head of the entire U.S. faction, Katharine Schori.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/062306episcopal.aspx

So?  So what.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 09, 2007, 02:30:47 PM
So........................

consider yourself educated


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 03:21:20 PM
So........................

consider yourself educated

Why do I care about the Epsicopal Church?  I don't.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 12:03:53 PM
The larger point may be that most people don't care about "gay rights".


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 12:22:28 PM
The larger point may be that most people don't care about "gay rights".

If they're not affected, why should they?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 10, 2007, 02:56:58 PM
Don't follow Church news myself.

But sounds like positive developments among Episcopalians.  And certainly Kathrine Schori cares about gay rights, along with enough people to make the possibility of a split among this very large group called, "the Anglican Communion."


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 08:00:50 PM
Don't follow Church news myself.

But sounds like positive developments among Episcopalians.  And certainly Kathrine Schori cares about gay rights, along with enough people to make the possibility of a split among this very large group called, "the Anglican Communion."

The conservatives have chosen to join the the Nigerians.  If I were an Epsicapalian, I'd say good riddence.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 11, 2007, 11:43:11 AM
Well, each church has its' choice.

To say "the conservatives" have done anything is a bit silly.

Remains to be seen if there will be a U.S. based Anglican grouping of parishes apart from the U.S. Episcopal Church.

For now, someone like myself must decide whether or not to stay in a parish that has become so liberal.  As of now, my family is attending and I am in limbo.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 11:59:54 AM
Well, each church has its' choice.

To say "the conservatives" have done anything is a bit silly.

Remains to be seen if there will be a U.S. based Anglican grouping of parishes apart from the U.S. Episcopal Church.

For now, someone like myself must decide whether or not to stay in a parish that has become so liberal.  As of now, my family is attending and I am in limbo.

And you are in limbo because????????????????????????????????


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 11, 2007, 12:53:39 PM
See May 9 1:42


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 01:27:09 PM
See May 9 1:42

Does that mean you are a mysgonist homophobic hate monger?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 01:46:32 PM
Well there's always Catholicism.  No women at the pulpit, that's too liberal, and a hierarchy still opposed to gay marriage.  Gay priests are coming out of the closet more, but hey, the bosses don't really like it, and two out of three ain't bad.

One can still have a faith somewhat encounced in the political values of the Middle Ages.

Though babies are now heading to Limbo, God has changed his mind, what is the world coming down, next thing you know, he'll be instructions to vote Democrat.

I mentioned in another post, I took down, there are ever the yellow pages ... let your fingers do the walking.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 01:51:03 PM
And if the yellow pages do not prove a worthy venture, there is always the Anglican Church in Nigeria.  Kind of like your own personal Islamo-Anglican adventure.

Lots of traffic accidents there though!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 02:05:52 PM
Be aware too, KC, that most of the people dying in those accidents are rich white men with Anglican sounding names.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 02:08:34 PM
On one or two infamous throughfares to boot.

Don't be a commuter if you relocate for The Faith.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 02:10:49 PM
kc might feel very comfortable in Nigera, or Iran, or Pakistan.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 11, 2007, 02:14:21 PM
See May 9 1:42

Does that mean you are a mysgonist homophobic hate monger?

LOL

Hate monger

Heh - pretty peaceful guy deep down.

As for the other labels - you like labelling, so call me whatever you like.  

FTR - I loved Bishop Schori's sermon when I heard her in person.  She's an impressive gal.

Well, I guess we can say -------- we have a woman bishop, we have a gay bishop - at least we don't have a gay woman bishop (as far as I know anyway)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 02:16:57 PM
See May 9 1:42

Does that mean you are a mysgonist homophobic hate monger?



Well, I guess we can say -------- we have a woman bishop, we have a gay bishop - at least we don't have a gay woman bishop (as far as I know anyway)

Oh, you will, soon enough.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 11, 2007, 02:25:19 PM
oooooooooooo

really zinged me there


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 02:25:34 PM
kc might feel very comfortable in Nigera, or Iran, or Pakistan.

And if he's not rich here, he will be there!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 02:38:49 PM
As of now, my family is attending and I am in limbo.

Take heart, I hear from reliable sources that limbo is not such a bad place these days. Though one is not in direct contact with The Almighty and you may have to do a lot of babysitting and diaper changing.

However, one never knows if that too may change, I understand He is forever changing the rules of the game.

Like a night in Vegas, a turn of fortune at the polka table, you may get lucky!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 11, 2007, 02:40:28 PM
If you spoke English, Inc, I might have a reply.  (But I see, like so many "Americans", you don't feel the need to learn the language)

Pretty simple issue.  If you want to keep taking potshots at my situation, have a blast.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 11, 2007, 02:41:58 PM
Quote
Though babies are now heading to Limbo, God has changed his mind, what is the world coming down....
In point of fact, the Catholic Church teaching on limbo has never been accorded the level of infallibility, but merely has set out the best opinion of theorists in the Church.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 02:56:37 PM
My dear Bozo,

I am not only an English speaking American, my family has probably been in this country longer than yours.  With positions in the Anglican church that would make you blush.  If you knew the meaning of shame, that is.

Whoops – I forgot – this is the internet forum, who knows where anyone is, and so, from the likes of your position, you may rather be in Nigeria.

As for anyone being here to take potshots at people – don’t you have that in reverse, as you linger arouund to smirk at the effort for gay rights, and hope that the forum will go dipppity-dip-dead?  Take out your psychology text, dear, flip to classical symptoms, and look up “projection.”

Oh, I forgot, you don't speak English, Inc.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 03:02:38 PM
Thankfully, this forum has died


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 03:04:49 PM
On the other hand, if that is what you meant by English, Inc., you are correct, I don't speak that language, thank GOD.

IMO, it's unAmerican.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 03:36:14 PM
Quote
Though babies are now heading to Limbo, God has changed his mind, what is the world coming down....
In point of fact, the Catholic Church teaching on limbo has never been accorded the level of infallibility, but merely has set out the best opinion of theorists in the Church.

I see you have a feel for the logic.  If I were a priest, that would drive me to drink too.  God bless the Berrigan brothers, Archbishop Romero, Thomas Merton, and some others.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 04:04:18 PM
If KC gave up his beliefs in superstitious godmen, he wouldn't have a problem with gay or female bishops.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 04:10:38 PM
If KC gave up his beliefs in superstitious godmen, he wouldn't have a problem with gay or female bishops.

Agreed.  He also might not find it so troubling to be without a church, period.

KC

Maybe you should be thinking of this as an opportunity, not a bind.

Stretch yourself.

Learn to speak … Americana.

And, if you just can't swing with progress, and there is nothing else in the phone book, and, the Nigerian freeways sound too freaky, sleeping in on Sundays, sitting on a soft couch not hard pew, and reading the newspaper instead, can be very pleasant.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 04:13:04 PM
Not to mention what is saved insofar as the collection box is concerned.

Treat yourself to a weekend Starbucks!

There's a whole other world out there.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 11, 2007, 04:21:49 PM
If KC gave up his beliefs in superstitious godmen, he wouldn't have a problem with gay or female bishops.

Agreed.  He also might not find it so troubling to be without a church, period.

KC

Maybe you should be thinking of this as an opportunity, not a bind.

Stretch yourself.

Learn to speak … Americana.

And, if you just can't swing with progress, and there is nothing else in the phone book, and, the Nigerian freeways sound too freaky, sleeping in on Sundays, sitting on a soft couch not hard pew, and reading the newspaper instead, can be very pleasant.


Figured you might be one of those types.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on May 11, 2007, 04:34:06 PM
if KC spends sunday mornings in church, then i'm rabbi chaim nutzman from ocean parkway and i gotta check up on how the chicken soup is doing because it's almost shabbos.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 11, 2007, 04:45:19 PM
INC could be Jewish - my bad

Guess reading the paper Sunday AM's would be OK


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 11, 2007, 04:46:09 PM
Of course the less lazy of us can get up, read it, then have plenty of time for God and family.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 05:13:37 PM
if KC spends sunday mornings in church, then i'm rabbi chaim nutzman from ocean parkway and i gotta check up on how the chicken soup is doing because it's almost shabbos.

LOL.  Sounds like you have some experience reading KC.

The mother of a friend of mine who had many, many children via RCC rules about BC, said she used to attend mass regularly once a week because it was the only time she could get some time to herself.

KC

I’m from both Christian and Jewish background.  But I don't believe in the traditional rules for either.

I don’t fly with any organized faith.  If I did, it’d likely be a combo of faiths that’s not in the phonebook.  So God told me to hang loose and not to sweat it.

Whichever way you go, my friend, there’s a day of rest, on the symbolic level.

Hence, my advice is, if everyone’s left you by your lonesome to sing hymns with liberals, listen to women or gay men preaching, and you don't want to join in - well, consider it a real spiritual opportunity for self reflection.

Not self-flaggelation.

Of course, you could always set up a chair in a corner for yourself.

But IMO, that's not what God wants us to do.

BTW, re "types" - or stereotyping -- isn't there a rule about that too?





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 11, 2007, 05:23:05 PM
Attaboy


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 05:59:55 PM
Attaboy

Anytime you'd like to make sense, feel free, hon. 

You're speaking to a middle-aged hetereosexual American mom.





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 11, 2007, 06:39:00 PM
HARRISBURG - A sperm donor who helped a lesbian couple conceive two children is liable for child support under a state appeals court ruling that a legal expert believes might be the first of its kind.

Apparently, some gays have extra rights:


http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/7435387.html


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 07:00:54 PM
Well, Mutley, if you read the article you'd see that the donor was involved in the children's lives, until he died.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 07:19:10 PM
It looks like the three persons involved (partners, donor) didn’t have a clear agreement at the outset.  That, combined with the donor developing a relationship with the children, led to the court’s decision.

It shall be interesting to see the outcome of the next case coming up, where such an agreement did exist.

I see state law has an influence.  I suppose, that, along with the next court’s ruling, shall have an influence on how friendship donor relationships go in the future.  Hopefully, these decisions will not interfere too much with the ability of the child to know a biological parent if the relationships between the parties would otherwise permit it.  But it should push people to get clearer about some of this stuff, and, for the sake the children.

I imagine some donors want the best of both worlds – to be a parent, but without the full responsibilities.  And some partners don’t want to face the full responsibilities of their position.

I knew a woman who adopted a child with her husband;  within a year, they were getting divorced and the husband wanted to give the child back.

It doesn’t work that way though.  Fortunately, the mother was aware of that, even though he cut and ran to the best of his ability.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 07:23:10 PM
I did hear about a case in Canada when I posted on the NYTimes boards where the two moms and the donor were all given parental rights to the children.  The children had three to love, nurture and provide for them. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 07:34:18 PM
I did hear about a case in Canada when I posted on the NYTimes boards where the two moms and the donor were all given parental rights to the children.  The children had three to love, nurture and provide for them. 

Nothing wrong with that, is there.  Although the article is too cursory to know the court's reasoning, my impression was of something similar going on.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 07:49:39 PM
I did hear about a case in Canada when I posted on the NYTimes boards where the two moms and the donor were all given parental rights to the children.  The children had three to love, nurture and provide for them. 

Nothing wrong with that, is there.  Although the article is too cursory to know the court's reasoning, my impression was of something similar going on.

I have no problem with it, but then I'm a flaming liberal.  I'm sure the KCs of the world wouldn't think this was too cool.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 09:15:51 PM

I have no problem with it, but then I'm a flaming liberal.  I'm sure the KCs of the world wouldn't think this was too cool.

I’ve been pondering possible issues with the decision.  Seems gay marriage would redress those factors, but the KCs wouldn’t like that either.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 11, 2007, 10:19:10 PM
I did hear about a case in Canada when I posted on the NYTimes boards where the two moms and the donor were all given parental rights to the children.  The children had three to love, nurture and provide for them. 

Nothing wrong with that, is there.  Although the article is too cursory to know the court's reasoning, my impression was of something similar going on.

I have no problem with it, but then I'm a flaming liberal.  I'm sure the KCs of the world wouldn't think this was too cool.

Hmm

Kinda like the new handle - KC

I have no prob with the triplesick arrangement

Mom, Dad and whatever.  Sure beats the snot out of just 2 moms.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 11, 2007, 10:46:58 PM
Well of course.  You’re just a bigot.

Or did you have a rational reason to back these statements.

I’d leave you at home on Sundays too.

Even if I were just going to Starbucks.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 05:53:13 AM
KC leaves his droppings just to antagonize others.  He has no other purpose here as far as I can see.  And this righteous, arrogant, pip calls the rest of us such name as "f__king morons."  Real Christian of him.  Just another typical conservative hypocrite.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 12, 2007, 07:04:39 AM
That is making KC more or less a troll.

BTW I like your pictures.  Both were so familiar, but I wasn't able to please the species for the bird of prey.  Some keep them as pets.  And I know that painting, but can't quite remember it either. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 12, 2007, 08:19:20 AM
Sorry to disturb your little bitch session, but... the Pennsylesbian caseis a story that is more about people who CAN'T ACCEPT things the way they are:

The entire situation developed because two people who couldn't have a baby---by nature's design--just had to find a way to have one, so they could convince themselves that they were OKAY--I think it's pretty clear that things were far from OKAY for them.

  It's really GAY INTOLERANCE for accepting NATURE. If you want to say that it's NATURAL to be gay, I have no problem with that. It's also NATURAL, then that you don't reproduce, and refusing to accept that situation--in other words, by being exceptionally selfish---you create messes like this one.

 .

The kid's gotta be whacked, too, IMO. It's in the genes.


And I did read the article, supercilious samster---I found it, I read it, I LINKED it, and I sourced it...I did everything you fail to do on a regular basis---no matter the forum.

 



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 11:07:59 AM
Sorry to disturb your little bitch session, but... the Pennsylesbian caseis a story that is more about people who CAN'T ACCEPT things the way they are:

The entire situation developed because two people who couldn't have a baby---by nature's design--just had to find a way to have one, so they could convince themselves that they were OKAY--I think it's pretty clear that things were far from OKAY for them.

  It's really GAY INTOLERANCE for accepting NATURE. If you want to say that it's NATURAL to be gay, I have no problem with that. It's also NATURAL, then that you don't reproduce, and refusing to accept that situation--in other words, by being exceptionally selfish---you create messes like this one.

 .

The kid's gotta be whacked, too, IMO. It's in the genes.


And I did read the article, supercilious samster---I found it, I read it, I LINKED it, and I sourced it...I did everything you fail to do on a regular basis---no matter the forum.

 



Well, whoopie for you.  You also seem to be quite judgmental too, for an asshole.  Maybe you need to remove the logs from your eyes before you start on others, butch.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 12, 2007, 11:46:28 AM
Sorry to disturb your little bitch session, but... the Pennsylesbian caseis a story that is more about people who CAN'T ACCEPT things the way they are:

The entire situation developed because two people who couldn't have a baby---by nature's design--just had to find a way to have one, so they could convince themselves that they were OKAY--I think it's pretty clear that things were far from OKAY for them.

  It's really GAY INTOLERANCE for accepting NATURE. If you want to say that it's NATURAL to be gay, I have no problem with that. It's also NATURAL, then that you don't reproduce, and refusing to accept that situation--in other words, by being exceptionally selfish---you create messes like this one.

 .

The kid's gotta be whacked, too, IMO. It's in the genes.


And I did read the article, supercilious samster---I found it, I read it, I LINKED it, and I sourced it...I did everything you fail to do on a regular basis---no matter the forum.

 


Well, now, if the husband or wife was infertile, they wouls also be intolerant of nature if they tried artificial insemination, right?  That would be NATURAL for them to not reproduce, right?  And very, very selfish of them to bring a child into the world under those circumstances.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 12:47:57 PM
Sorry to disturb your little bitch session, but... the Pennsylesbian caseis a story that is more about people who CAN'T ACCEPT things the way they are:

The entire situation developed because two people who couldn't have a baby---by nature's design--just had to find a way to have one, so they could convince themselves that they were OKAY--I think it's pretty clear that things were far from OKAY for them.

  It's really GAY INTOLERANCE for accepting NATURE. If you want to say that it's NATURAL to be gay, I have no problem with that. It's also NATURAL, then that you don't reproduce, and refusing to accept that situation--in other words, by being exceptionally selfish---you create messes like this one.

 .

The kid's gotta be whacked, too, IMO. It's in the genes.


And I did read the article, supercilious samster---I found it, I read it, I LINKED it, and I sourced it...I did everything you fail to do on a regular basis---no matter the forum.

 


Well, now, if the husband or wife was infertile, they wouls also be intolerant of nature if they tried artificial insemination, right?  That would be NATURAL for them to not reproduce, right?  And very, very selfish of them to bring a child into the world under those circumstances.

It's like those who adopt children.  They would be better off in an asylum, donja know.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 12, 2007, 01:35:07 PM
 Well, now, if the husband or wife was infertile, they wouls also be intolerant of nature if they tried artificial insemination, right?  That would be NATURAL for them to not reproduce, right?  And very, very selfish of them to bring a child into the world under those circumstances.

In a manner of speaking, yes.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 01:40:14 PM
Well, now, if the husband or wife was infertile, they wouls also be intolerant of nature if they tried artificial i
In a manner of speaking, yes.

This is one person's opinion, that's all it is.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 12, 2007, 01:43:07 PM
 [/quote]Well, whoopie for you.  You also seem to be quite judgmental too, for an asshole.  Maybe you need to remove the logs from your eyes before you start on others, butch.
[/quote]


Sami:

You consisently show that when anyone disagrees with you, or fails to immediately accept your point of view, that it gives you the opportunity to name-call---

 Fact is, it undermines your own message and displays a juvenile mentality, when it comes to discussing complex issues.

We watched you throw a fit  a day or two ago, for being called an "asshole" then you turn around and do the same thing.

Do you have any principles by which you live---other than anger displacement?

Get treatment.


 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 02:19:10 PM
I didn't call you any names here.  I just stated a fact.  You have some real problems, don't you.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 12, 2007, 03:28:07 PM
I didn't call you any names here.  I just stated a fact.  You have some real problems, don't you.

The word "fact" and you should never be in the same room, as by evidence of your posts, you are unable to recognize one.


Go outside, enjoy the day---maybe visit the cemetary, plant some flowers?





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 12, 2007, 03:39:29 PM
Italians demonstrate against gays having same rights:

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/world/20070512_ap_italiansrallyagainstmarriagebill.html


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 04:41:19 PM
I didn't call you any names here.  I just stated a fact.  You have some real problems, don't you.

The word "fact" and you should never be in the same room, as by evidence of your posts, you are unable to recognize one.


Go outside, enjoy the day---maybe visit the cemetary, plant some flowers?





Yep, you've proven my point. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 12, 2007, 05:33:06 PM
 you've proven my point. 

 You've yet to make one...

"Asshole".


Now run along and fire up another doobie.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 07:07:30 PM
Priest Quits Rather Than Uphold Ban On Gay Marriages
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 11, 2007 - 7:00 pm ET

(Saskatoon, Saskatchewan) An Anglican priest has resigned rather than submit to a directive from his bishop not to officiate at gay weddings.

The Rev. Shawn Sanford Beck of the Saskatoon Native Ministry announced last month that he would marry gay couples if asked. Same-sex marriage is legal in Canada.

In an open letter, Sanford Beck said the Canadian church’s ban on same-sex marriages and blessings "theologically problematic and fundamentally unjust."


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 12, 2007, 10:19:46 PM
Sounds like a very Christian and principled Anglican priest.

He could get me off a couch on a Sunday morning.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 13, 2007, 07:39:26 AM
Wishing all mothers a Happy Mother's Day, even those mothers who became mothers in non-conventional ways.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 14, 2007, 01:45:11 PM
Italians demonstrate against gays having same rights:

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/world/20070512_ap_italiansrallyagainstmarriagebill.html

Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands, maybe topping a mil

My............

Some day


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 02:37:25 PM
Italians demonstrate against gays having same rights:

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/world/20070512_ap_italiansrallyagainstmarriagebill.html

Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands, maybe topping a mil

My............

Some day

Your hatred of gays is based on what?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 14, 2007, 02:49:33 PM
Easy, chumly.

You hate our President.  I hate very, very few individuals.  And we use the word "dislike" in this house.

I don't even dislike your hero Ms. Clinton.  Don't have to "dislike" her to not support her.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 03:03:26 PM
Easy, chumly.

You hate our President.  I hate very, very few individuals.  And we use the word "dislike" in this house.

I don't even dislike your hero Ms. Clinton.  Don't have to "dislike" her to not support her.

I don't hate Bush.  I detest him.  As for Ms. Clinton, I don't much care for her either, and I do not support her for president. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 14, 2007, 03:06:29 PM
How do you think Barney Frank would do if he ran?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 03:08:18 PM
How do you think Barney Frank would do if he ran?

I don't believe Barney Frank has an ambition of running for President.  He might run for Senator one day from MA and he'll probably win.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: yankguy on May 14, 2007, 03:15:25 PM
I think Barney Frank is among the handful of smartest members of Congress and is too old to make a first-time run for the Senate.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 14, 2007, 03:15:43 PM
The question was really how you feel an openly gay American, succesful in political life to date, could do in a Presidential race.

I know that's very general, but take a stab.  Could the U.S. elect an openly gay president?

If no - I'd say about 30 years ago there was never a vision for a woman to run the nation.  Will it take 30 more from now to get an electable gay on the ballot?  Or is this tougher?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 03:17:48 PM
Quote
Could the U.S. elect a gay president?
James Buchanan?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 03:21:11 PM
In America it may take some time; but in other parts of the world, gay people have been elected to high offices, though I don't believe anyone has been elected as supreme commander as yet.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 14, 2007, 03:41:13 PM
Quote
Could the U.S. elect a gay president?
James Buchanan?

Nah - he's dead


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 03:53:34 PM
A gay man was elected governon of New Jersey not long ago.  Of course, he was in the closet and his coming out was a scandal.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 03:57:21 PM
Quote
Could the U.S. elect a gay president?
James Buchanan?

Nah - he's dead
True - but he was alive when he was elected.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 04:02:48 PM
From another forum on the "Hate Crimes Legislation" that I found interesting: 

In a move that is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment which affords equal protection under the law, the House of Representatives passed a "hate crimes" measure that would grant certain victims of crimes allegedly motivated by bias--greater protection than other victims of violence. The measure passed by a vote of 237 to 180.
You gotta love the "allegedly" placed in there. Gives the impression that you can just "allege" the motivation is by bias, and the person is guilty of a hate crime.

Blatantly false.
The "hate crime" motivation has to be proven TO THE SAME DEGREE that the ACTUAL CRIME has to be proven.
In other words, if the burden of proof is "beyond a shadow of a doubt", then the jury has to find:
a) That the defendant committed the crime beyond a shadow of a doubt, and
b) that the defendant committed the crime motivated on prejudice against that specific characteristic, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Without both, it's not a hate crime.
And with both, it's not "alleged". It's CONVICTION to the same degree of certainty that the guy actually committed the crime.


Quote:
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement: "Criminalizing thoughts as well as actions, and creating special categories of victims is unconstitutional. The actions of a majority of the House today undermine the promise of equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. This legislation creates second-class victims and a legal system of 'separate and unequal.'

Glaringly false.
1) SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue. UNANIMOUSLY. It does not violate "equal protection".

2) "Thoughts" are not criminalized. Perkins wants you to overlook the fact that the assailant is being imprisoned BECAUSE HE COMMITTED A CRIME. (innocent until proven guilty, of course...)
The MOTIVE for that crime is considered during the SENTENCING phase of the prosecution.
And moreover, the motive has ALWAYS BEEN HISTORICALLY CONSIDERED during the sentencing phase of prosecution to determine what extent the punishment will be. Ergo, we have ALWAYS allowed "thought crime" prosecution, as Perkins wants to call it.
All this legislation does is tell the judges sitting on the bench that a majority in society WANT this motive to be given a specific sentence. And that is entirely legal.

3) I'm curious. (Not really, but my sarcasm has a point...)
Why the furor over this ONLY WHEN it's an issue of "sexual orientation" being added?
I mean, we ALREADY HAVE hate crime legislation which covers religion, race, etc, etc. That's ALREADY on the books.
EVERY ONE of his objections could equally be applied to those EXISTING laws.
But it's ONLY NOW that "sexual orientation" is being added that they freak out.

Kinda interesting, huh?


Quote:
"By far the most disturbing threat we face by this legislation - is the threat it poses to free speech and our religious liberties. In some jurisdictions that have adopted similar laws, 'hate crimes' have been defined to include not just physical acts of violence but merely verbal ones as well. When 'thought crimes' laws are interpreted this way, they pose a serious threat to freedom of speech and religious liberty.
I would love to see those laws.

Of course, the FRC gives NO EXAMPLES of their claims...

Another piece of this puzzle is that hate crime legislation ALREADY EXISTS IN MOST STATES. A lot of those states already have "sexual orientation" included.
Ergo, can Perkins show us ANY example of his fears come to fruition?
Or is this more preaching of fear to try and rally people against a non-existent threat? Another attempt to pretend that the anti-gay groups are "victimized", when the truth is that it is THEY who are espousing discrimination against gays?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 14, 2007, 04:04:57 PM
"He was alive when he was elected"

rumor
- lol

Wasn't openly gay, was he?

- I get a kick out of how "gay" they made Franklin look in '1776'.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 04:13:57 PM
"He was alive when he was elected"

rumor
- lol

Wasn't openly gay, was he?

- I get a kick out of how "gay" they made Franklin look in '1776'.

I believe Franklin fathered some 23 children by several women.  Of course, gay people can reproduce under the right circumstances, I suppose.  But 23 times....yew.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 04:15:00 PM
"He was alive when he was elected"

rumor
- lol

Wasn't openly gay, was he?

- I get a kick out of how "gay" they made Franklin look in '1776'.
Not openly, and the matter is debated by historians anyway.  Gay being, I think, the minority opinion.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 04:18:55 PM
"He was alive when he was elected"

rumor
- lol

Wasn't openly gay, was he?

- I get a kick out of how "gay" they made Franklin look in '1776'.
Not openly, and the matter is debated by historians anyway.  Gay being, I think, the minority opinion.

Maybe Franklin just acted like an old queen.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 04:25:53 PM
I thought Abe Lincoln was the rumored gay President


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 04:28:45 PM
I thought Abe Lincoln was the rumored gay President

You are quite right.  Lincoln liked to sleep with other men.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 14, 2007, 09:40:04 PM
There are reportedly many gay people in positions of behind-the-scenes D.C. power whereby many Republicans would not be where they are today without such assistance.  That was part of whole outting Washington people issue not that long ago.

It's only a matter of time, IMO, before the ones in the limelight who don't support gay rights are told that they won't be able to get away with it anymore.

Sorry pathetic spectacle, that Italian anti-gay rights demonstration.  The bishops are really sinking low these days.  That group didn't even support civil partnerships so that partners could visit in a hospital.  How Christian.

Notice that the photos are of the counter demonstration.  When I saw the first one, I marveled at how nice a couple of women seemed - one smiling, another with a baby on her shoulders.  Then I saw the caption.  Ah, they were supporting gay family rights, not opposing them.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 14, 2007, 10:23:37 PM
A gay man was elected governon of New Jersey not long ago.  Of course, he was in the closet and his coming out was a scandal.

He's not gay. He's bisexual and won't admit it. He'd screw anything, but mostly he screwed taxpayers and their children.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 05:44:30 AM
A gay man was elected governon of New Jersey not long ago.  Of course, he was in the closet and his coming out was a scandal.

He's not gay. He's bisexual and won't admit it. He'd screw anything, but mostly he screwed taxpayers and their children.

His ex-wife was on the talk shows not long ago.  I guess she thinks she got screwed.  Royally.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 15, 2007, 10:19:27 AM
There are reportedly many gay people in positions of behind-the-scenes D.C. power whereby many Republicans would not be where they are today without such assistance.  That was part of whole outting Washington people issue not that long ago.

It's only a matter of time, IMO, before the ones in the limelight who don't support gay rights are told that they won't be able to get away with it anymore.

Sorry pathetic spectacle, that Italian anti-gay rights demonstration.  The bishops are really sinking low these days.  That group didn't even support civil partnerships so that partners could visit in a hospital.  How Christian.

Notice that the photos are of the counter demonstration.  When I saw the first one, I marveled at how nice a couple of women seemed - one smiling, another with a baby on her shoulders.  Then I saw the caption.  Ah, they were supporting gay family rights, not opposing them.


The hospital visit thing is a crutch

Put it up as a separate issue, see it turned aside and then complain

Baby steps the way to go, but what is sought is the whole enchilada.  I think the movement needs some proper vision, some sensible leadership.  Instead we get all too loud "gimme" types.

Regarding any openly gay men or women that might be helping Repub's careers along - first - thanks for being so specific - lol - second - I am sure their work is appreciated.  The word republican is not equal to "hater of gays", despite any stance on gay union/marriage.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 15, 2007, 11:39:33 AM
Regarding any openly gay men or women that might be helping Repub's careers along - first - thanks for being so specific - lol - second - I am sure their work is appreciated. 


This was discussed on the NYT forum;  too bad you weren't there at all.  There was an article with specific names and references that you can look up if you're Times Select.

The word republican is not equal to "hater of gays", despite any stance on gay union/marriage.

No, just "know thy place," "don't be an uppity gay person," and "stay in that closet."



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2007, 02:05:55 PM
Karl Rove is gay, isn't he?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 15, 2007, 02:08:14 PM
I have no idea, nor do I care


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 02:09:48 PM
Karl Rove is gay, isn't he?

You mean, "Miss Piggy"?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 02:32:45 PM
I have no idea, nor do I care

Some speculate that is the case.  His step-father was gay.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2007, 02:54:31 PM
So, he was probably abused as a kid...


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 03:34:55 PM
So, he was probably abused as a kid...

Can you document that?  My understanding is the Karl was very close to his ex-step-father, and was with him when he passed away.  I don't believe there was a history of abuse.  You are suggesting the because his step-father was gay, there had to have been abuse....that's just plain obnoxious stereotyping, don't you think?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 15, 2007, 05:57:16 PM
Sounds like implied stereotyping to me.

I have a question for the heterosexuals here.  Think you could change your sexual orientation?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 06:26:47 PM
Statement by Matt Foreman, Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

“The death of a family member or friend is always a sad occasion and we express our condolences to all those who were close to the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Unfortunately, we will always remember him as a founder and leader of America’s anti-gay industry, someone who exacerbated the nation’s appalling response to the onslaught of the AIDS epidemic, someone who demonized and vilified us for political gain and someone who used religion to divide rather than unite our nation.”


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 07:31:33 PM
"It is with great regret that Rev. Jerry Falwell never moderated his position on homosexuality." said Truth Wins Out's Executive Director Wayne Besen. "While our hearts go out to his family. we can't help but to reflect on his life and think about all of the families he's torn apart and teenagers that committed suicide because he made them feel inferior. He never missed an opportunity to kick our better angels to the curb and capitalize on our lesser demons to advance his career."


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 01:52:05 PM
So, he was probably abused as a kid...

Can you document that?  My understanding is the Karl was very close to his ex-step-father, and was with him when he passed away.  I don't believe there was a history of abuse.  You are suggesting the because his step-father was gay, there had to have been abuse....that's just plain obnoxious stereotyping, don't you think?

No, that's understanding how sexual abuse tends  to work.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 01:52:46 PM
Think you could change your sexual orientation?

For, why???


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 02:16:26 PM
Sounds like implied stereotyping to me.

I have a question for the heterosexuals here.  Think you could change your sexual orientation?

Its possible.  Look at the Spartans or convicts in prison. 

Personally, I think that sexuality is a genetic predisposition.  That is you can be born predisposed to being heterosexual or homosexual but environmental conditions can influence the behavior


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 03:44:03 PM
Sounds like implied stereotyping to me.

I have a question for the heterosexuals here.  Think you could change your sexual orientation?

Its possible.  Look at the Spartans or convicts in prison. 

Personally, I think that sexuality is a genetic predisposition.  That is you can be born predisposed to being heterosexual or homosexual but environmental conditions can influence the behavior

I'd go along with that, and I think one of the "environmental conditions" would be overpopulation.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 03:52:18 PM
Sounds like implied stereotyping to me.

I have a question for the heterosexuals here.  Think you could change your sexual orientation?

Its possible.  Look at the Spartans or convicts in prison. 

Personally, I think that sexuality is a genetic predisposition.  That is you can be born predisposed to being heterosexual or homosexual but environmental conditions can influence the behavior

I'd go along with that, and I think one of the "environmental conditions" would be overpopulation.

Most all the gay people I know would tell you that their sexual orientation was something that they were aware of as young children, before they new what sex was.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 16, 2007, 07:08:26 PM
Sounds like implied stereotyping to me.

I have a question for the heterosexuals here.  Think you could change your sexual orientation?

Its possible.  Look at the Spartans or convicts in prison. 

Personally, I think that sexuality is a genetic predisposition.  That is you can be born predisposed to being heterosexual or homosexual but environmental conditions can influence the behavior

Pretty much

So watch your kids closely, folks.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 16, 2007, 07:47:17 PM
I asked because just as it is normal for a heterosexual to be attracted to people of the opposite sex and/or fall in love with a person of the opposite sex, it is normal for LG persons to be attracted to persons of the same same and/or fall in love with a person of the same sex.

I agree that same-sex behavior can be induced in heterosexuals given certain conditions, and that prisons are one common example, but it is my understanding that people return to opposite sex relationships when they are released and have the freedom to choose.

Just as our entire homophobic culture induces heterosexual behavior among homosexuals, but given the right conditions, namely the freedom to choose or be oneself, people will find the orientation most "normal" to them.

These things run a lot deeper in people than it seems some may think.  Heterosexuals make take their orientation for granted in a way that precludes them from seeing that.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 07:50:04 PM
Was Tinky Winky really gay?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 16, 2007, 08:11:54 PM
The teletubbies seemed genderless to me, an adult forever banished from Never Never Land.  Not to children though, who can tell you exactly which one is a boy or a girl.  I guess we'd have to get that straight first (no pun intended) - that is, gender - before we could figure sexual orientation.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 08:17:07 PM
I asked because just as it is normal for a heterosexual to be attracted to people of the opposite sex and/or fall in love with a person of the opposite sex, it is normal for LG persons to be attracted to persons of the same same and/or fall in love with a person of the same sex.

I agree that same-sex behavior can be induced in heterosexuals given certain conditions, and that prisons are one common example, but it is my understanding that people return to opposite sex relationships when they are released and have the freedom to choose.

Just as our entire homophobic culture induces heterosexual behavior among homosexuals, but given the right conditions, namely the freedom to choose or be oneself, people will find the orientation most "normal" to them.

These things run a lot deeper in people than it seems some may think.  Heterosexuals make take their orientation for granted in a way that precludes them from seeing that.


You write like gays have some special insight into it all that heteros can't possibly understand.

Look, in nature, homosexuality is often obseved among creatures experiencing high populations, or rapid population growth. that's an environmental condition.

Maybe it's just "nature's way of telling you something's wrong".


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 16, 2007, 08:30:16 PM

You write like gays have some special insight into it all that heteros can't possibly understand.

Well a gay person does have the special insight of their own subjective experience, just as any person does.  But my writing was rather intended to communicate that heteros can understand this experience, by looking more closely at how strong their proclivities are.  That heteros may tend to take their own experience for granted, and as a result, not appreciate that, for a LG individual, their proclivities are just as normal to them.


Look, in nature, homosexuality is often obseved among creatures experiencing high populations, or rapid population growth. that's an environmental condition.

Maybe it's just "nature's way of telling you something's wrong".

If that is the case, why would it be "nature's way of telling you something's wrong"?  It seems it'd be an adaptation of the species, quite normal or natural.

Apparently, there is a certain percentage of any given human population that is gay.  This appears to be also the case with other species, those species having higher or lower percentages than humans.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 08:55:09 PM
Understood.

I think it's nature's way of saying something's wrong with the whole group (heteros & homos)...that's all.

Overpopulation is a real problem. No one likes to talk about it, but ZPG should be a goal in the world, IMO.

I don't think most heterosexuals give a fig about how it feels to be gay, btw. Nor should they waste too much time thinking about it.

Christ, it's only sex.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 16, 2007, 09:13:16 PM
Understood.

I think it's nature's way of saying something's wrong with the whole group (heteros & homos)...that's all.

Overpopulation is a real problem. No one likes to talk about it, but ZPG should be a goal in the world, IMO.

I don't think most heterosexuals give a fig about how it feels to be gay, btw. Nor should they waste too much time thinking about it.

Christ, it's only sex.

Unfortunately, population growth is also normal and natural, though normal and natural things may hurt us as a species in the long run.

I think hetereos should think more about their own sexuality if they are at all involved in human and civil rights issues related to the LGBT community.

For example, why would anyone want to oppose two persons of the same gender getting married or having a family?

It seems to me that they need to better understand the perspective of the same gender couple, their feelings towards each other, and how they experience themselves.

Yes, I hear you, in one way, it’s only sex.  But then – if that’s all it is – why is this such a difficult issue for the Republicans?

Wouldn't the nation have fared better if Falwell had done a bit more self reflecting?



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 09:42:40 PM
Quote
For example, why would anyone want to oppose two persons of the same gender getting married or having a family?

While I have no problem with either case, couldn't you make the case that reproduction by homosexuals is against nature?  If we are to assume that homosexuality is nature's way of controlling population growth, than artificial means to produce offspring goes against nature, no?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 16, 2007, 10:35:54 PM
Understood.

I think it's nature's way of saying something's wrong with the whole group (heteros & homos)...that's all.

Overpopulation is a real problem. No one likes to talk about it, but ZPG should be a goal in the world, IMO.

I don't think most heterosexuals give a fig about how it feels to be gay, btw. Nor should they waste too much time thinking about it.

Christ, it's only sex.

Is the spread of HIV more prevalent in the gay community?

So, is it really just sex?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 16, 2007, 11:07:20 PM
I think AIDS is most prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa, and the main mode of transmission is sex between men and women.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 16, 2007, 11:09:18 PM
Yep


How about in the U.S.?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 16, 2007, 11:23:24 PM
What is the point you are trying to make?

Feel free to state it, and back it up with your own homework.

Or are Americans the only humans?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 16, 2007, 11:27:04 PM
I think I know the answer.

I also know that you and your cronies cannot piuece together what others state - you need everything spelled out.

Utley said it's JUST SEX.

I say horsehockey.  (Have fun with that one, toots)



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 16, 2007, 11:30:18 PM
I really have no idea what point you're trying to make, KC.

My feeling is that it's probably some idiotic homophobic argument.

Or aren't you familiar enough with the U.S. statistics you need in order to make your bigoted case?

Scared you'll get taken to pieces?  ;-)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 16, 2007, 11:36:44 PM
What's so interesting about you, KC, is that you seem to think you can make an argument before you even have any facts.  "Toots."



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 16, 2007, 11:42:17 PM
Or that you can make one without explicitly stating it.

Come on now, you're on gay rights, I can't believe that a hotsie-moho like you is shy about stating their case.

If you can't make your case about sex, you're on the wrong forum.  "Toots."


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 02:25:27 AM
Quote
For example, why would anyone want to oppose two persons of the same gender getting married or having a family?

While I have no problem with either case, couldn't you make the case that reproduction by homosexuals is against nature?  If we are to assume that homosexuality is nature's way of controlling population growth, than artificial means to produce offspring goes against nature, no?

I do not think we can make such an assumption, since we cannot assume "nature" "knows" anything -- natural selection does not connote a value judgement as to what is positive or negative.  We humans do that.  That is all we can agree upon as an established given.  Otherwise, one is making a religious argument about a "truth" given from a higher intelligence that dictates how one ought to live.

And everything humans do is natural, is it not?  We make cars with pollution, that's natural, but the pollution is damaging to nature.  Do we ditch the cars?  No.  Why?  Because humans have other natural tendencies as well. 

It's natural for humans to reproduce, but we have also used birth control for thousands of years, evidence (if I recall correctly) going back to ancient Egyptians.  We are intelligent creatures, so it also natural for us to seek understanding of our environment, attempt to do things with it - which includes how much we reproduce and when.

Natural selection could conceivably produce more sterile persons, or persons having more difficulty conceiving -- but that does not necessarily mean that people should stop having children if humans are able to figure out the medical means for doing so, or that they should not adopt.

For it is also natural for people to form loving bonds and raise families, regardless of fertility or sexual orientation.

So there are lots of natural human tendencies and abilities, and one could assert that they are all nature's way of telling us what is the right thing to do.





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 02:33:40 AM
By the time we are finished, I think nature, as a behavioral advisor, might look like a roadway with many contradictory directional signs.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 17, 2007, 06:28:23 AM
I don't think homosexuality is nature's way of population control.  There have been gay people in every generation since the beginning of time where population control was a non-issue. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 17, 2007, 06:39:51 AM
Yes, I hear you, in one way, it’s only sex.  But then – if that’s all it is – why is this such a difficult issue for the Republicans?

Wouldn't the nation have fared better if Falwell had done a bit more self reflecting?


I can't speak for Republicans or Falwell. I'm not them.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 17, 2007, 06:47:26 AM
Quote
For example, why would anyone want to oppose two persons of the same gender getting married or having a family?

While I have no problem with either case, couldn't you make the case that reproduction by homosexuals is against nature?  If we are to assume that homosexuality is nature's way of controlling population growth, than artificial means to produce offspring goes against nature, no?

I do not think we can make such an assumption, since we cannot assume "nature" "knows" anything -- natural selection does not connote a value judgement as to what is positive or negative.  We humans do that.  That is all we can agree upon as an established given.  Otherwise, one is making a religious argument about a "truth" given from a higher intelligence that dictates how one ought to live.

And everything humans do is natural, is it not?  We make cars with pollution, that's natural, but the pollution is damaging to nature.  Do we ditch the cars?  No.  Why?  Because humans have other natural tendencies as well. 

It's natural for humans to reproduce, but we have also used birth control for thousands of years, evidence (if I recall correctly) going back to ancient Egyptians.  We are intelligent creatures, so it also natural for us to seek understanding of our environment, attempt to do things with it - which includes how much we reproduce and when.

Natural selection could conceivably produce more sterile persons, or persons having more difficulty conceiving -- but that does not necessarily mean that people should stop having children if humans are able to figure out the medical means for doing so, or that they should not adopt.

For it is also natural for people to form loving bonds and raise families, regardless of fertility or sexual orientation.

So there are lots of natural human tendencies and abilities, and one could assert that they are all nature's way of telling us what is the right thing to do.






There is evidence to suggest that population rates decline when humans are well fed and prosperous.

I think if you're gay, and that's who you are, great. But it also means you should accept it as much as you want everyone else, and give up the notion that you are entitled to breed children. Because if you want a kid, be heterosexual.

I feel the same way about heteros who can't concieve. As nature has determined it, you don't deserve to. You want a kid? Adopt.

Good talking with you, incaperson.

 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 02:04:10 PM
I don't think homosexuality is nature's way of population control.  There have been gay people in every generation since the beginning of time where population control was a non-issue. 

Yes, I'd think that in itself falsifies any such notion.  Quite apart from the point that natural selection is non-intentional and without foresight and planning.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 17, 2007, 02:06:59 PM
If society accepted homosexuality as a norm over its history, I wonder if natural selection would have effectively done away with it prior to advancements in artificial reproduction.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 02:11:12 PM
There is evidence to suggest that population rates decline when humans are well fed and prosperous.

I'd say that's probably true, looking at birth rates in western industrialized nations and impoverished third world countries.  But this has to do with education and better access to medicine and family planning, does it not.

I think if you're gay, and that's who you are, great. But it also means you should accept it as much as you want everyone else, and give up the notion that you are entitled to breed children. Because if you want a kid, be heterosexual.

I feel the same way about heteros who can't concieve. As nature has determined it, you don't deserve to. You want a kid? Adopt.

To me, this sounds like you are making Nature into the judging Jehovah of the Old Testament.  

If I have a terminal illness, has Nature deemed me deserving of death?  


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 17, 2007, 02:13:54 PM
Quote
But this has to do with education and better access to medicine and family planning, does it not.

Access to medicine would indicate people would be living longer and therefore it shouldn't effect a decline in population rate.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 17, 2007, 02:49:28 PM
I was listening to the Diane Rhem Show the other day.  The discussion was about infertility which the doctors referred to as a disease.  And as a disease, they felt treatment was appropriate and should be paid for by insurance as any other disease would be treated.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 17, 2007, 03:47:31 PM
If I have a terminal illness, has Nature deemed me deserving of death? 

"Deserving"?  Only you could say.

Nature does deem that you find a way to accept it, though.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 17, 2007, 03:48:43 PM
If society accepted homosexuality as a norm over its history, I wonder if natural selection would have effectively done away with it prior to advancements in artificial reproduction.

That's a very thoughtful, yet unanswerable question.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 06:04:35 PM
Quote
But this has to do with education and better access to medicine and family planning, does it not.

Access to medicine would indicate people would be living longer and therefore it shouldn't effect a decline in population rate.

Can't say about population decline myself.  Medical access does affect access to birth control and family planning.

Of course, people may not be living as long in poorer countries, but they may be having a lot more children to offset the life expectancy factor.  So there are a number of things playing off of one another (number-wise), I'd imagine, in all of these calculations.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 06:06:56 PM
If I have a terminal illness, has Nature deemed me deserving of death? 

"Deserving"?  Only you could say.

Nature does deem that you find a way to accept it, though.

Well, I am using your word to challenge your previously stated position.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 06:10:41 PM
I was listening to the Diane Rhem Show the other day.  The discussion was about infertility which the doctors referred to as a disease.  And as a disease, they felt treatment was appropriate and should be paid for by insurance as any other disease would be treated.



That seems odd to me that they would term it as such.  Seems infertility could be caused by a disease or any number of other factors, but I would say infertility is a condition.

I agree that it should be covered though.  But then again, my views on health care are what some consider quite liberal.  I think everyone is entitled to excellent health care.

I understand Australia has a system worth considering for emulation.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 17, 2007, 07:18:49 PM
My understanding of the word disease is that a disease has a beginning, progresses and ends in death.  Infertility doesn't seem to fit that definition, a definition given to me by a alcohol counselor when she explained that alcoholism is considered a "disease."


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 09:52:41 PM
That seems a reasonable starting (3 point) framework to me, though to be honest, I've never quite understood the "disease" terminology insofar as alchoholism is concerned.  And I don't really see how it applies within that framework either.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 10:16:21 PM
I've wondered if the term "disease," as far as alchoholism is concerned, has been used more to better teach the public about how difficult a cycle the alchoholic is caught in.  It's not this simple thing of stopping.

And now that you mention this show, I am wondering if it also has to do with helping people get coverage for treatment.

I am open to being enlightened.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 18, 2007, 06:04:34 AM
That seems a reasonable starting (3 point) framework to me, though to be honest, I've never quite understood the "disease" terminology insofar as alchoholism is concerned.  And I don't really see how it applies within that framework either.


Well, alcoholism has a beginning (for many it begins in their teens), it progresses (ie, daily blackout drinking) and it often ends in death.  So, by definition (which is a medical defiinition established sometime in the 1950s), alcoholism is a disease.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Kam on May 18, 2007, 10:10:03 AM
Life also has a beginning, progresses, and ends. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 18, 2007, 10:40:52 AM
Life also has a beginning, progresses, and ends. 
As Mr. Bernstien noted, it's the only disease where you don't look forward to the cure.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 12:02:28 PM
If I have a terminal illness, has Nature deemed me deserving of death? 

"Deserving"?  Only you could say.

Nature does deem that you find a way to accept it, though.

Well, I am using your word to challenge your previously stated position.


Actually, I think your misusing it to redefine my previous position.

Accepting that being gay is natural,  then it naturally follows that it would kill the biological need to reproduce.

Now, if it follows that it doesn't kill that need, then one has to question the nature of homossexuality, and its biological purpose.
 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 04:04:18 PM
That seems a reasonable starting (3 point) framework to me, though to be honest, I've never quite understood the "disease" terminology insofar as alchoholism is concerned.  And I don't really see how it applies within that framework either.


Well, alcoholism has a beginning (for many it begins in their teens), it progresses (ie, daily blackout drinking) and it often ends in death.  So, by definition (which is a medical defiinition established sometime in the 1950s), alcoholism is a disease.

I think of a disease as having a life of its own.  The death part being, for example, like the death of virus, which may or may not take its host too.

With alcoholism, disease seems more metaphorical.  Though I certainly stand to be corrected;  the terminology being accepted use in the medical profession.

The metaphor, that the alchoholic is certainly to be seen as in the grips of something having a life of its own - as there is a physiology (as well as psychology) involved that puts it beyond their control. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 04:08:49 PM
If I have a terminal illness, has Nature deemed me deserving of death? 

"Deserving"?  Only you could say.

Nature does deem that you find a way to accept it, though.

Well, I am using your word to challenge your previously stated position.


Actually, I think your misusing it to redefine my previous position.

Accepting that being gay is natural,  then it naturally follows that it would kill the biological need to reproduce.

Now, if it follows that it doesn't kill that need, then one has to question the nature of homossexuality, and its biological purpose.
 

This was your previous usage that I refered to:

Quote from: MrUtley on May 17, 2007, 06:47:26 AM
I think if you're gay, and that's who you are, great. But it also means you should accept it as much as you want everyone else, and give up the notion that you are entitled to breed children. Because if you want a kid, be heterosexual.

I feel the same way about heteros who can't concieve. As nature has determined it, you don't deserve to. You want a kid? Adopt.


My understanding is that you are reading an intent into nature and determining that nature thus deems people deserving or not deserving of certain rights.

Apparently, human ability to reproduce does not necessarily determine the human desire to do so.  Since gay persons and persons who are sterile (for any number of reasons) still wish to have children and raise families.

That is nature too.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: desdemona222b on May 18, 2007, 04:09:58 PM
Disease does not always end in death.  Asthma, psoriasis, Parkinson's, even cancer are all diseases that do not necessarily kill.  

Alcholism is considered a disease because alcoholics and addicts have something wrong with their brains that predisposes them to addiction.  The cerebral cortex and the brain chemistry itself do not behave the same as in non-addicts.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 18, 2007, 04:17:06 PM
Just because you aren't predisposed to addiction - it doesn't mean you can't become an addict.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 18, 2007, 04:18:59 PM
Quote
Apparently, human ability to reproduce does not necessarily determine the human desire to do so.  Since gay persons and persons who are sterile (for any number of reasons) still wish to have children and raise families.

I think that is why Utley said they should adopt


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 05:42:45 PM
Quote
Apparently, human ability to reproduce does not necessarily determine the human desire to do so.  Since gay persons and persons who are sterile (for any number of reasons) still wish to have children and raise families.

I think that is why Utley said they should adopt

It was part of the "solution".


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 18, 2007, 08:34:45 PM
I know several gay couples who have adopted and they seem to be very happy with that arrangement.  On that Diane Rehm program, they talked about a gay male couple who wanted biological children.  A surrogate offered to donate her eggs and carry the embryos.  The eggs were inseminated with sperm from both men, and the surrogate conceived twins.  One of the twins was the child of one father and the other was the child of his partner.  Different, eh?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 09:39:07 PM
Quote
Apparently, human ability to reproduce does not necessarily determine the human desire to do so.  Since gay persons and persons who are sterile (for any number of reasons) still wish to have children and raise families.

I think that is why Utley said they should adopt

It was part of the "solution".

Solution to what?

"Nature" isn't telling people anything, as to who should or shouldn't bear children.  Plenty of wonderful parents have children through artificial insemination, and plenty of lousy parents - some of whom should be in prison for their child rearing practices - have children the old fashioned way.

Who "can" or "can't" has nothing to do with who "deserves" to be a parent.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 09:41:56 PM
I know several gay couples who have adopted and they seem to be very happy with that arrangement.  On that Diane Rehm program, they talked about a gay male couple who wanted biological children.  A surrogate offered to donate her eggs and carry the embryos.  The eggs were inseminated with sperm from both men, and the surrogate conceived twins.  One of the twins was the child of one father and the other was the child of his partner.  Different, eh?

If loving couples - same sex or opposite sex - want to have and lovingly children via adoption or artificial insemination or whatever advances medical technology can offer with whatever fertility issues they are having -- I say all the more power to 'em.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 18, 2007, 10:53:19 PM
"Hey, who's that guy over there?"

"Him?  He's my dad."

"No, the other guy."

"He's my dad too."

Nice


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 11:09:39 PM
Quote
Apparently, human ability to reproduce does not necessarily determine the human desire to do so.  Since gay persons and persons who are sterile (for any number of reasons) still wish to have children and raise families.

I think that is why Utley said they should adopt

It was part of the "solution".

Solution to what?

"Nature" isn't telling people anything, as to who should or shouldn't bear children.  Plenty of wonderful parents have children through artificial insemination, and plenty of lousy parents - some of whom should be in prison for their child rearing practices - have children the old fashioned way.

Who "can" or "can't" has nothing to do with who "deserves" to be a parent.


I'll try to keep this simple, because for some reason you want to complicate everything.

If it's natural to be gay, then it is not natural for a gay person to wish to bring a child into the world. Now a gay person may be socialized to feel that he/she wants a child, but it's not a part of nature to be able to deliver the goods with the same-sex partner. The solution to that natural dilemma is to adopt----


Got it?

Or do you wish to take offense and read more into that clearly stated post than it says?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 11:13:07 PM
At this point in history, it’s still challenging enough to have children in non-traditional ways, that one could argue parents who conceive non-conventionally (gay or straight) may be tend to be better parents than average.  There’s quite a bit of thought and planning that goes into their decision to start a family.  

I see no problem with two dads.  I think your viewpoint, KC, is just prejudice.  


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 11:23:31 PM
Quote
Apparently, human ability to reproduce does not necessarily determine the human desire to do so.  Since gay persons and persons who are sterile (for any number of reasons) still wish to have children and raise families.

I think that is why Utley said they should adopt

It was part of the "solution".

Solution to what?

"Nature" isn't telling people anything, as to who should or shouldn't bear children.  Plenty of wonderful parents have children through artificial insemination, and plenty of lousy parents - some of whom should be in prison for their child rearing practices - have children the old fashioned way.

Who "can" or "can't" has nothing to do with who "deserves" to be a parent.


I'll try to keep this simple, because for some reason you want to complicate everything.

If it's natural to be gay, then it is not natural for a gay person to wish to bring a child into the world.

Now a gay person may be socialized to feel that he/she wants a child, but it's not a part of nature to be able to deliver the goods with the same-sex partner. The solution to that natural dilemma is to adopt----


Got it?

Or do you wish to take offense and read more into that clearly stated post than it says?

My position has nothing to do with taking offense or reading anything more into your position than what it states.

I am questioning what you are asserting as the basis of your opinions.  You do not seem to want to examine the assumptions you are operating on.

The desire to have children exists in people regardless of whether or not they are gay, straight, or fertile.  Some of this desire is obviously biological, and some of it is socialized, regardless of which category people belong to. 

So what?

The ability to be a good, loving parent has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of parents or the ability of an individual to biologically create offspring without the assistance of other persons or medical technology.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 11:47:06 PM
One cannot "desire" anything, including children, without that desire having some biological or natural basis.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 19, 2007, 07:32:29 AM
I have no problem with same-sex parents.  IME, these parents tend to be better parents than their hetero counterparts.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 19, 2007, 02:14:15 PM
 One cannot "desire" anything, including children, without that desire having some biological or natural basis.

Guess those car commercials don't work, do they?


The point is---and I'm not why sure why you keep changing the subject, if it's natural to be homosexual, then it's not natural to want to have kids.

Desire to raise a family as a homosexual couple comes from the desire of homosexuals to be seen as normal human beings and therefore accepted in the mainstream.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 19, 2007, 05:25:07 PM



Desire to be seen as normal human beings and therefore accepted in the mainstream.

And how is this wrong?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 19, 2007, 06:19:11 PM



Desire to be seen as normal human beings and therefore accepted in the mainstream.

And how is this wrong?

Didn't see anyone post that it was wrong.

Iit's just the fact of not being accepted.

When not accepted fully by others, humans often do several things: create their own culture---make excessive demands for attention and ultimately acceptance---reject the mainstream.

I think the G-L World does all of this.

But, AGAIN---If you believe that you are gay because NATURE MADE YOU THAT WAY, then don't pursue artifical insemination.

 Shut up and adopt and go live your life.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 19, 2007, 06:38:01 PM
Personlly,  I have done that, though it took a great deal of time to get there, and in that time, I tried to be someone else, and as a result I have a child of my own who has children of her own, all conceived in what you would call the natural way. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 19, 2007, 08:57:44 PM
Mazel Tov.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 19, 2007, 10:26:43 PM
Hmmmm....

So Sam...........

You are gay - but had a child via a loving relationship with a man?

Do you feel your being gay is just natural?  In part due to no societal influence?  How do you then explain the former attraction?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 20, 2007, 01:58:10 AM
One cannot "desire" anything, including children, without that desire having some biological or natural basis.

Guess those car commercials don't work, do they?

They work.  The desire for a car is biological.  It doesn't necessarily mean you want to go to bed with the car or have it for lunch.  Although you may make that association, the association also being biological.

The point is---and I'm not why sure why you keep changing the subject, if it's natural to be homosexual, then it's not natural to want to have kids.

That's my point.  It is perfectly natural for homosexuals to want children.  It is perfectly natural for persons who are infertile or having fertility issues to want children.

Desire to raise a family as a homosexual couple comes from the desire of homosexuals to be seen as normal human beings and therefore accepted in the mainstream.

This may be part of the desire to raise a family for any given individual, whether they are heterosexual or gay, fertile or infertile.  Everyone's heard of the person who went the All American whatever number of yards, including having kids, when it wasn't really what they wanted -- just what they were expected to do.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 20, 2007, 07:45:18 AM
That's my point.  It is perfectly natural for homosexuals to want children.  It is perfectly natural for persons who are infertile or having fertility issues to want children.


Well, your "point" is not well founded. The word "natural" comes from the root "nature". "Nature" did not intend either homosexuals or infertiles to have children.

Homosexuals may "want" children, but that is a desire rooted in socialization, not in nature---

Infertile heterosexuals are a different story, since they are socialized and hardwired to reproduce, but nature has determined a different fate.

The "want" of homosexuals to "reproduce" is created by the natural desire to conform to the expectations of other humans, but by acting in that interest, they are not acting out of nature desire to reproduce.

The notion that buying a car is biological is ridiculous. Just utterly ridiculous.

And while I agree that many people act without thinking---including having kids---I submit, that if more people were conscious of their actions and true to their nature, the only children in the world would be those that were really desired and fully appreciated. Sadly, that is not the case for most.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 20, 2007, 08:01:22 AM
Quote
Homosexuals may "want" children, but that is a desire rooted in socialization, not in nature---
You got a cite for that, counselor?  Because there is no reason why a person's sexual desires would be necessarily linked to the desire to have children.  What, you think they are on the same chromosome?  Genetically linked?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 20, 2007, 09:00:01 AM
kidc,

Do you feel your being gay is just natural?  In part due to no societal influence?

Do YOU feel that your being straight is just natural?  In part due to no societal influence?

Unless and until you answer this question for yourself, why do you believe it is right, moral, and ethical to ask it of anyone else?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 20, 2007, 09:32:00 AM
Hmmmm....

So Sam...........

You are gay - but had a child via a loving relationship with a man?

Do you feel your being gay is just natural?  In part due to no societal influence?  How do you then explain the former attraction?

Not that it is any of your business, but wanting to be accepted, I lived much of my life pretending to be straight, knowing all along it was a lie.   I was married in my early 20s to a woman I thought I loved, and we had two children.  The societal influence in my life was what led me to live a lie. So be it.  I learned late in life to be true to myself. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 20, 2007, 11:18:57 AM
Quote
Homosexuals may "want" children, but that is a desire rooted in socialization, not in nature---
You got a cite for that, counselor?  Because there is no reason why a person's sexual desires would be necessarily linked to the desire to have children.  What, you think they are on the same chromosome?  Genetically linked?

It was my understanding that we discussing theoretical aspects of population checks and the nature of sexuality as related to the urge to reproduce.

My point of view is kind of Malthusian in its roots.

The fact is that we don't know for sure why some people are gay and some aren't, but in my opinion, if it is natural to be gay, it seems to be related to some larger  natural purpose than where an individual would like to be poked or be poking.

And the idea of a genetic mutation, I think, has been explored---but you can do the research on that one, priestly one.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 20, 2007, 02:29:54 PM
That's my point.  It is perfectly natural for homosexuals to want children.  It is perfectly natural for persons who are infertile or having fertility issues to want children.


Well, your "point" is not well founded. The word "natural" comes from the root "nature". "Nature" did not intend either homosexuals or infertiles to have children.

Nature does not have intent.  Natural selection does not operate with the foresight I am understanding you attribute to it. 


The notion that buying a car is biological is ridiculous. Just utterly ridiculous.

No, it isn't.  The brain/mind is part of nature too;  the brain is part of the human body.  The desire to buy a car is most certainly rooted in our biology.  I think you may be inaccurately splitting the mind/body in your reasoning approach.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 20, 2007, 02:56:53 PM
That's my point.  It is perfectly natural for homosexuals to want children.  It is perfectly natural for persons who are infertile or having fertility issues to want children.


Well, your "point" is not well founded. The word "natural" comes from the root "nature". "Nature" did not intend either homosexuals or infertiles to have children.

Nature does not have intent.  Natural selection does not operate with the foresight I am understanding you attribute to it. 


The notion that buying a car is biological is ridiculous. Just utterly ridiculous.

No, it isn't.  The brain/mind is part of nature too;  the brain is part of the human body.  The desire to buy a car is most certainly rooted in our biology.  I think you may be inaccurately splitting the mind/body in your reasoning approach.



I think you may have split from reality.

Nature did not equip two men to have a child. It did not equip two women to have one, either.
It does not bless each and every heterosexual with the ability to reproduce.

Stop playing word games and ACCEPT the LIMITATIONS that NATURE has put in place.

Unless, you believe that both males and female same sex couples will reproduce NATURALLY, then you've got no fricking case.

If we NATURALLY wanted TOYOTAS, WHOPPERS, MARLBOROS, etc...we'd have no advertising industry.
 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 20, 2007, 03:17:38 PM
Whooopers are good.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 20, 2007, 05:23:22 PM
That's my point.  It is perfectly natural for homosexuals to want children.  It is perfectly natural for persons who are infertile or having fertility issues to want children.


Well, your "point" is not well founded. The word "natural" comes from the root "nature". "Nature" did not intend either homosexuals or infertiles to have children.

Nature does not have intent.  Natural selection does not operate with the foresight I am understanding you attribute to it. 


The notion that buying a car is biological is ridiculous. Just utterly ridiculous.

No, it isn't.  The brain/mind is part of nature too;  the brain is part of the human body.  The desire to buy a car is most certainly rooted in our biology.  I think you may be inaccurately splitting the mind/body in your reasoning approach.



I think you may have split from reality.

Nature did not equip two men to have a child. It did not equip two women to have one, either.
It does not bless each and every heterosexual with the ability to reproduce.

Stop playing word games and ACCEPT the LIMITATIONS that NATURE has put in place.

Unless, you believe that both males and female same sex couples will reproduce NATURALLY, then you've got no fricking case.

If we NATURALLY wanted TOYOTAS, WHOPPERS, MARLBOROS, etc...we'd have no advertising industry.
 

Then, by your logic, we shouldn't buy any cars that the advertising industry is pushing.  Just accept the limitations "nature" has put in place.

Walk or swim.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 20, 2007, 06:18:44 PM
Gay people can reproduce.  Just because one is gay, doesn't mean he cannot reproduce.  Many have done so.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 20, 2007, 07:09:35 PM
An old friend of mine came out to me as gay (female) many, many years ago.  She told me on the phone very point blank, and then, after talking a little bit, we went out to a gay women’s bar for the evening – a place I’d never been -  and spent the evening talking about what had happened to her all those years all her friends thought she was straight and liked men.  She’d had relationships with men, but it was really women she was attracted to, and where happiness was for her.  I could see from our conversation that evening how much is done to gay people in our society, and that was sad to me, but certainly not her sexual preference.  And I was happy for her that she was able to find herself, and come to truth as to what was most fulfilling for her in relationships.

I thought her willingness to be bravely honest with herself and others was an inspiration for all.

She wanted to have a baby VERY much, and years later, after choosing a life partner, had a baby through a donor who was a good friend.

IME, her desire for children, was as natural as mine was.  Or any other heterosexual.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 20, 2007, 09:01:15 PM
Gay people can reproduce.  Just because one is gay, doesn't mean he cannot reproduce.  Many have done so.

You've proven it

I have no problem with gays reproducing naturally, as you did with your wife.

How's she doin?  You know - with the shock and all.  Tough.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 20, 2007, 09:53:28 PM
Gay people can reproduce.  Just because one is gay, doesn't mean he cannot reproduce.  Many have done so.

You've proven it

I have no problem with gays reproducing naturally, as you did with your wife.

How's she doin?  You know - with the shock and all.  Tough.

How is your family doing at church without you?

How is that chair you set up in the corner for yourself?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 20, 2007, 09:55:06 PM
Did you have a good Sunday, KC?  Not singing with them liberals or listening to any wymen or gays at the pulpit, that is.  Home alone ..........


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 20, 2007, 10:32:46 PM
Haven't missed the sermons. 

The sun was real nice today, thanks.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 20, 2007, 10:37:57 PM
"Hey, who's that guy over there?"

"Him?  He's my dad."

"No, the other guy."

"He's my dad too."

Nice

Its not all that different than a lot of divorced families...


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 20, 2007, 10:43:44 PM
Right

And we all know THAT is not f**King up kids in this country - lol


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 21, 2007, 05:01:16 AM
kidc,

And we all know THAT is not f**King up kids in this country - lol

If the other choices are growing up in an orphanage with NO father or being shuffled from foster home to foster home, I would say that having two dads (or two moms) is a far preferable choice.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 21, 2007, 06:31:51 AM
Gay people can reproduce.  Just because one is gay, doesn't mean he cannot reproduce.  Many have done so.

Really? You mean TWO MEN have reproduced? OR was it TWO WOMEN?

Can you show the evidence for this?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 21, 2007, 06:35:24 AM
An old friend of mine came out to me as gay (female) many, many years ago.  She told me on the phone very point blank, and then, after talking a little bit, we went out to a gay women’s bar for the evening – a place I’d never been -  and spent the evening talking about what had happened to her all those years all her friends thought she was straight and liked men.  She’d had relationships with men, but it was really women she was attracted to, and where happiness was for her.  I could see from our conversation that evening how much is done to gay people in our society, and that was sad to me, but certainly not her sexual preference.  And I was happy for her that she was able to find herself, and come to truth as to what was most fulfilling for her in relationships.

I thought her willingness to be bravely honest with herself and others was an inspiration for all.

She wanted to have a baby VERY much, and years later, after choosing a life partner, had a baby through a donor who was a good friend.

IME, her desire for children, was as natural as mine was.  Or any other heterosexual.


In my opinion, she's a very confused individual. And not gay, just fearful of men. A very weak individual.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 21, 2007, 06:43:42 AM
Garrick,

In my opinion, she's a very confused individual. And not gay, just fearful of men. A very weak individual.

Gee, is that you, standing behind Lucy's stand, offering advice at 5 cents per session?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 21, 2007, 07:15:41 AM
Gay people can reproduce.  Just because one is gay, doesn't mean he cannot reproduce.  Many have done so.

Really? You mean TWO MEN have reproduced? OR was it TWO WOMEN?

Can you show the evidence for this?

Many gay people live in heterosexual relationships.  More than you could begin to imagine, and many have children, including myself.  Wiseguy.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 21, 2007, 10:53:16 AM
Besides the point, though, isn't it?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 21, 2007, 01:49:53 PM
An old friend of mine came out to me as gay (female) many, many years ago.  She told me on the phone very point blank, and then, after talking a little bit, we went out to a gay women’s bar for the evening – a place I’d never been -  and spent the evening talking about what had happened to her all those years all her friends thought she was straight and liked men.  She’d had relationships with men, but it was really women she was attracted to, and where happiness was for her.  I could see from our conversation that evening how much is done to gay people in our society, and that was sad to me, but certainly not her sexual preference.  And I was happy for her that she was able to find herself, and come to truth as to what was most fulfilling for her in relationships.

I thought her willingness to be bravely honest with herself and others was an inspiration for all.

She wanted to have a baby VERY much, and years later, after choosing a life partner, had a baby through a donor who was a good friend.

IME, her desire for children, was as natural as mine was.  Or any other heterosexual.


So who's her baby daddy?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 21, 2007, 02:20:12 PM
An old friend of mine came out to me as gay (female) many, many years ago.  She told me on the phone very point blank, and then, after talking a little bit, we went out to a gay women’s bar for the evening – a place I’d never been -  and spent the evening talking about what had happened to her all those years all her friends thought she was straight and liked men.  She’d had relationships with men, but it was really women she was attracted to, and where happiness was for her.  I could see from our conversation that evening how much is done to gay people in our society, and that was sad to me, but certainly not her sexual preference.  And I was happy for her that she was able to find herself, and come to truth as to what was most fulfilling for her in relationships.

I thought her willingness to be bravely honest with herself and others was an inspiration for all.

She wanted to have a baby VERY much, and years later, after choosing a life partner, had a baby through a donor who was a good friend.

IME, her desire for children, was as natural as mine was.  Or any other heterosexual.


In my opinion, she's a very confused individual. And not gay, just fearful of men. A very weak individual.

No, she is just oriented to women, knew she was from an early age.  She is not afraid of men; she’s had boyfriends, and actually, has a lot of heterosexual male friends.  Coming out for her was about getting clear, getting unconfused.

She is actually one of the bravest women I've ever known.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 21, 2007, 02:20:50 PM
An old friend of mine came out to me as gay (female) many, many years ago.  She told me on the phone very point blank, and then, after talking a little bit, we went out to a gay women’s bar for the evening – a place I’d never been -  and spent the evening talking about what had happened to her all those years all her friends thought she was straight and liked men.  She’d had relationships with men, but it was really women she was attracted to, and where happiness was for her.  I could see from our conversation that evening how much is done to gay people in our society, and that was sad to me, but certainly not her sexual preference.  And I was happy for her that she was able to find herself, and come to truth as to what was most fulfilling for her in relationships.

I thought her willingness to be bravely honest with herself and others was an inspiration for all.

She wanted to have a baby VERY much, and years later, after choosing a life partner, had a baby through a donor who was a good friend.

IME, her desire for children, was as natural as mine was.  Or any other heterosexual.


So who's her baby daddy?

Why do you care?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 21, 2007, 02:28:12 PM
An old friend of mine came out to me as gay (female) many, many years ago.  She told me on the phone very point blank, and then, after talking a little bit, we went out to a gay women’s bar for the evening – a place I’d never been -  and spent the evening talking about what had happened to her all those years all her friends thought she was straight and liked men.  She’d had relationships with men, but it was really women she was attracted to, and where happiness was for her.  I could see from our conversation that evening how much is done to gay people in our society, and that was sad to me, but certainly not her sexual preference.  And I was happy for her that she was able to find herself, and come to truth as to what was most fulfilling for her in relationships.

I thought her willingness to be bravely honest with herself and others was an inspiration for all.

She wanted to have a baby VERY much, and years later, after choosing a life partner, had a baby through a donor who was a good friend.

IME, her desire for children, was as natural as mine was.  Or any other heterosexual.


So who's her baby daddy?

Why do you care?

Why do I care?

First of all, just answer the q.

It is obvious to me that you feel children raised in a traditional mother/father household get no great benefit, that other children lack for nothing.

That's twisted.

And no - citing certain examples where things appear fine doesn't cut it.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 21, 2007, 02:36:04 PM
An old friend of mine came out to me as gay (female) many, many years ago.  She told me on the phone very point blank, and then, after talking a little bit, we went out to a gay women’s bar for the evening – a place I’d never been -  and spent the evening talking about what had happened to her all those years all her friends thought she was straight and liked men.  She’d had relationships with men, but it was really women she was attracted to, and where happiness was for her.  I could see from our conversation that evening how much is done to gay people in our society, and that was sad to me, but certainly not her sexual preference.  And I was happy for her that she was able to find herself, and come to truth as to what was most fulfilling for her in relationships.

I thought her willingness to be bravely honest with herself and others was an inspiration for all.

She wanted to have a baby VERY much, and years later, after choosing a life partner, had a baby through a donor who was a good friend.

IME, her desire for children, was as natural as mine was.  Or any other heterosexual.


So who's her baby daddy?

Well, it ain't the other mama. heather has two mommies..but no daddy.

Or Billy has two daddies. But no mommy.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 21, 2007, 02:50:50 PM
In their case, the donor is “dad.”  It wasn’t what they originally planned, more of an uncle-like relationship, but they were all close friends, and he found that he wanted more, and this worked out to everyone's liking.

In any case, even if that had never occured, the child has probably more male role models and concerned men in their life than the average American child with a traditional father.

So, MrUtley and KC, without denying the importance of fathers, I think you're both approaching this issue with thinking that is a bit too black and white.  IMO sometimes the societal notion and judgment about fathers -- on a given child -- is more harmful to children than whether or not they grew up with one.  And sometimes there are ways children get even more with non-conventional models.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 21, 2007, 03:05:19 PM
"......more male role models...."

Gots ta have a DAD, regardless.  Good for the "donor" for (DUH!) STEPPING UP


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 21, 2007, 03:43:20 PM
In their case, the donor is “dad.”  It wasn’t what they originally planned, more of an uncle-like relationship, but they were all close friends, and he found that he wanted more, and this worked out to everyone's liking.

In any case, even if that had never occured, the child has probably more male role models and concerned men in their life than the average American child with a traditional father.

So, MrUtley and KC, without denying the importance of fathers, I think you're both approaching this issue with thinking that is a bit too black and white.  IMO sometimes the societal notion and judgment about fathers -- on a given child -- is more harmful to children than whether or not they grew up with one.  And sometimes there are ways children get even more with non-conventional models.

Black and white? Hmmm. Nature designs a woman to have a baby with a man, and you want it differently. Of course, then WE'RE looking at it WRONG. 

"IMO, sometimes the societal notion and judgement about fathers"...what EXACTLY do you mean by that statement. It's so VAGUE. Could you clarify it, please?

As far as getting "even more with non-conventional models", I'd like to first know what the "more" is, and then I'd like you to cite the data you have to support that statement.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 21, 2007, 04:46:54 PM
"......more male role models...."

Gots ta have a DAD, regardless.  Good for the "donor" for (DUH!) STEPPING UP

Stepping up is an interesting expression.  Is this as in Casey stepping up to the baseball plate to assume the responsibilities that are his?

Just know, in this situation, that he loved the child very much and had feelings about them as his offspring – and wanted that parent/child relationship.  The friendship and mutually positive regard among all three parties (the two mothers and the donor) also created as situation where it was possible for such feelings to develop.

But initially, the agreement was otherwise. 

So I wouldn’t say that donors (and same sex parents) who don’t that go that route are shirking a responsibility.  Or not stepping up to the bat.

There being an explicit agreement about the donor not having parental responsibility to begin with. 

Donating sperm, even to friends, does not a “dad” make.  Nor does the sperm donor having a relationship with the offspring either.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 21, 2007, 04:54:36 PM
In their case, the donor is “dad.”  It wasn’t what they originally planned, more of an uncle-like relationship, but they were all close friends, and he found that he wanted more, and this worked out to everyone's liking.

In any case, even if that had never occured, the child has probably more male role models and concerned men in their life than the average American child with a traditional father.

So, MrUtley and KC, without denying the importance of fathers, I think you're both approaching this issue with thinking that is a bit too black and white.  IMO sometimes the societal notion and judgment about fathers -- on a given child -- is more harmful to children than whether or not they grew up with one.  And sometimes there are ways children get even more with non-conventional models.

Black and white? Hmmm. Nature designs a woman to have a baby with a man, and you want it differently. Of course, then WE'RE looking at it WRONG. 

"IMO, sometimes the societal notion and judgement about fathers"...what EXACTLY do you mean by that statement. It's so VAGUE. Could you clarify it, please?

As far as getting "even more with non-conventional models", I'd like to first know what the "more" is, and then I'd like you to cite the data you have to support that statement.



Well, I'm not entirely clear what you mean by "you want it differently."  I am heterosexual.  But some people do want it differently, as my friend who is gay, and also wanted children.  I think gay people have the right to form same sex relationships and raise children with their partners, and with the same status as opposite sex persons.  I see healthy children coming out of these relationships, and the bulk of professional medical and psychological opinion supports that view, not yours. 

"Nature" has given us all kinds of things, including minds to think with, figure out what we want, and how to get it.  If people are not being hurt, I don't see a problem with it.

I do see a problem with denying people basic human rights, such as the right to choose who they form families with, the right to lovingly have and raise children.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 21, 2007, 04:58:05 PM
I see healthy children coming out of these relationships, and the bulk of professional medical and psychological opinion supports that view, not yours. 


gee, I think you have enough trouble informing us what your own ideas are, and it's clear that I never said the children would or wouldn't be healthy. I just want to see the data you have to support your ideas.

To date, you haven't displayed anything but supposition and bias.

but, I know you can do better.

so keep at it.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 21, 2007, 05:06:13 PM
MrUtley

Personal insults are the mark of those who are unable to express their own opinions clearly.

Your statement:

As far as getting "even more with non-conventional models", I'd like to first know what the "more" is, and then I'd like you to cite the data you have to support that statement.

The bulk of scientific and medical data supporting my view, as expressed in the previous post I made, is not supposition dear.

However, your intent-laden Mother Nature certainly is.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 21, 2007, 05:09:53 PM
"IMO, sometimes the societal notion and judgement about fathers"...what EXACTLY do you mean by that statement. It's so VAGUE. Could you clarify it, please?

I mean that people who presume children are lacking or deficient in some way because of their bias, judgements, and prejudice towards their families sometimes do those children more harm than any "lack" that may or may not exist.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 21, 2007, 05:32:14 PM
Statics tell us that only 25% of children born in America grow up in the household of their biological parents.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 21, 2007, 05:41:54 PM
"......more male role models...."

Gots ta have a DAD, regardless.  Good for the "donor" for (DUH!) STEPPING UP

Stepping up is an interesting expression.  Is this as in Casey stepping up to the baseball plate to assume the responsibilities that are his?

Just know, in this situation, that he loved the child very much and had feelings about them as his offspring – and wanted that parent/child relationship.  The friendship and mutually positive regard among all three parties (the two mothers and the donor) also created as situation where it was possible for such feelings to develop.

But initially, the agreement was otherwise. 

So I wouldn’t say that donors (and same sex parents) who don’t that go that route are shirking a responsibility.  Or not stepping up to the bat.

There being an explicit agreement about the donor not having parental responsibility to begin with. 

Donating sperm, even to friends, does not a “dad” make.  Nor does the sperm donor having a relationship with the offspring either.


"But initially the agreement was otherwise"

Initially the agreement sucked.

YES - "donating" sperm makes the dad the dad.  What he does with that IS a societal concern, not swept under any rug by a second mom (or even dad) stepping in.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 21, 2007, 05:42:56 PM
Now you are talking about CREATING more of thes situations.

Not so cool.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 21, 2007, 05:56:10 PM

"But initially the agreement was otherwise"

Initially the agreement sucked.

YES - "donating" sperm makes the dad the dad.  What he does with that IS a societal concern, not swept under any rug by a second mom (or even dad) stepping in.

Why do you say the initial agreement "sucked"?  They didn't feel that way;  that's why they made the agreement.  Who are you to dictate or determine what is best for the parties making the agreement?

And no - donating sperm doesn't make a "dad." 

Is this your view of sperm banks?  That all that semen stored, wherever it winds up, whatever child is eventually born and grows up, in whatever family, somewhere else on this wide planet is the True "Dad."


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 21, 2007, 06:10:53 PM
Now you are talking about CREATING more of thes situations.

Not so cool.

I'm not talking about creating anything.  More people ARE creating these situations, choosing to live openly in commited relationships, openly raise children with same sex partners.  They need the same legal recognition and protections as any other family.

How does that hurt you or I?

It can only help people, including children as they grow up.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 21, 2007, 06:47:24 PM

"But initially the agreement was otherwise"

Initially the agreement sucked.

YES - "donating" sperm makes the dad the dad.  What he does with that IS a societal concern, not swept under any rug by a second mom (or even dad) stepping in.

Why do you say the initial agreement "sucked"?  They didn't feel that way;  that's why they made the agreement.  Who are you to dictate or determine what is best for the parties making the agreement?

And no - donating sperm doesn't make a "dad." 

Is this your view of sperm banks?  That all that semen stored, wherever it winds up, whatever child is eventually born and grows up, in whatever family, somewhere else on this wide planet is the True "Dad."

"They didnt feel that way - that's why they made the agreement"

Gotta wonder then why prostitution is illegal most places.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on May 21, 2007, 08:26:55 PM
Kid,

Ya also gotta wonder why it is one of the most lucrative careers! Ya gotta wonder why so many disregard the law! Ya gotta wonder!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 21, 2007, 10:13:54 PM
Being a prostitute may be a lucrative career for some but I think you are kidding yourself if you think the vast majority of prostitutes are in that boat.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 21, 2007, 10:17:27 PM
Regardless, friends having a child together is not a money making endeavor, as in prostitution.  Nor are their agreements around their relationships in this respect comparable.

That's quite a stretch, KC.

BTW You are evading my question about the True “Dad” and where He resides after someone goes to a sperm bank for an anonymous donor, and thus, has a baby with a partner -- whether same sex or opposite sex.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 21, 2007, 10:23:45 PM
Regardless, friends having a child together is not a money making endeavor, as in prostitution.  Nor are their agreements around their relationships in this respect comparable.

That's quite a stretch, KC.

BTW You are evading my question about the True “Dad” and where He resides after someone goes to a sperm bank for an anonymous donor, and thus, has a baby with a partner -- whether same sex or opposite sex.

Don't like the sperm bank concept.

Serves zero positive purpose.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 21, 2007, 10:27:04 PM
Even for heterosexual couples where the male partner is not capable of producing healthy sperm?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 21, 2007, 10:40:58 PM
Or how about if the male carries a gene for a severe congenital defect and the couple does not wish to risk passing it to their child? 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 22, 2007, 06:38:36 AM
MrUtley

Personal insults are the mark of those who are unable to express their own opinions clearly.

Your statement:

As far as getting "even more with non-conventional models", I'd like to first know what the "more" is, and then I'd like you to cite the data you have to support that statement.

The bulk of scientific and medical data supporting my view, as expressed in the previous post I made, is not supposition dear.

However, your intent-laden Mother Nature certainly is.

so, unable to produce data to support your claims, you attempt to characterize my post as a "personal insult".

Help me understand how asking you to back your assertions that gay couples could provide "more than" a heterosexual couple for a child is personally insulting to you?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 22, 2007, 06:42:51 AM
"IMO, sometimes the societal notion and judgement about fathers"...what EXACTLY do you mean by that statement. It's so VAGUE. Could you clarify it, please?

I mean that people who presume children are lacking or deficient in some way because of their bias, judgements, and prejudice towards their families sometimes do those children more harm than any "lack" that may or may not exist.


So, you are blaming outside forces for any failures that homosexual parents may have? Isn't that a bult-in bias of claiming victimhood every time things don't go one's way?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 22, 2007, 06:45:17 AM
I have to say that I have never been a great fan of the sperm bank concept, either.

Or in vitro fertilization.

Children aren't trophies to be collected and displayed for the edifice of the person who wishes to claim the status of parenthood.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 07:57:27 AM
There probably are people who see their children in this light, but I don't think many do.  Those who must go through many trials to become parents have other motives, IMHO.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 22, 2007, 08:46:47 AM
Quote
Children aren't trophies to be collected and displayed for the edifice of the person who wishes to claim the status of parenthood.

I don't think many people who go through the procedure are doing it for that reason.  Its a very expensive, exhaustive procedure so it makes sense to improve a woman's success rate for a successful pregnancy by placing multiple embryos during the transfer. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 09:37:27 AM
I've known of cases where infertile parents have adopted a child, and then shortly afterward find themselves pregnant. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 22, 2007, 10:40:36 AM
I have too but I somehow doubt that it is anything but the exception rather than the norm.

The issue I have with adoption is that the birth parents still have rights even after the child has been adopted. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 12:42:22 PM
I have too but I somehow doubt that it is anything but the exception rather than the norm.

The issue I have with adoption is that the birth parents still have rights even after the child has been adopted. 

I thought they gave up their rights when the adoption papers were signed.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 22, 2007, 02:01:45 PM
gee, I think you have enough trouble informing us what your own ideas are,

This is the insult or personal slight I refered to.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 22, 2007, 02:05:33 PM
There probably are people who see their children in this light, but I don't think many do.  Those who must go through many trials to become parents have other motives, IMHO.

Agreed.  There are also parents who have their children the old fashioned way and see them in this light.

I see no reason to presume that parents who go to sperm banks want a trophy child.  Just that they are motivated to be parents, in spite of whatever challenges they face.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 22, 2007, 02:09:48 PM
Quote
Children aren't trophies to be collected and displayed for the edifice of the person who wishes to claim the status of parenthood.

I don't think many people who go through the procedure are doing it for that reason.  Its a very expensive, exhaustive procedure so it makes sense to improve a woman's success rate for a successful pregnancy by placing multiple embryos during the transfer. 

I know another family (opposite sex) who went through a clinic because of fertility issues on both sides (male and female), the procedures enabling her to have a child that was biologically both of theirs.

They are wonderful, conscientious parents, and wanted another, but the entire thing was just too much to go through again.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 22, 2007, 02:23:50 PM
"IMO, sometimes the societal notion and judgement about fathers"...what EXACTLY do you mean by that statement. It's so VAGUE. Could you clarify it, please?

I mean that people who presume children are lacking or deficient in some way because of their bias, judgements, and prejudice towards their families sometimes do those children more harm than any "lack" that may or may not exist.


So, you are blaming outside forces for any failures that homosexual parents may have? Isn't that a bult-in bias of claiming victimhood every time things don't go one's way?

No.

I am saying that people have a right to form families as they see fit (with the obvious exception of abusive situations we prosecute by law). 

There are lacks and fall-shorts in every child's upbringing;  there are strengths.  I am not refering only to families with same sex parents.  I am refering to all families and all our standard modes of viewing the famlies that are different.  For example, you may have a child who is raised by a single grandparent who does "better"  (depending on how we define that) than one who comes from a two parent home, plays baseball every Sunday with DAD, and has a bank account and the grades to get him into an elitist college.  To say that the later child is better off, is simply cut and dry thinking.  What I earlier called, black and white.

I think, as a society, we help children more by supporting their families, not tearing them down.  I want to be part of the solution, not the problem.

I think defining child no. one, in the above example, as an example of a child who comes from a deficient family is harmful to that child.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 22, 2007, 02:27:02 PM
Actually, gay parents do not have the RIGHT to adopt.  They must be approved like the heteros.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 22, 2007, 03:06:08 PM
I am saying that people have a right to form families as they see fit (with the obvious exception of abusive situations we prosecute by law). 

So you would favor bigamy? Two guys a goat and their cat?  Heather has THREE mommies? And eight daddies?

Yeah, that sounds like it will work. Christ, I see enough whacky kids these days due to the percieved "rights" of their "parents" to pursue their own selfish needs and desires.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 22, 2007, 03:27:57 PM
I have too but I somehow doubt that it is anything but the exception rather than the norm.

The issue I have with adoption is that the birth parents still have rights even after the child has been adopted. 

I thought they gave up their rights when the adoption papers were signed.

The adoption laws vary from state to state.  In Massachusetts consent is irrevocable.  But I believe in Wisconsin, a mother can revoke consent up to a year after


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 22, 2007, 04:57:42 PM
I am saying that people have a right to form families as they see fit (with the obvious exception of abusive situations we prosecute by law). 

So you would favor bigamy? Two guys a goat and their cat?  Heather has THREE mommies? And eight daddies?

Yeah, that sounds like it will work. Christ, I see enough whacky kids these days due to the percieved "rights" of their "parents" to pursue their own selfish needs and desires.


Well, we're really jumping into the absurd here.  Can't you put together a better argument Utley?

No I don't favor bigamy or animal abuse (if that was your implication, not the all American practice of keeping pets);  these things are against the law for good reason.  People and/or creatures are being exploited.

As for for 3 mothers or 6 dads, the issues on polygamy are more complex and I have mixed feelings in that regard.  IMO, however, it is entirely separate from the question of whether or not same sex partners should have the right to get married and have families like anyone else.

Or whether or not people have a right to use medical technological advances to bear children.

Your intent-laden Mother Nature, notwithstanding.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 09:11:38 PM
Gay marriage is already a reality in America.  It will continue to be and some day people will wonder why it took so long.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 23, 2007, 12:24:10 PM
I am saying that people have a right to form families as they see fit (with the obvious exception of abusive situations we prosecute by law). 

So you would favor bigamy? Two guys a goat and their cat?  Heather has THREE mommies? And eight daddies?

Yeah, that sounds like it will work. Christ, I see enough whacky kids these days due to the percieved "rights" of their "parents" to pursue their own selfish needs and desires.


Well, we're really jumping into the absurd here.  Can't you put together a better argument Utley?

No I don't favor bigamy or animal abuse (if that was your implication, not the all American practice of keeping pets);  these things are against the law for good reason.  People and/or creatures are being exploited.

As for for 3 mothers or 6 dads, the issues on polygamy are more complex and I have mixed feelings in that regard.  IMO, however, it is entirely separate from the question of whether or not same sex partners should have the right to get married and have families like anyone else.

Or whether or not people have a right to use medical technological advances to bear children.

Your intent-laden Mother Nature, notwithstanding.


back up, queenie. YOU stated "people have a right families to form families as they see fit". You're the one who has to make the argument. I don't have to make the argument for you. The absurdity is of your making, not mine.

You've really got to stop blowing with the wind.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 23, 2007, 01:52:16 PM
A gay family is one you chose, not one you are necessarily born into.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 23, 2007, 09:43:17 PM
Well Utley

Feel free to articulate your argument when you have one.

BTW, isn't "queenie" a derogatory for gay men?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 23, 2007, 09:46:51 PM
A gay family is one you chose, not one you are necessarily born into.

Though if parents have LGBT children, there was no choice involved.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on May 23, 2007, 10:25:54 PM
It today's interpretations of marriage, it is not totally unusual for a child to have several mommies and daddies. Divorce and remarriage does a good job of mixing up parents of a child.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 06:43:28 AM
A gay family is one you chose, not one you are necessarily born into.

Though if parents have LGBT children, there was no choice involved.

Actually, I was thinking of a card I just sent to a friend.  The idea or message was that as adults the people we choose to have as friends can become our family.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 24, 2007, 10:57:37 AM
It today's interpretations of marriage, it is not totally unusual for a child to have several mommies and daddies. Divorce and remarriage does a good job of mixing up parents of a child.

Dead wrong

Thus the prefix STEP-


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 24, 2007, 10:58:49 AM
It strikes me that those making such statements may not value their own genetic lineage.  Have to feel for them a little.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 24, 2007, 11:17:11 AM
The Cheneys have to be the biggest hypocrites around - 'Do as I say not as I do'.  Where is there condemnation for their daughter and her significant other?  Their new grandchild has two mothers and a turkey baster for a father - where is the outrage?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 11:20:06 AM
A gay family is one you chose, not one you are necessarily born into.

Considering that gay people can only be bred with heteros, I don't think this is earth-shattering news...


Naturally.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 11:20:53 AM
Well Utley

Feel free to articulate your argument when you have one.

BTW, isn't "queenie" a derogatory for gay men?

Feel free to learn to understand and appreciate the complexity of the natural world.

As for "queenie" being derogatory, I wouldn't know, but it was my understanding that you weren't a gay man.  Explain how you were offended then, sweetie.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 24, 2007, 11:25:32 AM
She's the Queen of England.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 24, 2007, 11:30:32 AM
Quote
Considering that gay people can only be bred with heteros...
So in addition to believing for some inexplicable reason that being gay robs you of your ability to want children, it also deprives you of functioning genitalia?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 11:38:01 AM
Quote
Considering that gay people can only be bred with heteros...
So in addition to believing for some inexplicable reason that being gay robs you of your ability to want children, it also deprives you of functioning genitalia?

Did I make that argument? Did I make either or those arguments?

I'm not the one who wants it both ways, here.

 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 24, 2007, 11:41:41 AM
Quote
Considering that gay people can only be bred with heteros...
So in addition to believing for some inexplicable reason that being gay robs you of your ability to want children, it also deprives you of functioning genitalia?

Did I make that argument? Did I make either or those arguments?

I'm not the one who wants it both ways, here.

 
You said gay people can only be bred by heteros.  That's not true; gay people are as capable of breeding as every one else.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 11:45:23 AM
Well, that's true, I did say that. At the risk of sounding like John Kerry, when I wrote that I meant, that two women cannot produce a child, nor can two men. So, if Jack is gay and wishes to help out his manly friend Lisa who is a relationship with her lover Sarah, he can father the child with either one or the other or both.

In the end, though, Jack is the dad--not Sarah or Lisa.

Hope that clears it up for you.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on May 24, 2007, 02:33:47 PM
Children in a relationship with step-parents do not always add the prefix, and just call them Mom or Dad. Further, a child who has been adopted, has two sets of parents, but will call the adoptive parents Mom or Dad or whatever.

Reconstructed (divorced and remarried one or more times) families make a lot of the charges of the inappropriateness of a gay family moot. After all, somewhere down the line may come a divorce and remarriage into a hetero relationship. It is not impossible.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 24, 2007, 03:13:51 PM
A gay family is one you chose, not one you are necessarily born into.

Considering that gay people can only be bred with heteros, I don't think this is earth-shattering news...


Naturally.
I realize that you have amended this observation to reflect what you meant, but it seems an appropriate entry for this quote, from the Director Stephen Daltry (The Hours, Billy Elliot) about his marriage to dancer/actress Lucy Sexton:

Quote
"What's so funny is when people say, 'Oh, does that mean you're not gay anymore?' And you go, 'Oh, give me a break. What do you mean?' We wanted to have kids! We thought we'd get married and have kids. We're allowed to do everything. I refuse to be boxed in to the idea that 'Oh, no, I can't have kids 'cause I'm gay.' I can have kids if I'm gay. And I can also get married and have a fantastic life...To all questions [having to do] with my marriage, the answer to everything is yes. Do I have sex with my wife? Yes. Is it a real marriage? Yes. Am I gay? Yes."
Sexton is a lesbian.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 24, 2007, 03:36:56 PM
Well, no - they are bisexual

Opening another discussion, but we'll leave that for now


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 24, 2007, 04:05:33 PM
A gay family is one you chose, not one you are necessarily born into.

Though if parents have LGBT children, there was no choice involved.

Actually, I was thinking of a card I just sent to a friend.  The idea or message was that as adults the people we choose to have as friends can become our family.

How true.  That sounds like a meaningful card your friend received.

Hopefully, more LGBT children will be raised in loving and supportive homes. 

BTW, Orcinus, still on a roll, has a write-up on the SF Gate article and that hatemonger they referenced.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 24, 2007, 04:08:21 PM
Sanders

Why wouldn’t you know that “queenie” is a derogatory term for a gay man?  Does one have to black to know that the n word is a derogatory term for an African American person?  Or hispanic to know that the s word is derogatory?  Or Jewish to know that the “k” word is too? 

Bet you wouldn't know about that either.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 05:01:18 PM
FWIW, there is nothing wrong with being an old queen.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on May 24, 2007, 07:14:19 PM
Elisabeth was born in this Century, contrary to our president's gaffe.

I kind of think you should pick a side to be on, gay or straight, or limit your gay experience to that one time in college, and then be straight after that, I mean, I know guys who are gay from high school, but I don't hold it against them that they dated girls or tried to have heterosexual sex, but once you pick you have to stick with that decision, I think that many homosexuals like gay sex because if you have two gay guys they are horny all the time, and consider that simply giving in to being horny with whatever sex is available, is morally corrupt.  But if you pick a side and stick with it by the time you graduate from college, then college has been a success for you:  You are now a heterosexual or homosexual adult, best wishes.

I do understand the desire for procreation which is hard-wired, but that is much different from sexual preference, so while I can't fault the director of those dance movies cited, for example, I also think he is gay, period, the fact that working in show business has got him hooked up with a fruit loop who only wants kids and not really desired, is also their business. 

But bisexuality is a matter that I think fundamentally separates man from beast, like the supression of bloodlust.  We are all capable of fucking or killing anything and any one, but it's the assertion of choice and a moral conscience that is a fundamental aspect of sexuality and everything else a person does.

I think that bisexuality is morally wrong, and I am far from being a fundamentalist Christian, in summation, I say pick a side, and Social Security and Marriage benefits for all.....

And it's not that I have a particular prejudice against the person of a bisexual, it's just the way I think the world ought to work, and that's just a personal set of moral standards that we all create for ourselves or not, but I also don't care if a bisexual makes his own rules; however, we view the way the world should work in different ways, which is the nature of moral choice and morality.

Equality under the law is a no-brainer, for me, but I think it would be hard to be friends with a bi-sexual, which is basically pan-sexual, although I imagine that most limit sexuality to human contact.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 07:28:03 PM
Equality under the law is a no-brainer, for me, but I think it would be hard to be friends with a bi-sexual, which is basically pan-sexual, although I imagine that most limit sexuality to human contact.

On the other hand, a bi-sexual could be very good in bed, knowing how to pleasure both sexes.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 24, 2007, 08:49:16 PM
I do understand the desire for procreation which is hard-wired, but that is much different from sexual preference [...]

When my friend came out as gay, some friends initially felt very betrayed and angry, in part, I think, because they *felt* that she was telling them she had really been a man all those years.  Which seemed kind of silly to me.

For me, personally, she was still a woman.  I did not feel that I had really been going to the gym with a man, or that I had really been disclosing woman-to-woman secrets to the opposite gender.

I think the distinction you discern here, and others are unable to make, may be similar.

BTW, there is a new creationist museum opening in Kentucky.  They have a nice little rundown on the intent laden Mother Nature theory and why geckos really change their colors.

Kind of imaginative in a cheap paperback sort of way.  But not science.  And not reality.

As for bisexuals and morality, I don't know if you're kidding around, but I think you're really talking about monogamy, are you not.




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 09:04:57 PM
A gay family is one you chose, not one you are necessarily born into.

Considering that gay people can only be bred with heteros, I don't think this is earth-shattering news...


Naturally.
I realize that you have amended this observation to reflect what you meant, but it seems an appropriate entry for this quote, from the Director Stephen Daltry (The Hours, Billy Elliot) about his marriage to dancer/actress Lucy Sexton:

Quote
"What's so funny is when people say, 'Oh, does that mean you're not gay anymore?' And you go, 'Oh, give me a break. What do you mean?' We wanted to have kids! We thought we'd get married and have kids. We're allowed to do everything. I refuse to be boxed in to the idea that 'Oh, no, I can't have kids 'cause I'm gay.' I can have kids if I'm gay. And I can also get married and have a fantastic life...To all questions [having to do] with my marriage, the answer to everything is yes. Do I have sex with my wife? Yes. Is it a real marriage? Yes. Am I gay? Yes."
Sexton is a lesbian.

So, if Sexton saw the words "Hero Member" underneath your name, it would have a different meaning than the one intended---right, whisk.

Sounds to me like your basic identity crisis. Not uncommon in filmland.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 24, 2007, 09:56:42 PM
I do understand the desire for procreation which is hard-wired, but that is much different from sexual preference [...]

When my friend came out as gay, some friends initially felt very betrayed and angry, in part, I think, because they *felt* that she was telling them she had really been a man all those years.  Which seemed kind of silly to me.




You either have some weirdass friends or are judging them incorrectly.  Likely the latter.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 24, 2007, 10:34:22 PM
I do understand the desire for procreation which is hard-wired, but that is much different from sexual preference [...]

When my friend came out as gay, some friends initially felt very betrayed and angry, in part, I think, because they *felt* that she was telling them she had really been a man all those years.  Which seemed kind of silly to me.


You either have some weirdass friends or are judging them incorrectly.  Likely the latter.

Do you have some personal experiences of your own to share?  You seem quite the authority on how people feel when others come out to them?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 24, 2007, 11:06:49 PM
KC

From what I've heard and read, it's sadly not unusual to hear about people getting angry when discovering persons close to them are gay.

On a really tragic note, are the youths who get thrown out of their homes on the street by parents who can't deal with it.

I see that it can be difficult for people to deal with, even if they are typically liberal minded, when it suddenly confronts them in their own personal lives and relationships.

Why are people opposed to serving in the military with other gay persons?  "Oh God, can't be in the showers with a man who's gay!"  Why is that?  "Would you have women in the locker rooms?"


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 24, 2007, 11:13:32 PM
And yes, I know the joke about that one.  I am just reporting what people say.  So do they think a gay man is a woman?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 25, 2007, 01:00:13 PM
KC

From what I've heard and read, it's sadly not unusual to hear about people getting angry when discovering persons close to them are gay.

On a really tragic note, are the youths who get thrown out of their homes on the street by parents who can't deal with it.

I see that it can be difficult for people to deal with, even if they are typically liberal minded, when it suddenly confronts them in their own personal lives and relationships.

Why are people opposed to serving in the military with other gay persons?  "Oh God, can't be in the showers with a man who's gay!"  Why is that?  "Would you have women in the locker rooms?"

I'd bet a pretty decent majority of soldiers don't mind a gay batallion, unit (or other)  member.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 25, 2007, 01:09:44 PM
I do understand the desire for procreation which is hard-wired, but that is much different from sexual preference [...]

When my friend came out as gay, some friends initially felt very betrayed and angry, in part, I think, because they *felt* that she was telling them she had really been a man all those years.  Which seemed kind of silly to me.


You either have some weirdass friends or are judging them incorrectly.  Likely the latter.

Do you have some personal experiences of your own to share?  You seem quite the authority on how people feel when others come out to them?

nope


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 25, 2007, 04:14:18 PM
The following is from Focus on the Family's CitizenLink "news" site (highlighting our own):

    Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the New York Department of Civil Service, alleging the agency exceeded its authority when it redefined the term "spouse" in its benefits policy to include homosexual couples.

    Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for ADF, said the agency's definition includes same-sex couples married in another country or state where the marriage was legal – despite the fact that New York law defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Only problem? That last line is complete and utter bullsh*t! In fact, New York is one of only a handful of states without a law or constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman! Of all people, you would think a lawyer trying to fight a NY-specific, marriage-centric policy would know this.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 25, 2007, 06:24:14 PM
KC

From what I've heard and read, it's sadly not unusual to hear about people getting angry when discovering persons close to them are gay.

On a really tragic note, are the youths who get thrown out of their homes on the street by parents who can't deal with it.

I see that it can be difficult for people to deal with, even if they are typically liberal minded, when it suddenly confronts them in their own personal lives and relationships.

Why are people opposed to serving in the military with other gay persons?  "Oh God, can't be in the showers with a man who's gay!"  Why is that?  "Would you have women in the locker rooms?"

I'd bet a pretty decent majority of soldiers don't mind a gay batallion, unit (or other)  member.

I bet the majority of this nation, including its men and women in service, would find that notion shocking and disgusting, harkening back some centuries to the days when African Americans served separately, and not equally.

Would you also suggest a Glory squadron?

Have you by any chance read the opinion of officers that most persons in the service have no difficulty serving alongside a gay person.

Though personally, I can't see any reason to encourage anyone to enter the armed services these days.





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 26, 2007, 07:40:59 AM
Though personally, I can't see any reason to encourage anyone to enter the armed services these days.

I agree. The military is hurting so badly for recruits that it's taking young people with criminal records, as well as those who haven't finished high school. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on May 26, 2007, 08:23:51 PM
I think the idea should be more like, if you feel alienated by peers who don't understand your sexuality, in however subtle marketing ways, would be the way to sell the military to the gay community, particularly the 14-17 yr. old crowd.  Come on in and join the ranks of those that think it's proud and honorable to die for ones country, and the ones who think it's like a video game or job training.  In fact, it's all those things wrapped up into one profession, you fit in, get to go all high tech, shoot, it's like community college except really, really, hot...


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 28, 2007, 06:42:13 AM
I think the idea should be more like, if you feel alienated by peers who don't understand your sexuality, in however subtle marketing ways, would be the way to sell the military to the gay community, particularly the 14-17 yr. old crowd.  Come on in and join the ranks of those that think it's proud and honorable to die for ones country, and the ones who think it's like a video game or job training.  In fact, it's all those things wrapped up into one profession, you fit in, get to go all high tech, shoot, it's like community college except really, really, hot...

I imagine the desert in Iraq could be very, very hot.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 28, 2007, 10:20:34 AM
Though personally, I can't see any reason to encourage anyone to enter the armed services these days.

I agree. The military is hurting so badly for recruits that it's taking young people with criminal records, as well as those who haven't finished high school. 

Sort of like many of the big D-1 universities in our nation


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 28, 2007, 02:59:27 PM
Maybe we have too many criminals, eh, kid?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 28, 2007, 09:32:04 PM
I actually think everyone should have to serve the country in some capacity for a minimum of three years, whether it is in the military, as a forest firefighter, an aide in inner-city schools, building highways, working in an AIDS clinic. whatever. Three years mandatory service to the USA--
minimum.

Might make some people grow up a little bit.
 Or a lot.

Might also help people see that we are all responsible for the state of the country, not just the pols that are "elected".

We could probably solve a lot of problems that way, and maybe eliminate the sense of entitlement that so many people seem to have these days.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 28, 2007, 09:48:33 PM
Garrick,

I actually think everyone should have to serve the country in some capacity for a minimum of three years, whether it is in the military, as a forest firefighter, an aide in inner-city schools, building highways, working in an AIDS clinic. whatever.

For what is perhaps the first and only time, we agree!

NOW, for the undocumented, let this be the price of citizenship.

Do your service, get your naturalization papers.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 28, 2007, 11:01:04 PM
Though personally, I can't see any reason to encourage anyone to enter the armed services these days.

I agree. The military is hurting so badly for recruits that it's taking young people with criminal records, as well as those who haven't finished high school. 

Somehow I bet Romney isn't trumpeting that he wanted  "the don't ask don't tell policy" repealed....


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 28, 2007, 11:15:38 PM
Though personally, I can't see any reason to encourage anyone to enter the armed services these days.

I agree. The military is hurting so badly for recruits that it's taking young people with criminal records, as well as those who haven't finished high school. 

This is one the things that happens when a King fights a war that most of the People don't want.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 28, 2007, 11:24:07 PM
Nah - happens when there is no draft.

Police departments have the same problem, getting the lesser-brained of society.

Quite a few exceptions, of course.  We read about great soldiers every day in papewrs trhat aren't afreaid to print both sides.  Yesterday's Daily News, for instance - excellent piece on the graduuating class at West Point - including a father's proud statement of his daughter's resolve and a son's dedicated position despite his Mom's plea to Dick Cheney to keep her boy out of Iraq.  Regular enlisted a different story, of course.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 28, 2007, 11:43:55 PM
You may get some of your better and brighter with a draft, but that doesn’t make it a war that the country supports.

I think those singing Glory loudest should be heading down the offices with their guns themselves.  Or sending some of their own. 

Starting with the twins.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 28, 2007, 11:48:46 PM
I hear conditions in military are dreadful for women today.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 29, 2007, 05:48:33 AM
Historically, American wars have been fought by its poorest members.  The rich can buy their way out, or be excused because, as Dick Cheney said, he had better things to do.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 29, 2007, 09:11:21 AM
Not just American wars.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on May 29, 2007, 01:55:52 PM
Not just American wars.
]

I'm sure you are correct in that statement.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 03:11:27 PM
If the rich had to fight their own wars, we wouldn't have them.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 29, 2007, 06:54:47 PM
Idove,

If the rich had to fight their own wars, we wouldn't have them.

Sgt. Katczinsky says much the same thing in Remarque's magnificent All Quiet on the Western Front.

If you see the movie, see the original Lew Ayers version, not the remake with John-Boy Walton.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 29, 2007, 09:52:02 PM
Idove,

If the rich had to fight their own wars, we wouldn't have them.

Sgt. Katczinsky says much the same thing in Remarque's magnificent All Quiet on the Western Front.

If you see the movie, see the original Lew Ayers version, not the remake with John-Boy Walton.

The original won the Academy Award for Best Picture. It was a film that condemned war. Ten years later, the movie "Casablanca" won the Award for Best Picture. It was a film about how you can't sit by idly and hope things will get better--that the attitude of "I stick my neck out for nobody" is ultimately a losing one, and that you need to get involved.

Films reflect their times...

IN 1970, "Patton" won it over "M.A.S.H."

IN 1986, the winner was "Platoon".

IN 2001, the best war movie made in the thirty years, "Black Hawk Down" doesn't even get nominated for Best picture. Instead it goes to "A Beautiful Mind" or "The Nutty Professor II" as I call it, and the biggest piece of crap to ever made, "Moulin Rouge", gets a nomination.


IN 2006, "The Departed" a film about the mob beats out "Letters from Iwo Jima".


 Bottom line---war is perceived differently throughout our history, and for lots of different reasons.

I have to go drinking now. I read earlier where Capo agreed with me. Need something to steady the nerves.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on May 29, 2007, 09:56:32 PM
Full Metal Jacket is one of my all-time favorites....


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 11:27:02 PM
Idove,

If the rich had to fight their own wars, we wouldn't have them.

Sgt. Katczinsky says much the same thing in Remarque's magnificent All Quiet on the Western Front.

If you see the movie, see the original Lew Ayers version, not the remake with John-Boy Walton.

I never saw the movie, but I read the book many years ago for a college history class.  Absolutely wonderful, though I've forgotten much of it, mostly the general theme and how I felt about the story.  Maybe the line has been with me all these years from Sgt. Katczinsky, even if I barely remember him.

Always appreciate a good film tip.  Thanks!



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 11:32:15 PM
Bottom line---war is perceived differently throughout our history, and for lots of different reasons.

I have to go drinking now. I read earlier where Capo agreed with me. Need something to steady the nerves.


Throughout history, those who fight in wars consistently agree that it is hell and a waste.

Bottoms up!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 30, 2007, 01:12:54 AM
Incad,

Throughout history, those who fight in wars consistently agree that it is hell and a waste.

WAR IS HELL!!, General William T. Sherman, US Army (who ought to know far better than any of the armchair generals who post here.).

One cannot help but wonder why their are so eager to send OTHER mothers' sons and daughters off to fight their wars for them.

Charlie Rangel is right.  If we are really in a war, let's bring back the draft - only this time with no exemptions whatsoever, except for those physically unable to carry a gun.

Watch how soon the bloviators would change their tune then.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 30, 2007, 02:50:17 AM
Cap,

Seems to me that only a man like Sherman, who knows through personal experience just how hellish war is, knows what needs to be done to end it once and for all.

If that is the objective.

In which case, any draft should extend the service age, and certainly include all women.  I see no reason why some of these Washingtonians or oil execs or defense contractors or those with investments therein, and who keep themselves fit in their forties and fifties at gyms, shouldn’t have to put it to some practical use.

I’m in my late forties and probably more able than I was in my twenties to carry a gun, and with a clear head, shoot someone.

So it's fine with me, if, along with the twins, we reel a good number of these folks in.

Or did they think their activities are more important exemptions than college?



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 30, 2007, 05:14:02 AM
Incad,

So it's fine with me, if, along with the twins, we reel a good number of these folks in.


The contrast between the Bush Twigs and Price Charles's young men is both informative and disgusting!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 30, 2007, 06:17:08 AM
Cap,

The contrast between the Bush Twigs and Price Charles's young men is both informative and disgusting!

Agreed.

IMO, like Sherman's total war, it would take a total draft, practically no exemptions, brutally done across age groups and gender, regardless of many “medical conditions,” to hold these folks accountable, and make every single American a critical stakeholder to the extent that no one could turn from these issues, even as in the present case, as when Congress turns its back on its responsibilities to the voters.  And although so many people know this - that they sent them there to get us out - and that they are betraying the American people - they would not sit back in such apathy or the feeling that there is really nothing we can do about it.

I do not support anyone serving though I well understand why they do.  IMO, this war is wrong and immoral, and young American men and women are being used terribly.

But I saw young people, the "disadvantaged" being warned about this war over a year before the American public was informed that we were going in after WOMD.

So I knew they were lying to us when they went in, but being a relatively trusting American, I was still somewhat amazed at that time watching Congress vote the way they did.  Weren't they smarter than me, a non-politico?  And then, later on, to hear them all exclaim indignantly that they had been lied to. 

But I'm not really surprised at how they voted this time.

The other person I would send is Chelsey.  For although it's interesting, that among the few Democrats who didn't vote that way, were the star candidates, I don't buy it.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 30, 2007, 06:26:24 AM
Cap,

I said:  The other person I would send is Chelsey.  For although it's interesting, that among the few Democrats who didn't vote that way, were the star candidates, I don't buy it.

IOW, that is just too convenient.  Most of the dems voting one way, but throwing the American people the carrot of their stars being "against" it.

The entire Congress ran on that ticket.  Now that they're in, they're going the other way.

Fool me once, etc etc goes the saying.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 30, 2007, 06:29:50 AM
Of course, since a total draft is not going to happen, we could have Sherman's march once again.  If settling things were the real objective.

But then, it would be much more expedititious (at the very least) to just walk away and let the Iraqis figure this out for themselves.

I have lost hope.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 30, 2007, 06:52:00 AM
WAR IS HELL!!, General William T. Sherman, US Army (who ought to know far better than any of the armchair generals who post here.).


When Sherman said, "War is Hell", it was not his intention to observe the difficulities of it, but rather his statement of intention to make it so.

He succeeded in doing so.

He was no peacenik, and likely he'd be pretty angry with anyone who misused his words in order to propagate a point of view that essentially can be reduced to cowardice.

 

 



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 30, 2007, 06:58:52 AM
On the other hand, instead of Charles R.'s version of total draft - which IMO would only result in another version of the Vietnam draft, and not what he hopes would be - he could, instead of declaring war on American families, declare war on his bloody fellow Democrats and make them accountable.

I'm not about to volunteer MY kid now or in the next number of years when we're still in a military involvement because of the disastrous driection this nation is heading in.

But so many people are so afraid of what we'll get with Republican that they let the Democrats lead them around by the nose.

I say declare Sherman's March on the democrats and make them get us out of Iraq BEFORE the elections.  DELIVER AS PROMISED, if you want my vote.

Otherwise screw Hillary, screw Obama, and screw John Edwards.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 30, 2007, 07:02:53 AM
What the Democrats have to do is think like Sherman in terms of DEFUNDING.

It's brutal, it's ugly, but that's the reality of war.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 30, 2007, 07:14:58 AM
WAR IS HELL!!, General William T. Sherman, US Army (who ought to know far better than any of the armchair generals who post here.).


When Sherman said, "War is Hell", it was not his intention to observe the difficulities of it, but rather his statement of intention to make it so.

He succeeded in doing so.

He was no peacenik, and likely he'd be pretty angry with anyone who misused his words in order to propagate a point of view that essentially can be reduced to cowardice.

 

 


Actually, you are wrong.  The quote is, "Some of you young men think that war is all glamour and glory, but let me tell you, boys, it is all hell!"  It was from a speech Sherman made, I think at West Point or some military academy, in the 1880's.  It therefor could not announce his intention to make war hell, it announced his view that war was a terror that should be avoided.  You may be thinking of his response to the people of Atlanta, quoted below.

Sherman understood full well the horrors of war, and as a result, why it should be turned too only in the direst circumstances.  And he made cold, hard-eyed, unblinking use of it:

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out."



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 30, 2007, 07:52:24 AM
More of the General's words:

I am sick and tired of war. Its glory is all moonshine.
It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard
the shrieks and groans of the wounded
who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 30, 2007, 07:56:31 AM
Sanders,


likely he'd (General Sherman) be pretty angry with anyone who misused his words in order to propagate a point of view that essentially can be reduced to cowardice.


I completely agree.  So why don't you practice what you preach since the General would likely be pretty angry at you for doing so.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 30, 2007, 07:59:19 AM
Cap,

Sorry, you hit a nerve.  Hope you didn't take that personally. 

BTW, I had a family member who was on Sherman's March. 

See you around.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: yankguy on May 30, 2007, 10:15:32 AM
I think Sherman's words and actions cut both ways.  As Whiskey pointed out he recognized the desperation and all-encompassing violence of the war.   At the same time, my guess is that if he found himself as a commander in Iraq, he would not advocate bringing the troops home, but would instead advocate increasing the violence and fighting in an attempt to end the war.  Sherman did not believe in stalemates. 

I, though, have no problem with them.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 30, 2007, 10:24:49 AM
...though the connection between Sherman and Gay Rights is missing me....


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: yankguy on May 30, 2007, 10:27:13 AM
You mean you didn't know that about Sherman?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 30, 2007, 10:44:34 AM
On the other hand, SHerman was so anxious to have the war end he rushed into a surrender with Joe Johnston that went far beyond what Grant and Lee had done and attempted to settle the whole issue of reconstruction, along the lines of what he felt Lincoln wanted.  Of course, by that time Lincoln was dead, the radicals and Edwin Stanton were in charge, and no one was particularly interested in an easy peace with the South, and Sherman was nearly disgraced, and had to renegotiate the whole surrender.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 30, 2007, 04:03:47 PM
"An Army is a collection of armed men obliged to obey one man.
Every change in the rules which impairs the principle weakens the army"
-William Tecumseh Sherman

"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the
sooner it will be over."
-William Tecumseh Sherman

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them
all they want."
- General William T. Sherman


 

The Story behind It: Historians generally agree that this is Sherman's statement on war, but the Civil War general could not remember ever having said these three words. Before his death in 1891, Sherman made an extensive search through all of his private papers in a fruitless effort to convince himself that the words were actually his. There are several accounts of when the words were said. The earliest version dates back to 1863, after the fall of Vicksburg, when Sherman's troops were crossing a pontoon bridge over the Pearl River at Jackson, Miss. According to eyewitness John Koolbeck, a soldier from Iowa, Sherman watched the crossing from the water's edge and then said to the passing troops, "War is hell, boys." Another account has Sherman delivering the line in a graduation address at the Michigan Military Academy on June 19, 1879. Still a third account says that Sherman made the famous statement in a speech before a group of Union veterans in Columbus, O., on Aug. 11, 1880. At other times, he did state, "War is cruel and you cannot refine it" and "War at best is barbarism."

http://www.trivia-library.com/b/origins-of-sayings-war-is-hell.htm

Doesn't seem like Sherman had a clear idea about what war was, or he was like Hillary Clinton, switching his views around, depending on the audience was at the time.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 30, 2007, 08:55:41 PM
Garrick,

Doesn't seem like Sherman had a clear idea about what war was, or he was like Hillary Clinton, switching his views around, depending on the audience was at the time.

You, YOU have the temerity to challenge Sherman?!

Why not tell us all how many armies YOU have commanded as a General Officer - just for comparison's sake, of course.

It might go far to help us end the guffaws your ridiculous post created, troll.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 30, 2007, 09:39:24 PM
Garrick,

Doesn't seem like Sherman had a clear idea about what war was, or he was like Hillary Clinton, switching his views around, depending on the audience was at the time.

You, YOU have the temerity to challenge Sherman?!

Why not tell us all how many armies YOU have commanded as a General Officer - just for comparison's sake, of course.

It might go far to help us end the guffaws your ridiculous post created, troll.

First off, I'm challenging historical accuracy---and then Clinton...

Why not tell us how many joints you smoke before you post, or how you cross-dressed and affected a lisp in an attempt to escape the draft back in the day, weasel? Why not learn to read, capon?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 30, 2007, 09:56:36 PM
Sanders

Time to share with us all what wars you've served in, and in what capacity, that make you more of an authority on the subject that General Sherman.

I recall you having difficulty with that subject in your last incarnation.

Gee you quickly changed your tune on Sherman for the sake of partisanship.

Hillary would likely be a strong military president, IMO.  That could have its benefits under certain circumstances, but I have reason to fear for America's future too.

But whenever you feel like using reasoned argument instead of Troll stuff, let the world know.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 30, 2007, 10:00:10 PM
Though it is already posted that arguing within such petty limits as reason drives you to drink, as the rest of your drunken, homophobic, bigoted posts show.

Since you're such a fan of the war, when are you going to head down with your gun and sign up for some real action hunting jihadists?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on May 31, 2007, 12:08:35 AM
Utley,

To expect pure accuracy in history is like believing in the Second Coming of Christ in your personal lifetime. It just ain't agona happen.

I've just watched The New World, a beautiful movie, with a totally fictional account of history. Beautiful scenery, moving music, fascinating angle shots, but a story like swiss cheese. I truly hope that no teacher substitutes the movie for a history lesson.

If you were ever a teacher, and tried to get to the bottom of an event, you would know that "eyewitnesses" do not always see the same occurance the same way. From time to time, you will find that someone absolutely, positively saw the pink elephant do it!

If you preceive that Sherman, who lived it, was foggy on war, perhaps that is because war is a foggy event to live through. I'm sure that on his March to the Sea, Sherman issued orders to do things that haunted him the rest of his life. War is only glorious to the old men who sit around talking it instead of doing it.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 31, 2007, 08:50:18 AM
Though it is already posted that arguing within such petty limits as reason drives you to drink, as the rest of your drunken, homophobic, bigoted posts show.

Since you're such a fan of the war, when are you going to head down with your gun and sign up for some real action hunting jihadists?

what I find most interesting is that when someone doesn't agree with you, or worse, points out the flaws in your arguments, thyou label them as drunken, homphobic, and to the right of Hitler.

Talk about your bigots!!!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 31, 2007, 08:53:09 AM
Utley,

To expect pure accuracy in history is like believing in the Second Coming of Christ in your personal lifetime. It just ain't agona happen.

I've just watched The New World, a beautiful movie, with a totally fictional account of history. Beautiful scenery, moving music, fascinating angle shots, but a story like swiss cheese. I truly hope that no teacher substitutes the movie for a history lesson.

If you were ever a teacher, and tried to get to the bottom of an event, you would know that "eyewitnesses" do not always see the same occurance the same way. From time to time, you will find that someone absolutely, positively saw the pink elephant do it!

If you preceive that Sherman, who lived it, was foggy on war, perhaps that is because war is a foggy event to live through. I'm sure that on his March to the Sea, Sherman issued orders to do things that haunted him the rest of his life. War is only glorious to the old men who sit around talking it instead of doing it.

I don't expect accuracy in history. I expect folks like you to misuse it for their own purposes.

I get what I expect, too.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 31, 2007, 09:21:23 AM
Utley,

To expect pure accuracy in history is like believing in the Second Coming of Christ in your personal lifetime. It just ain't agona happen.

I've just watched The New World, a beautiful movie, with a totally fictional account of history. Beautiful scenery, moving music, fascinating angle shots, but a story like swiss cheese. I truly hope that no teacher substitutes the movie for a history lesson.

If you were ever a teacher, and tried to get to the bottom of an event, you would know that "eyewitnesses" do not always see the same occurance the same way. From time to time, you will find that someone absolutely, positively saw the pink elephant do it!

If you preceive that Sherman, who lived it, was foggy on war, perhaps that is because war is a foggy event to live through. I'm sure that on his March to the Sea, Sherman issued orders to do things that haunted him the rest of his life. War is only glorious to the old men who sit around talking it instead of doing it.

I don't expect accuracy in history. I expect folks like you to misuse it for their own purposes.

I get what I expect, too.
And yet, the person who consistently misuses Sherman is you.  Sherman understood and loathed the destruction of war, and he was the most destructive warrior imaginable for his time.  There is no contradiction there.  Sherman waged war as he did because it would bring the war to its conclusion faster, and to make the memory of it so abhorrent that the people would never again resort to it.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 31, 2007, 10:26:16 AM
Utley,

To expect pure accuracy in history is like believing in the Second Coming of Christ in your personal lifetime. It just ain't agona happen.

I've just watched The New World, a beautiful movie, with a totally fictional account of history. Beautiful scenery, moving music, fascinating angle shots, but a story like swiss cheese. I truly hope that no teacher substitutes the movie for a history lesson.

If you were ever a teacher, and tried to get to the bottom of an event, you would know that "eyewitnesses" do not always see the same occurance the same way. From time to time, you will find that someone absolutely, positively saw the pink elephant do it!

If you preceive that Sherman, who lived it, was foggy on war, perhaps that is because war is a foggy event to live through. I'm sure that on his March to the Sea, Sherman issued orders to do things that haunted him the rest of his life. War is only glorious to the old men who sit around talking it instead of doing it.

I don't expect accuracy in history. I expect folks like you to misuse it for their own purposes.

I get what I expect, too.
And yet, the person who consistently misuses Sherman is you.  Sherman understood and loathed the destruction of war, and he was the most destructive warrior imaginable for his time.  There is no contradiction there.  Sherman waged war as he did because it would bring the war to its conclusion faster, and to make the memory of it so abhorrent that the people would never again resort to it.

And I would argue that by waging war as he did, he embraced it.
We could learn a thing or two from his actions in the 1860's, and not so much his words in the 1880's, as they speak much louder and have greater postive effects.

Would that we did the same when we entered a war in the modern era.

Instead of being Americans in the tradition of Jackson, Sherman, Grant, Pershing, Patton, , we have become the British--acting as the world's policeman---taking bows without results---ala Montgomery.

 

 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 31, 2007, 10:28:07 AM
In short, if you are going to wage war, wage it like hell.

We don't, we haven't---we are reaping what we have sown.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 31, 2007, 10:47:50 AM
Gays! Move to New Hampshire and live free and die:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2007-05-31_D8PFDLN00&show_article=1&cat=breaking


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 31, 2007, 10:53:26 AM
Quote
In short, if you are going to wage war, wage it like hell.
I think both halves of Sherman's legacy have merit.  Do not wage war but in the last extremity because of its barbarity and cruelty.  But if you are going to do it, do it.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 31, 2007, 10:59:59 AM
Quote
In short, if you are going to wage war, wage it like hell.
I think both halves of Sherman's legacy have merit.  Do not wage war but in the last extremity because of its barbarity and cruelty.  But if you are going to do it, do it.

I would agree with that.

And I think that is why we have gotten into trouble.

We, as a nation, are not committed to taking out Al Quaeda. I hold Bush White House accountable for this. Anyone who thinks the current crop of Presidential candidates (on both sides) is going to improve this situaiton is mistaken.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on May 31, 2007, 03:11:02 PM
Utley,

What use of the movie do you know I have or will make? How do you know it? What really do you know about me?

It is good you do not expect accuracy from history, since history is nothing more than the story of what has gone before. In earliest civilization, that story was held orally for generations, and changed as it went along. Now, we have history in writing, and it, too, changes as the generations march on and varies by who is telling the story. A case in point is to asked a true blue southerner what the name of the war was in 1860.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 31, 2007, 03:35:48 PM
Sanders Troll,

Though it is already posted that arguing within such petty limits as reason drives you to drink, as the rest of your drunken, homophobic, bigoted posts show.

Since you're such a fan of the war, when are you going to head down with your gun and sign up for some real action hunting jihadists?

what I find most interesting is that when someone doesn't agree with you, or worse, points out the flaws in your arguments, thyou label them as drunken, homphobic, and to the right of Hitler.

Talk about your bigots!!!

You are the one who said earlier that you were drinking.  Your homophobic bigoted statement was made earlier in your stereotypic description of a gay person and your diminution of another poster along those lines, along with the assertion that they were smoking pot.

You didn't point out any flaws in any argument either.

You just, as usual, made an ass of yourself.  The way you did shortly before you were booted from the Times.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 31, 2007, 04:17:35 PM
Noone says less with more words, incadonk.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on May 31, 2007, 04:35:59 PM
Noone says less with more words, incadonk.

Yawn.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 31, 2007, 05:53:18 PM
Here's a great quote for all the warmongers who post on this forum:

War is only a cowardly escape from the problems of peace.--Thomas Mann (1875--1955), German novelist



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on May 31, 2007, 07:44:08 PM
Fuck Sherman.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on May 31, 2007, 07:54:57 PM
He may be a bit decomposed by now for that!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on June 01, 2007, 06:00:11 PM
Uterley, it is LIVE FREE OR DIE.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on June 01, 2007, 08:35:04 PM
No, it's "Live Free or Die Hard," starring Bruce Willis.

I would like to exhume and reanimate the body and spirit of Sherman to burn Atlanta again, but I would have shot him in the face if I had been living in Columbia, SC, when he burned it down.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 02, 2007, 12:36:02 AM
I gather "I" in this case would not have been a slave.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on June 02, 2007, 03:04:14 AM
jbot,

I would have shot him [Sherman] in the face if I had been living in Columbia, SC, when he burned it down.

The only thing I regret is that Sherman did not do the job completely enough in SC - The Treason State.

Were it up to me, I might be getting around NOW to thinking about removing US troops from there.

Rhett, Stephens, Poinsett, Lee, Jeff Davis and all the other of the nest of Southern traitors should have met the fate of traitors everywhere.  Henry Wirz should not have been the only one to swing.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 02, 2007, 11:52:51 AM
Uterley, it is LIVE FREE OR DIE.

samster:

I know what it is.

I'm just stating my request when I say "live free and die".



 ;)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 02, 2007, 12:02:10 PM
When I was visiting in SC, a local asked me, "where I was from?"

I told him New Jersey.

He said, "Ya'll don't sound like yall'er from Jersey."

I said, "what the fuck-a-my 'sposed to sound like? One a da fuckin' Sopranos?"


he laughed and said, "Ya'll got some strange politicians up there. Like that Jim McGreevey."

I chortled and said, "yeah, but we don't got any Jesse Helms like characters, now, do we?"

Sumbitch  shut up, then.

Second story. I'm in Jacksonville, FLA, named for the famous Genocider, Andrew Jackson, and I'm taking a taxi to a hotel. The driver says, "Where ya'll from?"

"West Orange, New Jersey."

"Where'bouts that?"

"Oh, about 20 minutes from the Lincoln Tunnel going into New York City."

"Oh. Yankee, huh?"

Then he pauses, and says, "Know what we call Yankees down heah in our Court Houses??"

"No, sir, I don't."

"Guilty. HA-AHAHHAAAAHHA!!"

I paused. Then I asked him.

"Do you know the difference between the North and the South?"

"No, sir, I don't."

"It's the cut-off age for sleeping with your parents."

Dead silence the rest of the way to the hotel.

And I'm guessing he never told his mama that story.
 ;D


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on June 02, 2007, 04:16:17 PM
(Annapolis, Maryland)  A surrogate mother who has no genetic connection to the baby she is carrying does not have to be listed as the mother on a birth certificate, Maryland's highest court ruled recently.

The case arose from twins born in the Washington suburbs in 2001. The woman who carried the twins for a father used an egg donor and had no genetic relationship to them. Both she and the father did not want her listed as the mother.

In a 4-3 decision, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the babies are not required to have a mother listed on birth papers.

"Maryland's breaking ground here," said Dorrance Dickens, a Washington lawyer who argued the case for the father and the surrogate mother.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on June 03, 2007, 07:31:15 PM
Wow.  That's a great story about how a Yankee outwitted a local and a cabbie:  Utter silence.  True story.  Shut it down, now.  Shut the whole thing down.  Damn, I was lolllling 'til I nosed my mint julep. 

BTW, Florida is not The South, but a mere southern state, but this should not discourage you from taking I-95, through, or preferably, the direct to Miami, over.

I still consider South Carolina a sovereign state and only pay federal taxes under protest and duress, rather than incarceration.  You stay on that I-95 though, because, we is armed to the teeth, and don't like Jersey plates, generally.

And get your minivan out of the fast lane if you are going 73 and on the phone with your mother.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on June 03, 2007, 09:15:25 PM
jbot,

I still consider South Carolina a sovereign state and only pay federal taxes under protest and duress, rather than incarceration.

PSSST!!  John C. Calhoun and Alex Stephens are dead.  There is a God, and She is just!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 04, 2007, 09:50:50 AM
Wow.  That's a great story about how a Yankee outwitted a local and a cabbie:  Utter silence.  True story.  Shut it down, now.  Shut the whole thing down.  Damn, I was lolllling 'til I nosed my mint julep. 

BTW, Florida is not The South, but a mere southern state, but this should not discourage you from taking I-95, through, or preferably, the direct to Miami, over.

I still consider South Carolina a sovereign state and only pay federal taxes under protest and duress, rather than incarceration.  You stay on that I-95 though, because, we is armed to the teeth, and don't like Jersey plates, generally.

And get your minivan out of the fast lane if you are going 73 and on the phone with your mother.

 Jacksonville is Dixieland. Don't deny it. They got all the Bible Humpers, and manner of ill-informed racist idiots that populate the rest of the Lunatic South.

I really love those t-shirts ya'll sell featruing the REbel Flag, the Stars and Bars, or what many call the American Swastika, that say, "If Ya'll don't like this shirt, ya'll don't know yer hist'ry!"

As for SC---wonder how it would get along without all those Yankee dollars that flow into Myrtle Beach and Hilton Head and Charleston each week? Maybe we should organize a Yankee boycott of South Carolina. As for federal dollars? No state sends more to Washington and gets less back than New Jersey. Why if it wasn't for our dollars the rebuilding of hostile territories such as South Carolina after storms like Hurricane Hugo might be a little forboding for Ya'll to pay.





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on June 04, 2007, 11:26:52 AM
The Southern Belle, as in Gone with the Wind is a perfect description of some in the south who refuse to accept the fact that they LOST the civil war (which they call by an amusing assortment of names) and with it the LOST their power over the whole country. Prior to the civil war, the representation of the south in Congress was well in excess of the voting public. The southerners secured more than their fair share of seats by the 3/5 Compromise, wherein they were allowed to count 3/5 of their slaves as people to determine their congressional representation. It was this 3/5 Compromise That gave the south so much power in the early days of the Republic, and it was the chance of losing that power led them to seceed from the union. The southerners, whether slaveowners or not, considered the slaves as so many heads of cattle. Yet, these "property" were counted to give them a strong voice in Congress. It was the propect of losing their unfair advantage that led to the hostilities that became the Civil War.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 04, 2007, 12:02:30 PM
The Southern Belle, as in Gone with the Wind is a perfect description of some in the south who refuse to accept the fact that they LOST the civil war (which they call by an amusing assortment of names) and with it the LOST their power over the whole country. Prior to the civil war, the representation of the south in Congress was well in excess of the voting public. The southerners secured more than their fair share of seats by the 3/5 Compromise, wherein they were allowed to count 3/5 of their slaves as people to determine their congressional representation. It was this 3/5 Compromise That gave the south so much power in the early days of the Republic, and it was the chance of losing that power led them to seceed from the union. The southerners, whether slaveowners or not, considered the slaves as so many heads of cattle. Yet, these "property" were counted to give them a strong voice in Congress. It was the propect of losing their unfair advantage that led to the hostilities that became the Civil War.



Among other things...

Let's talk about Texas---land of illegal excessive American Immigration into Mexico's northernmost province...and then how the famous "patriots" at the "Alamo" were fighting hard against the Mexican government because slavery had been outlawed by that gov't and now the slave-owning Texans wouldn't be able to compete with Mississippi and Lousiana and the rest in the world cotton market.

Honest to goodness, when you think about it, most of our country's embarrassments originate in the Southern States...

NASCAR being one of them.





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on June 04, 2007, 12:28:44 PM
Utley,

What is your objection to NASCAR?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 04, 2007, 01:05:41 PM
Utley,

What is your objection to NASCAR?
NASCAR is precisely as interesting as looking out from an overpass at the traffic on the interstate for four hours.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on June 04, 2007, 01:32:44 PM
Utley,

Interest depends on your understanding of the contest. To me, baseball, football, hockey, and the rest of the ball games are as interesting as watching the grass grow in the yard.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on June 04, 2007, 01:33:26 PM
The noise and the smell will kill ya.  You can have NASCAR.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on June 04, 2007, 01:45:55 PM
The Human Rights Campaign. released a questionnaire prior to the debate showing the candidates' responses to a variety of issues. All but Mike Gravel answered.

Each candidate said they support civil unions, except for Dennis Kucinich, who supports gay marriage. The candidates agreed on a wide variety of other gay-related issues including adding sexuality to the federal hate crimes law, a bill barring anti-gay discrimination by employers, adding same-sex couples to the Family and Medical Leave Act, and amending the Uniting Americans Family Act to give gays immigration rights for their partners. They also unanimously supported repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 04, 2007, 02:46:14 PM
Utley,

Interest depends on your understanding of the contest. To me, baseball, football, hockey, and the rest of the ball games are as interesting as watching the grass grow in the yard.

It's good that we established your level of understanding of baseball, football, hockey, etc...

Tell us, though: What is interesting about a bunch of yahoos dressed up in full advertising regalia making one continuous left hand turn for four hours, other than that they might crash and burn?

 ???
 
 

 


 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 04, 2007, 02:53:46 PM
Same as a marathon, I suppose

Except some might have more of a liking for fast cars than fast feet


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on June 04, 2007, 02:54:54 PM
Garrick,

What is interesting about a bunch of yahoos dressed up in full advertising regalia making one continuous left hand turn for four hours, other than that they might crash and burn?

De gustibus non disputandum est.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 04, 2007, 03:30:17 PM
Garrick,

What is interesting about a bunch of yahoos dressed up in full advertising regalia making one continuous left hand turn for four hours, other than that they might crash and burn?

De gustibus non disputandum est.

Yup. How else to explain the popularity of "American Idol"?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on June 04, 2007, 03:39:03 PM
"Maybe we should organize a Yankee boycott of South Carolina..."

Suits me, we still have the Confederate Battle Flag on the grounds of our State House, so that should give you reason enough to go on into Florida.

As long as Yankees are willing to pay $$$$$ for a little piece of dirt with a lagoon or swamp view, though, most Southerners are content to separate them from it.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on June 04, 2007, 03:39:56 PM
Utley,

What can I say. I get nothing out of ball games, can't play them, are bored watching them. But I enjoy the races. I used to see them in person until the tickets just got too expensive. I have favorites among the drivers. I understand how they score. And, see more than the car running around the track waiting to crash and burn. I see who is leading, how leads change, how positions change, how drivers wreck other drivers. All the stuff that most people get out of ball games which leave me cold.

In answer to a student question about why I never went to football games, I replied that I had better things to do than sit on a cold, hard bench, watching a bunch of boys .... running around ... grabbing each other's balls. A student repeated to his father, who made a trip to the school to tell me that he wanted to MEET the teacher willing to be so honest.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on June 04, 2007, 03:42:02 PM
Battle,

I seriously doubt you lost any more than your vanity in the Civil War, so why not come on into the 20th century. Or not. Just eat your peanuts and pick them there cotton balls.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on June 04, 2007, 03:44:13 PM
If you're interested, I can start a Nascar forum


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on June 04, 2007, 03:48:45 PM
Personally, I'm not sure how anyone can call themselves patriotic and support American troops when they fly the flag of the traitor.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on June 04, 2007, 03:53:34 PM
Liquid,

Having a Nascar forum would suit me, and maybe pull hubby in as well. Of course, if I'm gonna sit in there by myself, it won't be much fun.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 04, 2007, 03:59:45 PM
Liquid,

Having a Nascar forum would suit me, and maybe pull hubby in as well. Of course, if I'm gonna sit in there by myself, it won't be much fun.
I could always wander by and make fun of you.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on June 04, 2007, 04:29:44 PM
"I seriously doubt you lost any more than your vanity in the Civil War..."

You don't know your Civil War history very well.

I never said that I supported the Battle Flag being on the State House grounds, just that if you wanted to boycott South Carolina and not give us your money, then you could use that as an excuse. 

I don't know what "traitors" you refer to, but there was nothing illegal about secession, in fact it was the northern aggressors who legally, had no reason to violate our territory or territorial waters.  I understand that the Northern acquisition of cotton, corn, tobacco and other Southern revenues, was viewed as an economic necessity, but any insistence that it was about abolition is short-sighted, as would our "spread democracy" spiel in the acquisition of a strategic military presence to ensure oil supply.

I'm not surprised that so many people believe those kinds of myths, but the last six years of the treasonous war in Iraq might be illustrative to you in the reasons for the Civil war. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on June 04, 2007, 04:41:08 PM
jbot,

I don't know what "traitors" you refer to, but there was nothing illegal about secession, in fact it was the northern aggressors who legally, had no reason to violate our territory or territorial waters. 

I suggest you read the treason clause of Article 3 of the Constitution for your edification. Then read the Supremacy Clause.

My only regret is that the Constitutional Convention did not adopt Hamilton's theory of a unitary government, with the states as mere administrative districts.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 04, 2007, 05:00:35 PM
"I seriously doubt you lost any more than your vanity in the Civil War..."

You don't know your Civil War history very well.

I never said that I supported the Battle Flag being on the State House grounds, just that if you wanted to boycott South Carolina and not give us your money, then you could use that as an excuse. 

I don't know what "traitors" you refer to, but there was nothing illegal about secession, in fact it was the northern aggressors who legally, had no reason to violate our territory or territorial waters.  I understand that the Northern acquisition of cotton, corn, tobacco and other Southern revenues, was viewed as an economic necessity, but any insistence that it was about abolition is short-sighted, as would our "spread democracy" spiel in the acquisition of a strategic military presence to ensure oil supply.

I'm not surprised that so many people believe those kinds of myths, but the last six years of the treasonous war in Iraq might be illustrative to you in the reasons for the Civil war. 

The boycott would illustrate how dependent you are on Northern dollars, as you were both pre- and post-Civil War.

The rest of your post is revisionist history....speaking of myths..



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 04, 2007, 05:06:51 PM
A very interesting treatise on secession and the ability to do so LEGALLY.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 04, 2007, 05:09:12 PM
And NASCAR is NOT a sport:

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2004/12/13/11693


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 04, 2007, 05:18:28 PM
Quote
in fact it was the northern aggressors who legally, had no reason to violate our territory or territorial waters.
Except for the historical fact that it was the State of South Carolina that started the Civil War by firing upon Federal Government troops and forcibly seizing a Federal Government fort.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 04, 2007, 05:50:24 PM
How many Americans died because of South Carolina?  They should have listened to Sherman before the war.  Instead of those traitors shooting their big mouths about secession and the glory of the white race.

Someone should shimmy that pole and burn that traitoress emblem of the Confederacy.

Thank God Sherman arrived.  You might not even be here today, bottle, let alone have your 1st Amendment right to blab about what a big man you'd be, back in the 19th century, shooting him in the face.

There was tremendous resentment towards South Carolina.  And for good reason.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 04, 2007, 05:53:21 PM
Too bad yer good ol' boys didn't win, bottle.

Ye cud still haf slaves maybe dressin' the massa fer NASCAR or drivin ye like chaffeurs at 80 on da freeways.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 04, 2007, 05:55:43 PM
But lordy, lordy, lordy!  Da South has to obey the federal gevernment too.

Dey yankee people in D.C., they even made ye integrate yer schools.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on June 04, 2007, 05:59:08 PM
Utley,

First of all, I assume that if Liquid makes a Nascar forum you will not darken its doors. That's OK. I don't bother with the sports forums as they are.

Secondly, Battle is not expressing "revisionist" history, he is stating what he learned in school. He is telling you what schools in the south taught for many generations as American History. I was appalled when I moved to Virginia and learned what the otherwise good people of the south believe about their own defeat.

Several years ago, I made my first instructional website about the Battle of Five Forks which took place a few miles away from where I live now. In the process of doing the research, I learned that in the final battles of the Civil War, blacks were enlisted in the Confederate Army. There are at least two good books on this phenomena, if anyone is interested. When my brother in law visited, a native-born and educated Virginian, I mentioned this fact to him, and he exploded. "That's just a bunch of lies told you in your Yankee school. The Confederacy never had any black soldiers!" was his explosive reaction. I, then told him that the information came from southerners, local history specialists, and, to this day, I really don't think he believes me. Hubby, who is also, of course, Virginia born and educated, just found it amusing that I "got to" his brother on an issue that I was researching.

Anne in Virginia



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 04, 2007, 06:19:14 PM
Utley,

First of all, I assume that if Liquid makes a Nascar forum you will not darken its doors. That's OK. I don't bother with the sports forums as they are.

Secondly, Battle is not expressing "revisionist" history, he is stating what he learned in school. He is telling you what schools in the south taught for many generations as American History. I was appalled when I moved to Virginia and learned what the otherwise good people of the south believe about their own defeat.

Several years ago, I made my first instructional website about the Battle of Five Forks which took place a few miles away from where I live now. In the process of doing the research, I learned that in the final battles of the Civil War, blacks were enlisted in the Confederate Army. There are at least two good books on this phenomena, if anyone is interested. When my brother in law visited, a native-born and educated Virginian, I mentioned this fact to him, and he exploded. "That's just a bunch of lies told you in your Yankee school. The Confederacy never had any black soldiers!" was his explosive reaction. I, then told him that the information came from southerners, local history specialists, and, to this day, I really don't think he believes me. Hubby, who is also, of course, Virginia born and educated, just found it amusing that I "got to" his brother on an issue that I was researching.

Anne in Virginia



No one likes what they think they've learned to be challenged. Even you, Annie.

I've got no quarrel with the South. Just the Southernors who reflect ignorance ever chance they get. Same goes for my Yankee friends in New England--who think I'm from the South, every time I go up there. Give me the good old Middle Atlantic.

While idiots are everywhere, in the South they get a unique kind of idiot---same as in Massholechusetts.

 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 04, 2007, 06:30:28 PM
Actually, that African Americans fought for the Confederacy is not news to the good ol' boys.  What is news is information about black troops that fought for the Union, how the Confederacy treated black troops who were captured, or apart from the devastation to the south witnessed by all (when Sherman let Georgia and South Carolina get off EASY), whose side the slaves were on when Sherman arrived.

BTW, there's only one person on these forums that I believe is a licensed teacher.  And it ain't the anti-union "lady" from down south hawking a website for people's children.

And as far as New Jersey is concerned, last I heard, it was Kentucky and California.

But then again, there was a technology-savy fellow from Tennessee who was also a Canadian mother.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on June 04, 2007, 06:36:26 PM
Utley,

Neither the south, nor Massachusetts has an exclusive on idiots. From time to time I get the news from Reading. A few years ago they engaged some famous architect to plan an overall city uplift. The guy quit because the city father insisted on tearing down the perfectly good, dating to Ben Franklin, city library, and "saving" a non-descript old house that was once the forerunner to the huge Boscov's store/s. I participate on a Virginia History email list, and encounter folks like Battle frequently. Since it is a list primarily for serious historians, they do not last long, but there is a never ending line of them we go through, especially at the start of a new school year.

According to a book I'm reading now, Pennsylvania was a shining star in Indian relations in the founding years of the colony, and had to resolve some of the problems caused by both Virginia and Massachusetts. But, then PA is the home of the Walking/Running Purchase and other foul deeds towards the Native population. No ones' hands are really squeeky clean! We all have skeletons in the closet!

I did have some fun when I was teaching, with the Virginians I worked with. They would sit around the lounge fluffing their hair while they bragged about how many slaves their ancestors had owned and how wealthy they would be now if it weren't for the Civil War. And I would totally discombobulate them by saying that my ancesters were abolitionists and freed some of their slaves! A cousin who is now historian for the family in Reading tells me that this was a true statement, my ancestors did have some involvement in "breaking the law" to give slaves their freedom.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on June 04, 2007, 06:44:58 PM
The second Lee resigned his commission, Lincoln should have had him clapped in irons and escorted to the nearest military prison as an enemy combatant.

How dare he make war on the nation which gave him his West Point education.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 04, 2007, 06:46:33 PM
And that fellow was quite talented at carrying on duets.

But listening to their stories, eventually they trip themselves with changes and inconsistencies, and one finds that they lie.

Parents and writers, be warned.  Play it safe on the internet;  know who is using your material to further themselves;  research your web contacts, and do not allow your children to go anywhere you do not have full information and proof on.  

Any responsible tech savy person would be able to provide you with full credentials you would able to substantiate yourself with the State.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 04, 2007, 06:48:08 PM
And if they were so fully trained, they would not attack or question anyone who so suggests.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 04, 2007, 06:53:16 PM
If Sherman had gone all the way, and they'd hung those SOBs up to swing as they richly deserved, Reconstruction would have turned out a lot differently, I dare say.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on June 04, 2007, 06:55:02 PM
Inca,

Did you have another bad day at the salt mines again?

I will be more than happy to put my teaching license on one of my websites for you to see and, if you have a mind to, call the VDOE and make sure it is valid. Such information is publically available, and you don't need to play silly games with factual information. I'm sure the other licensed teachers on here can also provide you with the proof of their assertions that you seem to need. Why you need it is beyond me. But, since it is an issue to you, it is easily resolved. Let me know if you want to see it and I'll upload it for a few days. It seems not to be an issue with anyone but you. I can also provide you with my certificate for online teaching and learning, if you are interested. Let me know, and I'll let you know when its available.

Most southerners are aware of the black union troops, but less aware of the existence of black confederates. Some blacks were part of the confederacy as servants to officers, and a few of those servants were allowed to shoot in battles, but it was the rare occurance. South Carolina would be well acquainted with the black federal troops since the 54th Massachusetts served there. Also, through out the south there were federal officers picking up the slaves who had escaped bondage and put them into the soldiering business. That is taught in southern history.

Unless you have lived in the south, I don't see how you can profess to know what is/was taught down he'e.





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on June 04, 2007, 06:59:17 PM
Hey, this is the gay rights forum.  These rants don't seem to have much to do with gay rights.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on June 04, 2007, 07:02:22 PM
Sam,

I think they fit under the broader expression of human rights.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 04, 2007, 07:23:15 PM
Weezo

I did not make an argument as to what is taught in the schools.  I made an assertion as to what constitutes Confederate revisionism;  though I am not surprised, if you ever were a teacher, that you would have been helping your southern charges understand that point of view.

It is interesting to me that so much of your time is spent arguing who you are, that it is so important to you that others believe this, and so little making arguments on substance or NOT on what you allege is your personal experience.

Do whatever you want with your website and what information you share about yourself with others.  I don't really care because I wouldn't go near it, allow any of my offspring near it, nor allow any material I am connected with to be maligned by your posting it.

I know that if you were a responsible educator or purveyor of technology, we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with.

That in itself is enough evidence to me as to how many loose screws you are operating with.

Plus your slights and jabs that I would dare challenge "the teacher" with your wild imaginings as to where I've been all day.

Will you ever stay on topic, "teacher"?

Go take your meds;  I recall your mentioning them too.  What were they -- anti-psychotics?

You deserved everything those uppity eastern parents gave you on the Times forum.  Both liberal and conservative.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 04, 2007, 07:36:37 PM
But yes. . . now that you mention.  Go ahead -- post your license, your degree, the school information as to your work at your website -- so that parents going there with their children can confirm with the BOE, schools, and whatnot, before their children use your site.

I'm stunned that a teacher providing a site for children would not have this information for parents publicly available before they allow their offspring to use it.

That they would be mad or make fun of a parent suggesting such a notion;  that they would expect people to trust an unknown on the internet. 

That they would not know this themselves if they were a licensed teacher with decades of experience and specialized training in the use of technology, and, technology with children.

So go ahead, "Teach."  PROVE IT, since the assertions you make about yourself are so important to you on public internet forums -- and that others believe it.

Especially their children.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on June 04, 2007, 08:56:03 PM
Inca,

In some twelve years of providing educational web content, you are the first person to ask me to prove who I am. You will find your proof, via a link, on the Education Forum. It is really not pertinent to this forum.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 04, 2007, 10:10:32 PM
LMAO Smithfield Girl.

Every time YOU base an argument in a forum outside Education on your alleged personal experience or so-called authority as a licensed, experienced teacher, or so much as mention your website for children-- it most certainly does becomes an issue.

As for no one ever asking you, well, boo hoo, first time for everything isn't there.

First time, a slave asked to be free;  first time, someone said, "Let's integrate!";  first time, teachers said, hey, let's make a union so that we can be better paid;  first time, someone said, parents have a right to know.

And so on.

FIRST TIMES HAVE MADE THIS NATION GREAT.

As any experienced teacher worth their salt would know.

As for how a person supposedly trained in technology and licensed and experienced in teaching could have such low expectations of parents as concerns the interests of their children, along with their role as critical advocates, beats me.

They must either be frauds or live in southern patroness worldview where they are accustomed to people eating their shit without complaint.

Move over, lady.  I'm from the urban east coast.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 04, 2007, 10:45:07 PM
Hey, this is the gay rights forum.  These rants don't seem to have much to do with gay rights.

Well, in Iraq---the current war zone---killing gays is advocated. What you think the Bush Administration wants to do about this, samster?

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid28049.asp


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on June 04, 2007, 11:06:30 PM
Inca,

I provided your proof, and in a very timely manner. Where is your apology?







Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on June 04, 2007, 11:21:59 PM
"Except for the historical fact that it was the State of South Carolina that started the Civil War by firing upon Federal Government troops and forcibly seizing a Federal Government fort."

Jesus, whisk, you have to go out trotting facts to support your argument, just when everybody was doing fine on conjecture and whimsy.....sure, but then I devolve into the Lusitania and the Johnson ship and the WMD, I mean, when the Feds make up their minds that they are coming in.....

.....they are.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 05, 2007, 12:52:42 AM
Inca,

I provided your proof, and in a very timely manner. Where is your apology?

As I already stated, I have no interest in investigating your alleged "proof."  You owe that proof to any parent who comes to your website, and, without having to contact you personally.

They would also have to confirm any information you provide with the State Board of Education, whatever university/college you claim you attended, and whatever schools you claim you worked at.

So that fact that you assert you, in a matter of minutes, just proved anything is a laughable statement from a supposedly trained teacher.

I owe you no apology.

My guess, considering every ridiculous response you've had to every legitimate question I've raised, and considering some of the trolls who frequent these places is that you are either a fraud, a lunatic, or an incredibly incompetant teacher.

Do not expect me to validate anything about your teaching claim on these forums.

And do not expect to apologize for raising legitimate questions about a person hawking a website for children.

Go jump, lady.

If anyone visits your websites, I hope they will contact the authorities to check your claims, and, if they are not legitimate, I hope they will report you to the appropriate people.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 05, 2007, 01:24:14 AM
BTW

Anyone visiting Weezo's website to check her claims should be aware that she was banned by the NY Times for tracking down the website of another poster's teenager, using her technological savy to determine that poster's whereabouts, and, revealing it on the forum, in the midst of a dispute between herself and that parent, that had become "personal."

So it might be wise to use the authorities at the outset to investigate any claims -- for one's own protection.

She can be quite mean.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 05, 2007, 01:29:41 AM
And no, Weezo, I don't owe you an apology for that either.

If you are running around the internet, bringing kids to a website, and telling parents you are a licensed, experienced teacher -- and hope others will spread the word - - they have a right to even call the police if they want to -- to look into your credentials.

You owe an apology if asserting otherwise.

I don't know what they do in the good ol' boys town, where you have yer own way of running things, but other states - like the Unionized North - require a police and FBI check for any record of child predation, and before you can be licensed as a teacher.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 05, 2007, 03:28:31 AM
Weezo

Where is your apology?  Hm?  Ready to practice what you preach?

I don't know any sane or responsible teacher who would object to what I said.  Or so ungraciously provide the requested information.

Just I don't know any sane attorney who would demand an apology for anyone asking for their law license number, any doctor, or any professional on the web hawking material and services for children.

And in this internet age, by a so-called internet professional, no less.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 05, 2007, 03:31:27 AM
Sam,

I think they fit under the broader expression of human rights.

Is that a reference to your journey into the joys of NASCAR racing?

What is your opinion on gay marriage anyway, "Weezo"?  Or gay parents adopting children?

You've been here so many times, and yet, I am still not clear as to your opinions on this subject.

Please.  Enlighten me.  You being an educator too.

Teach any gay children?  Have the children of gay parents in your classroom?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 05, 2007, 03:43:18 AM
Know any gay families personally, "Weezo"?

Gay friends?

Donors?

Do you have any opinions that aren't based on your alleged experience or so-called authority as a "teacher"?  Can you defend it without insulting others?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 05, 2007, 03:47:55 AM
Or are you here mostly to shoot the breeze with Utterley-Scutterly, keep him going, dream of race cars, and hawk your website for kids, and certainly, personally attack anyone who challenges your authority.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 06:06:27 AM
(Kalamazoo, Michigan) The city of Kalamazoo became the first public employer in the state to strip health benefits from the domestic partners of its gay and lesbian employees.

City Manager Kenneth Collard cited a decision last month by the Michigan supreme Court.

The high court agreed to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that said the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage blocks the state, local governments and public institutions from providing benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.

Real families will be hurt.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on June 05, 2007, 10:25:05 AM
I fail to see the point of choosing who gets "family" benefits. An employee, it would seem, should have the right to designate who receives his/her "benefits" under an employment contract. The gender of the employee and his/her beneficiary, should not be a factor.

It would seem to be a social good to insure that all people have health benefits irrespective of their relationships. If gay relationships pose a problem in less longevity than heterosexual relationships, I suppose that could be a minor cost in paper work. With the widespread divorce rate among heterosexuals, I don't see much of a difference between the two.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 05, 2007, 10:29:29 AM
(Kalamazoo, Michigan) The city of Kalamazoo became the first public employer in the state to strip health benefits from the domestic partners of its gay and lesbian employees.

City Manager Kenneth Collard cited a decision last month by the Michigan supreme Court.

The high court agreed to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that said the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage blocks the state, local governments and public institutions from providing benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.

Real families will be hurt.

Strip health benefits?

I think you mean FAIL TO GRANT THEM


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 10:58:17 AM
(Kalamazoo, Michigan) The city of Kalamazoo became the first public employer in the state to strip health benefits from the domestic partners of its gay and lesbian employees.

City Manager Kenneth Collard cited a decision last month by the Michigan supreme Court.

The high court agreed to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that said the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage blocks the state, local governments and public institutions from providing benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.

Real families will be hurt.

Strip health benefits?

I think you mean FAIL TO GRANT THEM
No.  They had health benefits, now they don't.  Stripped.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 05, 2007, 11:12:07 AM
(Kalamazoo, Michigan) The city of Kalamazoo became the first public employer in the state to strip health benefits from the domestic partners of its gay and lesbian employees.

City Manager Kenneth Collard cited a decision last month by the Michigan supreme Court.

The high court agreed to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that said the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage blocks the state, local governments and public institutions from providing benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.

Real families will be hurt.

Looks like they were just trying to be consistent with the laws that the people of Michigan have said they want.

Very democratic of them.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on June 05, 2007, 11:13:18 AM
I'm confused they made the decision to strip health benefits based on a high court agreeing to hear an appeal -- the Michigan Supreme Court hasn't actually made a decision on it?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on June 05, 2007, 11:15:19 AM
I don't know why they give health benefits to gay people anyway since all they do is burden the system with their HIV and AIDS....


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 11:20:07 AM
(Kalamazoo, Michigan) The city of Kalamazoo became the first public employer in the state to strip health benefits from the domestic partners of its gay and lesbian employees.

City Manager Kenneth Collard cited a decision last month by the Michigan supreme Court.

The high court agreed to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that said the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage blocks the state, local governments and public institutions from providing benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.

Real families will be hurt.

Looks like they were just trying to be consistent with the laws that the people of Michigan have said they want.

Very democratic of them.
Of course, the whole point of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution is to restrain bigotted or prejudiced "democratic" tendencies that unreasonably discriminate on the basis of, say, gender.  So if Meatchicken's laws allow for unmarried couples to collect benefits provided they are of different genders, there might be a gender discrimination case made, since the determinitive factor in granting benefits is the person's sex.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 11:28:12 AM
I'm confused they made the decision to strip health benefits based on a high court agreeing to hear an appeal -- the Michigan Supreme Court hasn't actually made a decision on it?
Liq, here's a quote from the AP story:

Quote
The high court agreed to hear an appeal of a state Court of Appeals decision blocking same-sex benefits, but it also let the earlier decision take immediate effect.
Which means that, at least in the judicial district the case arose from, the lower court decision has the effect of law, though not in any other judicial district.   It appears Kzoo is not in that district - reading between the lines - but is following the lower court opinion in advance of the Supreme Court's ruling.

The irony of a municipality's decision to strip benefits is that it actually only shifts the burden from one governmental entity to another, since those partners will now have to rely on public assistance if they do not have their own benefits.  And since one of the biggest effects of the lack of insurance is the failure to seek preventative health advise, it is likely to increase the total burden.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 05, 2007, 11:29:41 AM
You're the lawyer, whisk.

Of course, your own prejudices and biases towards Michigan, I'm sure, are all in check when you delivered your analysis.

Me? I'm still looking for those 1970 Ohio National Guardsmen to be tried for murder at Kent State.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 05, 2007, 11:31:23 AM
I don't mean to tell you I was expecting the New York Times, but even for Albuquerque, this is pretty Albuquerque.

Well, they say
that Santa Fe
Is less than ninety miles away,
And I got time to roll a number
and rent a car.
Oh, Albuquerque.

I've been flyin'
down the road,
And I've been starvin' to be alone,
And independent from the scene
that I've known.
Albuquerque.

So I'll stop when I can,
Find some fried eggs
and country ham.
I'll find somewhere where
they don't care who I am.
Oh, Albuquerque,
Albuquerque.

-Neil Young


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 11:32:30 AM
You're the lawyer, whisk.

Of course, your own prejudices and biases towards Michigan, I'm sure, are all in check when you delivered your analysis.

Me? I'm still looking for those 1970 Ohio National Guardsmen to be tried for murder at Kent State.
I was born and raised in Flint, Michigan, and went to Michigan State.  And Ohio's laws are even more regressive, but at least would withstand Equal Protection analysis, since the state cannot offer benefits to any unmarried couple.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 12:24:04 PM
I don't know why they give health benefits to gay people anyway since all they do is burden the system with their HIV and AIDS....

I am surprised you'd say this.  I hadn't figured you to be a phobe.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on June 05, 2007, 12:30:42 PM
I don't know why they give health benefits to gay people anyway since all they do is burden the system with their HIV and AIDS....

I am surprised you'd say this.  I hadn't figured you to be a phobe.
I was being facetious...



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 12:46:59 PM
Whew.  OK.  I didn't think you were a homophobic rightwing christer bigot.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 05, 2007, 12:59:26 PM
Whew.  OK.  I didn't think you were a homophobic rightwing christer bigot.

As opposed to a homo, left-wing, anti-christer bigot, of course.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 01:03:29 PM
Whew.  OK.  I didn't think you were a homophobic rightwing christer bigot.

As opposed to a homo, left-wing, anti-christer bigot, of course.

Are you talking about yourself again


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 05, 2007, 03:42:40 PM
I'm confused they made the decision to strip health benefits based on a high court agreeing to hear an appeal -- the Michigan Supreme Court hasn't actually made a decision on it?
Liq, here's a quote from the AP story:

Quote
The high court agreed to hear an appeal of a state Court of Appeals decision blocking same-sex benefits, but it also let the earlier decision take immediate effect.
Which means that, at least in the judicial district the case arose from, the lower court decision has the effect of law, though not in any other judicial district.   It appears Kzoo is not in that district - reading between the lines - but is following the lower court opinion in advance of the Supreme Court's ruling.

The irony of a municipality's decision to strip benefits is that it actually only shifts the burden from one governmental entity to another, since those partners will now have to rely on public assistance if they do not have their own benefits.  And since one of the biggest effects of the lack of insurance is the failure to seek preventative health advise, it is likely to increase the total burden.

Why would they need to rely on public assistance?  Are you saying gays are generally paupers?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 03:44:02 PM
No, uninsured people depend on public assistance for their medical care.  Or lack thereof.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 05, 2007, 03:44:36 PM
Funny - I never did.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 05:19:12 PM
Funny - I never did.

Well, whoopi for you.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 06, 2007, 08:04:42 AM
Funny - I never did.
Sure, if you have only minor medical bills, you take care of them yourself.  But I'll bet you didn't try to pay for chemotherapy.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 06, 2007, 09:40:52 AM
Funny - I never did.
Sure, if you have only minor medical bills, you take care of them yourself.  But I'll bet you didn't try to pay for chemotherapy.

I think the kid's philosophy of society's debt to the individual's welfare can be found in Stave 1 of Dickens's "A Christmas Carol":

This lunatic, in letting Scrooge's nephew out, had let two other people in. They were portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold, and now stood, with their hats off, in Scrooge's office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him.

`Scrooge and Marley's, I believe,' said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. `Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr. Scrooge, or Mr. Marley?'

`Mr. Marley has been dead these seven years,' Scrooge replied. `He died seven years ago, this very night.'

`We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,' said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.

It certainly was; for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word `liberality,' Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.

`At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, `it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.'

`Are there no prisons?' asked Scrooge.

`Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

`And the Union workhouses?' demanded Scrooge. `Are they still in operation?'

`They are. Still,' returned the gentleman, `I wish I could say they were not.'

`The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?' said Scrooge.

`Both very busy, sir.'

`Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. `I'm very glad to hear it.'

`Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,' returned the gentleman, `a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink. and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?'

`Nothing!' Scrooge replied.

`You wish to be anonymous?'

`I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. `Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'

`Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'

`If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, `they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.'


`But you might know it,' observed the gentleman.

`It's not my business,' Scrooge returned. `It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!'
[/b]



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 06, 2007, 01:37:59 PM
Funny - I never did.
Sure, if you have only minor medical bills, you take care of them yourself.  But I'll bet you didn't try to pay for chemotherapy.

Or HIV meds - true.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 06, 2007, 01:40:42 PM
Of course GETAFUKKINJOBWITHBENEFITS is no solution.

Oh, that's right - one of em needs to stay home and raise the "I got 2 daddies/mommies" kids.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 06, 2007, 01:41:40 PM
Of course GETAFUKKINJOBWITHBENEFITS is no solution.

Oh, that's right - one of em needs to stay home and raise the "I got 2 daddies/mommies" kids.
Your lack of appreciation for the economic realities of the lower middle class and the poor is noted.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on June 06, 2007, 01:43:59 PM
As a heterosexual, if your locality ruled that your wife couldn't share your benefits because she wanted to stay home with your children, you wouldn't be pissed off?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 06, 2007, 03:53:15 PM
My locality?  How so?

Do you mean my employer?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 04:31:49 PM
My locality?  How so?

Do you mean my employer?

I get the feeling you're a republican or a fascist.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 06, 2007, 10:44:29 PM
Straight eye for the Queer Film Festival:

http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/movies/7866222.html


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on June 07, 2007, 05:59:37 AM
The Celluloid Closet is a good review of gay movies from the past.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 11, 2007, 04:14:13 PM
Gregg Araki's "Mysterious Skin" is an interesting comtemporay gay film based on the novel by Scott Heim. It looks at young gays and sexual abuse from a pseudo-alien abduction film scenario. Heim grew up in Kansas and went to KU. The film is set in the midwest and NYC. Gregg Araki's movies are intereresting since they give gay consciousness a twist and a snap as far as mixied audiences are concerned. Gay bildungsroman out of the closet one might say.


Title: Gay Parade in Sâo Paulo
Post by: snyggokul on June 12, 2007, 06:20:38 PM
Millions  staged  gay parade  in  São Paulo  on Sunday .

Here : http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2007-06-10T230150Z_01_N10439846_RTRUKOC_0_US-BRAZIL-GAYS-PARADE.xml


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Kam on June 12, 2007, 06:33:54 PM
Wow thats a lotta people on parade.  2.5 million? Nearly 900 cops? Thats one cop for every 3000 GBLT! Sheeiiit what if they were carrying weapons?  What if it happened here?  They could take over.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 12, 2007, 06:40:32 PM
They can have Bed-Stuy


Title: Re: Gay Parade in Sâo Paulo
Post by: snyggokul on June 12, 2007, 06:44:19 PM
No, actually there were over 3 million people; there were 3 million in the parade last year already and they wanted to make sure there would be more than 3 million this year...

But you know ? This is traditionally one of the happiest events in São Paulo and we never have any serious problems cuz people really go to very pretty and modern Paulista Avenue with the sole purpose of having FUN ... Brazilians LOVE -- and certainly know how -- to party, you know...  :D


Title: Legislators vote to defeat same-sex marriage ban
Post by: liquidsilver on June 14, 2007, 01:27:22 PM
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/06/legislators_vot.html


Title: Re: Legislators vote to defeat same-sex marriage ban
Post by: samiinh on June 14, 2007, 07:59:28 PM
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/06/legislators_vot.html

Great news for those who live and have married in MA.  Here is NH even among repukes, gay issues are on the bottom of their list of concerns according to a new survey.  People here really don't care.  Of course, there are some who want to make it an issue, but it isn't. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 16, 2007, 03:59:32 PM
Saminnh:

Answer me this.  Are you, or are you not a registered sex offender?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Dzimas on June 18, 2007, 08:16:23 AM
Would someone please show this troll the door?


Title: Re: Legislators vote to defeat same-sex marriage ban
Post by: wpsaukee on June 18, 2007, 11:21:26 AM
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/06/legislators_vot.html

Great news for those who live and have married in MA.  Here is NH even among repukes, gay issues are on the bottom of their list of concerns according to a new survey.  People here really don't care.  Of course, there are some who want to make it an issue, but it isn't. 

As a striaght long-time NH resident, I just want to say I'm thrilled by the civil unions law (and also, as a former MA resident, by the legislature's vote there).

New Hampshire has long been somewhat stereotypically viewed as very conservative, but the conservatism here has always been largely economically based. In my experience, most people here are rather tolerant of others. (Of course, one might say that true conservatism, as opposed to right-wing fanaticism, would encourage just such a world view.) I'm always glad to have my impression corroborated by others who may be better qualified to judge than I am.

Nice to see New England leading the way in doing the right thing.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 18, 2007, 03:57:13 PM
I'm guessing that you and Saminnh sodomize each other on a regular basis.  I will go on to assume that Sammy boy is the catcher.

Looks like NH is gradually turning into Brown Town USA.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 18, 2007, 08:05:31 PM
Detective Winslow—you call yourself a detective?

You couldn’t even find your own asshole if you looked for it.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 18, 2007, 09:42:08 PM
How can you tell, judging from typed words, that someone is a fag?

When they write the word asshole in italics!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 18, 2007, 10:13:14 PM
How can you tell if somebody is an asshole?

Simple. By reading their asinine posts:

The detective proceeds to snatch the umbrella from Gordon and shove it up his rectum.


This forum needs an enema


You can eat my shorts if you don't believe me.

Papabear:

Is the word penis fair game?

Saminnh:

Answer me this.  Are you, or are you not a registered sex offender?


Carlos123. Go stuff a spicy chimichanga up your fat ass.


Now then, Detective Wise-Ass....go figure.




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Kam on June 18, 2007, 11:07:41 PM
How did this turn into the Comedy forum?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 18, 2007, 11:18:29 PM
Obviously when you showed up.... :-)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 18, 2007, 11:56:08 PM
Don't get the wrong idea sploogopolis.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 19, 2007, 12:14:14 AM
Why not just stick with something you know -- like Basketball?

Unless you know about gay issues? Other than louche locker-room humor.

Yawn.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 19, 2007, 12:20:37 AM
Gayness is a topic that must be taken seriously....I propose that all homosexuals move to New Hampshire.  Can any of you homo's imagine how much action you would get this way?!  I bet it could work.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 19, 2007, 12:26:41 AM
Never argue with an idiot.

He'll take you down to his level and beat you with experience.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: bodiddley on June 19, 2007, 02:27:33 AM
Hey, Puget, you missed one:
Quote
Detective_Winslow
Re: Knicks « Reply #1085 on: June 16, 2007, 02:49:05 AM »

bo,
Would you take Oprah up the brown for $1,000,000?

Detective Klint: indulge your curiosity and investigate a buggering today.

But forgive Winslow, he was only looking for the Gay Wrongs Forum.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 19, 2007, 10:32:15 AM
Hey Bo—

Here’s another charming piece by what’s his name—almost as bad as the Oprah message you mentioned earlier. I don’t think he liked my Japanese profile pic very much...



It was a dark a stormy night.....

Sploogetopolis, the $20 per hour hermaphrodite hooker, had just enjoyed a hard working night on the job.  While walking home, he/she was approached by a smelly, morbidly obese, asian man.  The asian man knew exactly what he wanted.  He held a fake gun to splooge's numb skull, and proceeded to sodomize it.  The asian man was startled when Splooge began moaning like a whore.  "What the hell is guwing on!  Exclaimed the fat asian.  In its sexiest 60 year old voice, Splooge informed the fat asian  "You could have just paid me like anyone else.  I can be whoever you want me to be, baby."    The asian man backed off, visibly disgusted, as was Splooge when she cried out.  "You didn't wear a condom you ASSHOLE!" 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 20, 2007, 02:19:35 AM
Spank party over in Creative Writing...

http://forums.escapefromelba.com/index.php/topic,39.msg14139.html#msg14139


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on June 23, 2007, 02:34:11 PM
Saminnh:

Answer me this.  Are you, or are you not a registered sex offender?

How do they say it in Washington?  Oh yes, go cheney yourself.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 23, 2007, 10:26:45 PM
(http://joshreads.com/images/0603/whackitbaby.jpg)


"Jerks!!! That's right jerks!!!"


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on June 23, 2007, 11:18:50 PM
Kid,

Why do you think that laws allowing rights to gay couples will lead to a preponderance of gay over straight relationship in successive generations? Are you suggesting that a gay relationship is preferable to most people than a straight relationship? Are you suggesting that, given the choice, most people will prefer a same sex relationship than a heterosexual relationship? Do you have any evidence to support your suppositions?



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 24, 2007, 03:50:07 AM
(http://www.newamericandimensions.com/NAP/images/photos/rock_hudson.jpg)

RIP


(http://elucid.blogs.com/elucid/images/members_only)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on June 24, 2007, 07:08:12 AM
Do you have a point, DW?  Or are you just trying to get attention.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 24, 2007, 09:28:08 PM
Dispspit mayor of Backwardsasssville:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/24/bottled.water.ap/index.html


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 25, 2007, 12:27:45 AM
Saminnh:

How did Freddie and Rock die?  And all of those adult film actors who took frequent trips to Brown Town?  They should serve as a lesson.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on June 25, 2007, 02:22:52 AM
How did Freddie and Rock die?  And all of those adult film actors who took frequent trips to Brown Town?  They should serve as a lesson.

More heterosexuals have died of AIDs.  That should serve as a lesson to you and your true calling in life.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on June 25, 2007, 05:24:30 AM
Saminnh:

How did Freddie and Rock die?  And all of those adult film actors who took frequent trips to Brown Town?  They should serve as a lesson.

The lesson is be safe.  Be responsible.  ARE you either?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 25, 2007, 02:15:57 PM
Absolute shame/waste/tragedy when a heterosexual contracts HIV thru protected sex, contact with tainted blood or trasfusion.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 02:18:00 PM
Absolute shame/waste/tragedy when a heterosexual contracts HIV thru protected sex, contact with tainted blood or trasfusion.
Uh.... you know the implication of that is if you get it through gay sex - even protected gay sex - you deserve it.  Tell me that's not what you meant.  Please tell me that's not what you meant.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 25, 2007, 02:23:38 PM
Saminnh:

How do heterosexuals contract HIV?  By taking someone up the butt (or playing catcher of course).  You ask if I'M responsible?  I believe I am moreso than you because I don't practice sodomy on any level because it is disgusting and unnatural.

I guess blow jobs are alright though.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on June 25, 2007, 03:26:07 PM
Saminnh:

How do heterosexuals contract HIV?  By taking someone up the butt (or playing catcher of course).  You ask if I'M responsible?  I believe I am moreso than you because I don't practice sodomy on any level because it is disgusting and unnatural.

I guess blow jobs are alright though.

You ignorance is showing once again.  Anal sex is quite popular among heterosexuals, especially young ones, so I've read.  Some use is as a form of birth control.  And you have no idea what I do nor is it any of your f--king business what anyone does behind closed doors.  So get a f--king gripe, old man.


Title: Sam
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 25, 2007, 03:49:01 PM
(http://www.lib.uconn.edu/online/research/speclib/ASC/exhibits/voices/personalgallery/images/FagRagJune1971_jpg.jpg)


I bet you can find it on Ebay....


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on June 25, 2007, 03:50:39 PM
Here's the thing tec...drug users get HIV all the time, and judging from your icon.....


Title: Re: Sam
Post by: samiinh on June 25, 2007, 03:51:02 PM


Why don't you ask your daughter how good she is at giving head?  And how she likes it up the butt?  Or maybe it was your wife in the movies.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 25, 2007, 04:14:33 PM
I bet your grandchildren will grow up to be pickle smoochers just like you.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 25, 2007, 04:16:59 PM
I bet your grandchildren will grow up to be pickle smoochers just like you.
Sadly, apples not falling far from trees, I'll bet your children grow up to be self-righteous, judgmental, ignorant dupas like yourself.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on June 25, 2007, 05:23:37 PM
my big granddaughter loves pickles as much as i do, and i'm hoping the two tiny little ones grow up the same way.  in fact, i hope the whole bunch are like me and will spend their lives pigging out on hot pastrami on rye, with mustard, fries and cole slaw on the side, a batch of sour pickled cukes and tomatoes, and an ice cold dr. brown's celery soda.  this is the food forum, right?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 28, 2007, 02:03:22 PM
WOW

Momma needs help

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2007/06/28/zahn.living.life.as.girl.cnn


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on June 28, 2007, 03:09:14 PM
Seems to me some folks are forgetting how HIV is contracted - with the exchange of body fluids - any body fluids. Urine seems to be an exception, but I'm not willing to chance it on a toilet seet, but saliva, seman, and female fluids, in addition to blood exchanges whether being sprayed on in the emergency room, or using intravenious drugs can be a source.

And, yes it is a shame whenever ANYONE contracts HIV no matter their sexual orientation. And no, a blow job is no safer than anal sex. Geez, some of you must have slept through health classes in HS.




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 28, 2007, 05:09:30 PM
Hey, hey!  Let's keep it clean.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on June 29, 2007, 06:16:57 AM
Hey, hey!  Let's keep it clean.

Did you have a point to share with the video you linked to?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on July 01, 2007, 02:26:55 AM
(http://www.frontiernet.net/~rainh2o/bad%20threads/Gay%20Thread%20congrats.jpg)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: samiinh on July 01, 2007, 07:41:51 AM
No clue what your point is.  Just being ignorant again?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on July 15, 2007, 02:01:37 AM
(http://expairience.net/forumfun/gaythread.jpg)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: srnich on July 18, 2007, 10:04:35 AM
...sumwone needs a big hug....


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on July 29, 2007, 09:39:06 PM
This thread needs an enema!



(http://homepage.mac.com/omegaosx/.Pictures/dead_thread.jpg)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on August 12, 2007, 11:35:02 AM
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we would forgive others" DEPT:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20221295/?GT1=10252


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on August 18, 2007, 03:32:14 AM
(http://cdn.davesdaily.com/pictures/824-he-likes-it.jpg)


This is a profile pic from one of our Elba posters. It shows Rummy Rumsfield being butt-fucked by a butch nude Fireman. Bosox18d is the proud displayer of this homophobic photo; Bosox18d has also made some disparaging remarks about Provincetown selling its soul to the devil because it welcomes members of the GLBT community to live and vacation there.

My question is this: how should GLBT members of Elba handle such homophobic displays by supposedly adult posters in this forum? Obviously ignorant posters like Winslow will continue to kick us and guilt us about aids and our lifestyle. There can be no dialog or threads with such people.

But bosox18d was a former member of the NYTimes book group and I can only shake my head at how supposedly intelligent book-reading NYTimes subscribing human beings can be so bigoted and totally insensitive to alternate life styles. It's as if the civil rights movement never existed and gays are still being treated as subhuman creatures that should be shoved into gas chambers like the Nazis did with the Jews.

I'm not interested in arguing with people about gay rights. I just wanted to let you see how it works over in the Meandering forum...with nobody objecting to it except me.









Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on August 18, 2007, 03:59:49 AM
Puge, I don't know the answer to your question, but you limiting it to the GLBT Melbas is not fair.  All of us Melbaites that are not homophobic--which is the majority as far as I am able to tell from the texts of posts--should ponder the question as well.

Bosox is not a heavy poster.  He never was, even at the NYT discussions (of course, I didn't go to a lot of the discussions.  Mostly just books and food.)  He and Mosca were often a pair in non fiction. But I did notice that picture when it went up here.  I was surprised.

What to do?  Await events, I guess.  Your post over in Meander should stir something up.


Title: For Dectective_Winslow......Love and Kisses
Post by: pugetopolis on August 23, 2007, 04:45:24 AM
(http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/d5a/a4f/d5aa4fbe-0e6b-4047-ba73-596eb57b95b5)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on August 23, 2007, 12:23:01 PM
Puge, what was the occasion for Jimmy Durante appearing in drag?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on August 23, 2007, 03:49:09 PM
Are there any gays other than splooge remaining on this thread?  What ever happened to Sammy Boy?   Maybe he got sick.......? 

It appears that this thread has ceased to be gay.

I say we start a new thread:  Heterosexual Rights


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on August 23, 2007, 04:54:32 PM
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/8/89/300px-Oscar_Wilde_frock_coat.jpg)

Troll Lit

I think Detective_Winslow is in love with me.
We had a couple of love-spats and cat-fights over
in the Gay forum. He was kicking gays both dead &
alive for aids. Then he pops up in Meander—kicking
the poor defenseless pet-lovers. I put him in Ignore—
and the next thing I know he’s stalking me in the
Poetry forum. He’s done the same thing in the Kinks
forum—calling people bad sexist racist names.

I don’t know—I seem to attract ugly Trolls.
Trolvig back in the Book Lounge—then there's that
ever-present Troll from Campbelltown PA. There was
even a gang of tacky homophobic haikuists from
Scotland—mincing around in their kilts. Mad because
I posted a couple of gay haiku. After all, it was the
New York Times “Urban Haiku” forum—and NYC
is the gay capitol of the world. How ironic to be
trashed by a bunch of gay-bashers in kilts from jolly
old England. But then look what they did to Oscar Wilde…

Troll lit is alive and well—a constant subtext
even on the Internet. Trolls like Detective_Winslow
are dime a dozen—the proverbial skunk at the picnic.
And does he stink!!! He stinks so bad that...


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on August 23, 2007, 05:10:48 PM
Puge, stop hopping up and down about Det_Win.  You can't change that guy.  He's in the hopeless column.  Just scroll on by.

You didn't answer my question.  What was Jimmy Durante doing in drag?  Was it a movie?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on August 23, 2007, 06:06:41 PM
(http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/027019/f1/nlc010069-v6.jpg)

The year was 1943. Jimmy Durante was Burlesque Magazine’s choice for Sweater Girl of the Month (August-September).

Here is a larger image—so campy and gay. This has got to be one of the most campy portraits of Jimmy Durante I’ve ever seen. What a genius he was—and what a life he led. Going back thru old pulp fiction covers and photos—the net is a cornucopia of purest camp and postmodern sensibility. Please click and enjoy.

http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/027019/f1/nlc010069-v6.jpg



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on August 24, 2007, 03:08:26 AM
Thanks, Puge.  Holy cow, a magazine for 10 cents!  I love the roll of hair above the temples.  Women used to do those by using what they called "rats".  My grandmother had several in her dresser, in the drawer for "notions" (are you too young to remember when department stores had a whole floor for "notions," which the elevator operator would call out as he leveled the car and opened the door)  Anyway, as a curious child I pulled one of her rats apart.  Whew, did I ever get it.  That's the first memory that popped into my mind when I saw the Durante photo.  I loved to sit there and fiddle with granny's stuff and the whole area smelled good, too.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on August 24, 2007, 05:05:08 AM
I know what you mean. Jimmy Durante's bouffant caught my eye right away. It did look kind of "ratty" didn't it. The way some of the limp blonde curls kinda hung down over his forehead like it was meant to look ratty and funny.

And those pursed lips of his -- I'm still laughing almost in tears. With that come-hither look in Durante's coy eyes -- how exquisitely how enchantingly campy and gay. There's something about a man in drag when he's really into it and isn't bashful or shy about it. I felt this rush of vaudeville from another time altogether when something like being a Burlesque Magazine Sweater Girl really meant something...a chance to camp it up and play it for everything it's worth. Like Milton Berle during the early days of TV or Geraldine.

There's something tender and innocent yet all-knowing about men who are totally straight and comfortable with themselves who can appeal to everybody when they do drag and somehow bring out in an audience something universal and human rather than the usual same old thing.

Jimmy Durante in drag smiling from the cover of Burlesque Magazine in the year 1943 was like breathing in another time and place when things were, well, more simple and gay...and people didn't take themselves so seriously...even then in those dark years of the war...



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on August 24, 2007, 12:54:12 PM
Beautiful post, Puge.  I love it when you are lyrical and just yourself. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on August 25, 2007, 04:37:57 AM
You fellas should get a room......



(http://www.thom.org/photos/batesmotel.jpg)





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on August 25, 2007, 12:12:59 PM
Det_Win, your picture didn't load on my computer--some filter or another that I have has prevented that. Too bad the world doesn't have a filter for trash like you.  No, I don't ignore you.  I need to know what slime like you are up to, so I do read your posts.

Yeppers.  It is entirely possible for Puge and I to be room mates.  He and I are civilized, you see.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on August 25, 2007, 12:50:04 PM
Donot,

It was not a filter so much as he didn't do something right to link the picture. I don't have much of filters on my software and where the picture should be was an x indicating the picture couldn't load. Possibly, it is blocked by a copyright on the picture itself or some other block to keep others from using the picture.

The picture was just a bush in front of a sign for a Bates Motel. Whoop-de-do. The guy isn't even creative!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on August 25, 2007, 12:58:49 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Weezo.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: madupont on August 25, 2007, 01:05:41 PM
weezo, it was creative in the detective's own way; a subtle commentary. Quite often the prejudice is in reverse towards heterosexuals because the hang-up never was actually openly gay but latently something else. Like, read the  Oscar Wilde portraited TROLL LIT, and figure out who is the real troll of Cambellstown,PA.

Why it never occurs to anyone that the Detective might be in drag while cruising here is easy; the reader of the Winslow Boy factor is more complicated.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on August 25, 2007, 02:54:34 PM
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/8/89/300px-Oscar_Wilde_frock_coat.jpg)


Why it never occurs to anyone that the Detective might be in drag while cruising here is easy...

Quite right, my dear Mad.

For all we know you could be Detective_Winslow in drag -- posing as a homophobic slob.

Mister Winslow says that he's a 22-year-old-male from Joplin, MO.

But for all we know, my dear, he could be a Wicked Witch from Campbelltown PA!!!

Oscar Wilde would love the Internet...

So many witty masks -- so little time.







Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on August 27, 2007, 03:29:02 PM
Miss Ashbery

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/27/arts/27laur.jpg)

Read the article in today's NYTimes about mtvU choosing Ashbery as their "poet laureate." All very nice and so on, but absolutely no mention that Miss Ashbery is queer. The closest they get is a reference to her start 1950s "bohemia."

Well, my dears, aren't those folks at mtvU and the NYTimes ever so circumspect? One has to wonder how complicit Miss Ashbery was in this little -- what? -- lavender wash? I have no clue who the target audience is for mtvU, though I assume its largely the same or wants to be the same as MTV generally. So, I think it's irresponsible, if not immoral, for Miss Ashbery to let this bit of closetry occur.
 
Of course, the article also troops out Ashbery's now rather famous quip about not wanting to be named the national poet laureate. Of course, we all know that there is only one requirement for U.S. poet laureate: no gays.

As recent recipients have apply demonstrated, talent and achievement have nothing to do with that honor. That's why Ashbery's quip is sadly fatuitous: it fails to state why he will never be offered the position in the first place.
 
Ah well, Auden is still right: poetry changes nothing—especially when it doesn't even try.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/books/27laur.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
 



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on August 27, 2007, 06:49:38 PM
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/8/89/300px-Oscar_Wilde_frock_coat.jpg)

Madame Mad

Well, my dear Madame Mad, I've made a rather serious decision...

You've been stalking me from forum to forum here in Elba like you did in the NYTimes.

I don't know what your problem is -- whether it's jealousy, ignorance or just plain stupidity.

But whatever it is -- it's getting somewhat tiring.

And so, Mad, I'm putting you and your broom into the Ignore Closet...

You and Detective_Winslow have a lot in common, dear Mad.

Your kvetching homophobia is covered with such a thin veneer of politeness...

Your haughty name-dropping and endless meandering mind simply never ends...

May you and Winslow enjoy your stay together in Ignore.










Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: madupont on August 27, 2007, 08:31:34 PM
Exscuse, but do you know what Cambellstown is?

Hardly. I don't have to stalk you; just stay out of your way.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 27, 2007, 09:12:18 PM


Well, my dear Madame Mad, I've made a rather serious decision...

You've been stalking me from forum to forum here in Elba like you did in the NYTimes.

I don't know what your problem is -- whether it's jealousy, ignorance or just plain stupidity.

But whatever it is -- it's getting somewhat tiring.

And so, Mad, I'm putting you and your broom into the Ignore Closet...

You and Detective_Winslow have a lot in common, dear Mad.

Your kvetching homophobia is covered with such a thin veneer of politeness...

Your haughty name-dropping and endless meandering mind simply never ends...

May you and Winslow enjoy your stay together in Ignore.

----------------------------------------------

Wow!

This would be fun if you weren't BOTH such idiots.











Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on August 27, 2007, 10:25:15 PM
Wow!

This would be fun if you weren't BOTH such idiots.


You know, how am I supposed to respond intelligently to a smarmy two liner put-down post like this?

I'd like to think that we're here in Elba to communicate with each other in a adult way.

But people like you and Dectective_Winslow make a Gay Rights forum a joke...a mockery of why we're here.

What if I did the same thing in Basball or Basketball?

I'm flummoxed by such stupidity -- baseball & basketball jocks like you that come over to this gay fourm.

You think gay issues are a joke -- you don't even know who Gonzales was.

Yet you post there too -- not caring about anything but yourself.

I've looked at your profile -- supposedly you're a Super Hero Member.

With 1440 posted messages...totally wasted.

That's 11.429 messages per day totally and completely wasted.

Think about it...but then you obviously don't have anything to think with do you?

Are you capable of typing more than two sentences of the English language?

C'mon now, kid, tell us the truth?










Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 28, 2007, 12:58:32 AM
"You don't even know who Gonzalez was"

Roberto?

Nope.  Don't know him.

PANCHO had a pretty mean backhand.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on August 28, 2007, 02:25:37 AM
PANCHO had a pretty mean backhand.

Well, at least you have a sense of humor.

Where there's humor...there's hope.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on August 28, 2007, 02:28:16 AM
Ah, 666...

Now then, kid...I'm going to let you in on a little secret.

I'm going to tell you who I really am...


Title: Arrest Clouds Idaho Senator's Future
Post by: liquidsilver on August 28, 2007, 09:17:36 AM
Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, who has voted against gay marriage and opposes extending special protections to gay and lesbian crime victims, finds his political future in doubt after pleading guilty to misdemeanor charges stemming from complaints of lewd conduct in a men's room.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/28/ap4059405.html


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: srnich on August 29, 2007, 03:55:36 PM
Republican.

Party of repression and pain.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on August 31, 2007, 04:43:01 PM
(http://images.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/08/31/bathroom_sex/story.jpg)

Why bathroom sex is hot

Larry Craig is the latest politician to get caught with his pants down. So what is the eternal allure of sex in a stall, and does it make you gay?

By James Hannaham

Aug. 31, 2007 | When Idaho Sen. Larry Craig says, "I'm not gay," I believe him. But that doesn't mean he wasn't cruising for sex last June when he was arrested in a bathroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport on charges of disorderly conduct. Surely any homosexual worth his capri pants saw the loopholes in Craig's televised declaration of non-gayness, amplified by the presence of his wife. Even some straight folks, wised up after the scandals of Ted Haggard and Mark Foley, must have noted that Craig did not add a qualifying phrase like, "Nor am I bisexual," "I've never had sex with a man" or even one of those oldies but goodies like, "Doing what I did doesn't make you gay," "I was so drunk!" or "I'm only queer for some guys."

As Haggard and Foley could perhaps have told Craig, bathroom stalls may be tight quarters, but the closet is big enough to fit plenty of religious, conservative Republicans. (In fact, they seem to be crowding everyone else out lately.) What no straight Republican man has the balls to explain -- no matter how much Democratic gay sex he's had -- is the eternal appeal of cottaging.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/08/31/bathroom_sex/



Title: FAG ON THE STREET
Post by: Detective_Winslow on September 01, 2007, 02:55:43 AM
(http://www.tri.ie/Portals/0/fag_butt.jpg)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on September 01, 2007, 12:28:57 PM
Call maintenance.  The sewer is backing up in here again.


Title: Re: FAG ON THE STREET
Post by: pugetopolis on September 01, 2007, 03:38:52 PM
(http://www.tri.ie/Portals/0/fag_butt.jpg)

I called the Roter-Rooter Man. He said he'd call right back...

He said he was busy with Detective_Winslow...

A "regular" customer...donchaknow!!!!




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on September 01, 2007, 03:57:52 PM
I'm not the one in need of a good ass-plunging.....I'm sure it's a very sensual experience for splooge.



(http://www.tk409.com/images/plunger.jpg)


Title: Re: FAG ON THE STREET
Post by: pugetopolis on September 01, 2007, 03:59:39 PM
(http://www.tri.ie/Portals/0/fag_butt.jpg)

"Hey there, Mr. Roter-Rooter Man? What's takin' so long?"

"Oh, I'm sorry, sir. You know these tight-wad Republicans -- they like to get their money's worth..."

"Yeah, you mean like Senator Craig? What a cheap fucking Tea Room Queen..."

"You'd be surprised, sir. How many calls we get from airport Tea Rooms..."

"Well, to tell you the truth -- nothing much surprises me anymore..."

"Just a second, sir. I've gotta take care of Detective_Winslow. Can I call you back?"

"Oh, I don't care. Take your time. I know all about private dicks."

"Thank you sir. I'll call you back in an hour or so, okay?"






Title: Re: FAG ON THE STREET
Post by: pugetopolis on September 01, 2007, 05:00:09 PM
(http://www.tri.ie/Portals/0/fag_butt.jpg)

"Hey, there, Mr. Roter-Rooter Man? What's takin' ya so long, baby?"

"Oh, well, I'm so sorry, sir. This Detective-Winslow butt-fuck case is pretty bad. The worst."

"Yeah, well I can just imagine. Really plugged up bad, hmmmm?"

"You wouldn't believe it, sir. He's so full of shit we had to shut the fucking airport down, man."

"I know...he stinks. Even the jocks over in Kinks are pukin' their guts out."

"Yes, sir. But you know -- somebody's gotta do it..."

"Tell me, Mr. Roter-Man. You get paid by the hour...or the inch?"

"Inch, sir? Fuck, it's more like miles and miles of it. You wouldn't believe it, man."

"Yeah, I know. Is Winslow a "screamer" too?"

"Hey, me and my crew got earphones on. And gas masks..."

"Hey there, Mr. Roter-Rooter, man. What ya listening to?"

"Well, man, me and my boys be listenin' to Soulja Boy Tell 'Em...

"Crank That!!!!!!!!"


"All right!!! Crank it good, man!!!"















Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on September 09, 2007, 04:43:29 PM
You should write sitcoms for UPN splooge......






(http://www.jennymiller.com/images/quiet-faggot.jpg)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on September 09, 2007, 05:07:39 PM
(http://www.boingboing.net/images/_nancy_nancy900-1.jpg)


Title: AIDS in NY/ relation to race
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 12, 2007, 09:47:05 AM
87 new cases of HIV in NY among males age 13-19

81 were of Hispanic or black descent

Is this due to class, culture, what?


http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2007/09/12/2007-09-12_hiv_horror_on_rise_among_citys_under30_g.html


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on September 12, 2007, 09:51:44 AM
HIV/AIDS doesn't really get the press that it used to, probably because there are treatment options that didn't exist over a decade ago.  Also the lack of federal funding for education beyond abstinence has led to a less informed public about safe sex methods and the risks of not practicing them.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: madupont on September 13, 2007, 08:09:21 AM
Also, every empire exercises class-advantages and "the lack of federal funding for " anything, so that the profits can go to the corporate administration that Eisenhowever so quietly described in his warning to us.

As night follows day, an underclass is sexually victimized after they have been economically reduced.

What follows upon that but which everybody overlooks is that the whole damned oppressive little civilization gets eradicated. Former General Eisenhower participated in one of these regularly planned historical events.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on September 13, 2007, 05:08:31 PM
Maddy, um, would you rephrase, redo, rethink, that last post?  I can't for the life of me understand what you are saying in it.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on September 14, 2007, 01:26:25 AM
(http://www.ronlim.com/worldarchive/tarantinoimages/pulp.poster.jpg)

The next sink may be the one I puke in...

...I am pitching to the void...

The problem is that I'm not straight...

We're in the service of the queen Harold...

Definition of insanity?
We have a weiner.

May I make a little suggestion, jbottle?

If you've got to puke, dish gays or void out somewhere...

Then do it over in the Gay Rights forum...

And not in the new Movie Club.

It hasn't been up a day yet...

And you've tried to queer it already.

Couldn't wait could you, little jbottle boy...

Like the proverbial skunk at the picnic...

Homophobes like you are dime-a-dozen...

Just like skanky whores...

The internet is full of losers...

And you're one of them, baby.

You're on Ingore now, have fun...

Playing with yourself...

& Detective_Winslow.  :)



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: madupont on September 14, 2007, 01:32:12 AM
donotremove,
There's static in the atmosphere, nonreceptive invaders from other worlds but what the hell.

well, kidcarter asked a question:#678

and, liquidsilver elaborated on it:#679

but< I just said why this always happens: #680

which is: we are one more empire that does not fund anything from the top down that does not benefit itself.

If you cut out the funding for health and education, while unemployment increases leaving very low wages, you are guaranteed to have desperate sex-workers pretty much ignorant and taking high risks.

Pretty soon the viral strain mutates and spreads within society unprepared for this new health crisis. This spiral continually repeats, as if it had never happened before, so nobody is prepared, and socially-acceptable people start having symptoms, the authorities take control of the situation by stabilizing the contagion through enforced quarantine which if it goes all the way starts eliminating disease nexus, separating out the undesirable carriers, for the purity of the Fatherland, or the Motherland, or the Family, or our Leader, and then Civilization an ocean away decides enough is enough, cut it out, sends Guardian Angels with a lot of gold braid and field-ribbons to direct traffic, roll over the authoritarian s.o.b.s, pummel them with incendiary devices, reduce the opposition to dwarts, get elected president for having known how to do it and then as you retire say something pithy like: Beware the military-industrial complex.

For twenty years people will say,"Huh?", having no idea what the former General-President was talking about. Then in another fifteen  years, they begin to catch on. Five more  years and they Are an Empire, whoa, Nellie, do you remember what Eisenhower said ? It happened! North American citizens of the US are behaving like Rome, does Caligula care? No, he's having fun wearing himself out for the excitement of it all. Run,here come the Barbarians. Too late, I think,I'm going to be sick.

I think you are. Yes, you are. You really are. Sick!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on September 14, 2007, 03:24:47 AM
Maddy, um, would you rephrase, redo, rethink, that last post?  I can't for the life of me understand what you are saying in it.

There's static in the atmosphere, nonreceptive invaders from other worlds but what the hell...

Pretty soon the viral strain mutates and spreads within society unprepared for this new health crisis. This spiral continually repeats, as if it had never happened before, so nobody is prepared, and socially-acceptable people start having symptoms, the authorities take control of the situation by stabilizing the contagion through enforced quarantine which if it goes all the way starts eliminating disease nexus, separating out the undesirable carriers, for the purity of the Fatherland...

Too late, I think, I'm going to be sick...

I think you are. Yes, you are. You really are. Sick!



Well, donotremove,

You got what you wished for...

Madupont rephrased, redid, rethought her last post...

Into an even more incomprehensible nightmarish scatter-brained answer...

It doesn't bother me anymore...not after reading jbottle's rantings and ravings...

His insane prejudiced crap over in the new movie club forum.

I'm beginning to think you're right...lurking online may be best.

Reading your own books...and keeping to yourself.

Enjoying your retirement...taking one day at a time.

Life is too short...to hassle with crazy people.

It happened all the time over at the NYTimes.

It happens everywhere...what can you do?

It hard to be enthusiastic about anything...

Why even try?





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on September 14, 2007, 09:13:08 AM
Actually if you consider that the federal government will only fund "abstinence until marriage only" programs and since there is no federal mandate for recognizing same-sex marriage aren't gays effectively being told that they are not allowed to be gay - or at least that they shouldn't have sexual relations?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on September 14, 2007, 12:22:36 PM
Liquid, I hadn't thought it myself but you are exactly right--"abstinence until marriage."  Who will save us from the morals police?

Puge, I'm not saying that this instance is an example--what do I know?--but sometimes you are too sensitive for your own good.  You can't live in such a raw state all the time and not suffer health consequences.  Jbottle has a peculiar style. He reminds me of you, somewhat, in that he careens off into fictional imaginings right in the midst of some critique that is showing promise of merit.  Or so it seems to someone like me that has no real expertise in movie watching and modern music.

Me? I lurk because I don't have all that much in common with most posters here (or back at the old NYT Forums).  Not in what ya'll read or the entertainments you enjoy the most.  Hence I don't have that much to say about things.  I do enjoy the humanity of all of you, and listening to whatever it is that's on your minds.  I worry about ya'll when you misunderstand each other and erupt into mini-wars and have to paper things over so you can go on.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: martinbeck3 on September 14, 2007, 12:29:25 PM
GOOD NEWS!!!!  :)
If any gay man or woman wants to get legally married they can do so in Argentina.Here we have had this law for at least two years.Welcome!
BTW, Argentina has been named *gay friendly city*.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 14, 2007, 01:28:08 PM
So Jodie Foster's gay.

Damn!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on September 14, 2007, 01:36:54 PM
Martin, Rachel Ray (30 Minute Meals, a cooking show on Food Network) was in Buenos Aires the other day.  Opened up with an overhead shot of the main drag.  What beautiful buldings and boulevards.  She and her hubby ate a lot of beef (bif) and from the looks of things when you and the Firey Pen go out for an "evening" you are not alone.  The places she went were packed.  She toured one ranch.  That pampas country is lovely--or seems so for the glimpse that was shown.

It was mentioned that yours is a nation of immigrants.  Now you're telling me marriage to whoever you love is legal?  YeeHaaw.  Vive Argentina.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on September 15, 2007, 01:11:01 PM
So Jodie Foster's gay.

Damn!



Since when has Jodie been a taco diver?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on September 15, 2007, 01:15:08 PM
(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/EPH/8142~Muff-Diver-Posters.jpg)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on September 21, 2007, 01:04:07 PM
(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/EPH/8142~Muff-Diver-Posters.jpg)

Bitter divorce, eh?

Maybe she just wasn't "satisfied" with you, dude.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on September 22, 2007, 03:37:47 AM
Never been married....




Try again dicksmoker.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on September 22, 2007, 10:56:30 AM
 :D :D :D :D :D

Always lived at home with mom then, eh Tec?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on September 26, 2007, 03:26:32 PM
It's been about 4 years, pillow biter.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: martinbeck3 on October 03, 2007, 01:40:34 PM
DON,yes, in Argentina you can legally marry whomsoever you please,and yes, the countryside is lovely.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: martinbeck3 on October 03, 2007, 01:41:58 PM
...imagine they let me marry the Fiery Pen!


Title: Man beaten in Yonkers
Post by: kidcarter8 on October 05, 2007, 11:40:46 AM
Thugs from PA charged with...............



second degree assault?  Out on 10K bail?





Please - this was a HATE CRIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

























Nope - nota  gay bash.  A Sox fan bash.  But hate crime leg. should cover this.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on October 19, 2007, 08:50:59 AM
Never been married....




Try again dicksmoker.

Wow, hard to believe that someone of your obvious taste, character, and joiux de vie would be alone, lonely, destitute, with a drinking problem, and anger management issue, and being able to find no place for his prick but his left hand having nothing left to do but taunt queers on the Internet.

I mean, how could such a "catch" be so unattached?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on October 19, 2007, 09:06:16 AM
MrUtley. Exactly.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: chelu on October 20, 2007, 05:29:45 PM
It only takes seconds to taunt a queer, faggot.




(http://www.net-games.biz/funny-pictures/pictures/944.jpg)




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on October 21, 2007, 10:55:56 AM
Who is chelu directing this at?

I think he should get a second chance, moderator.   Good Knicks poster.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: srnich on October 23, 2007, 03:22:44 PM
Who is chelu directing this at?

I think he should get a second chance, moderator.   Good Knicks poster.

Then maybe he should have stayed there.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Kam on October 24, 2007, 10:06:54 PM
Who is chelu directing this at?

I think he should get a second chance, moderator.   Good Knicks poster.

Then maybe he should have stayed there.


Hey, FYI, don't blame 'chelu' who used to post on the Knicks several years ago.

This is Detective-Winslow's work.  He is also Dr.Noodles.

So if Noods or chelu ever do show up here, don't rush to judge.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on October 26, 2007, 07:49:45 AM

Like I said, you can bring a pussy to a movie, but you can't help him understand it.


Homophobic Posters

Is it just me or does this so-called message posted in our Movie Club forum sound homophobic?

This individual has posted half-a-dozen of this kind of message in our film forum...

According to my friends, he was posting this way over in the now defunct NYTimes movie forum...

These abrasive, homphobic, so-called "hot-dogging it" messages hurt my feelings so awfuly bad...

Ever since I asked liquid silver to create our new Movie Club, this person has been on my case...

He refuses to talk about the movie we've picked to discuss...

Any advice on how to handle this situation?

I have him on Ignore, but others have complained to me...

He reminds me of that Detective_Winslow character...

Who seems to be back with a fake Avatar again...





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on October 26, 2007, 03:31:31 PM
Toughen up.

NO ONE can make you feel any pain except when you give into them.


Title: Re: Homophobic Posters
Post by: pugetopolis on October 26, 2007, 03:52:44 PM
Homophobic Posters

Butch it up? Get real...

Honey, those days are gone, gone, gone...

Gay Rights are even more a non-issue now than before.

Try rereading Donotremove's insightful post...

The Gay Rights Thread one over in the Campaign Trail Forum...

The crashing economy, the crashing housing market, the Iraq War...

There's no time for gay rights or GLBT marriage issues now...

And as far as feeling hurt by Homophobia here and elsewhere...

It's like I've been down so long now... everything else looks up....





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on October 26, 2007, 06:36:57 PM
Well, then embrace your victim status, and quitwhining.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on October 26, 2007, 06:55:13 PM
Ut,

NO ONE can make you feel any pain except when you give into them.

I'm sure Matthew Shepard had this very thought running through his mind as he died on the barbed wire.

How stupid can you be??!!


Title: The closeted intelligentsia
Post by: pugetopolis on October 27, 2007, 08:03:24 AM
Well, then embrace your victim status, and quitwhining.

The closeted intelligentsia

I prefer Microsoft's cute motto: "Embrace and Extend," my dear MissUtlette...

It's one thing to embrace one's victim status and then...

Shoving it back into the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Closet = "quitwhining,"...

On the other, what does embracing and extending it mean?

To embrace it and appropriate it and extend it into what?

Blogs? Campaign forums? Movie forums?

Would you characterize that as "whining," my dear Utlette...

Discussing things? Sports, politics, literature, movies?

If you consider my objection to fag-bashing in the Movie Club forum, simply whining...

Then read it and weep, my dear.

Or better yet... don't even read it... I don't care... Opinions are dime a dozen in the blogosphere...

But if the drag queens listened to you... there never would have been a Stonewall... or GLBT...

The reason, my dear, I'm down and everything else looks up is simple...

What other option is there... when election candidates refuse to endorse or even talk about...

The issue of GLBT marriage? Or GLBT medical/dental/life insurance rights?

It's as if a vacuum or black hole has discended on the 2008 election...

Essentially the GLBT movement has been told to stop whining...and get back into the closet...

There are more important things to talk about, they say, like is Paris burning? Rome falling again? Yawn.

Neither party and no major candidates will commit themselves one way or another...

Except for fundie neo-nazi types... who want us all gassed again...



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: ponderosa on October 27, 2007, 08:55:46 AM

The issue of GLBT marriage? Or GLBT medical/dental/life insurance rights?


That any marriage or union requires the endorsement of any governmental body baffles me, but I'm just a crazy libertarian type wacko.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on October 27, 2007, 09:20:53 AM
It's a matter of legal paperwork...

If it's not on the books or a matter of law...

Then you have no legal rights... to marriage, insurance, etc.

Straights take these perks for granted...

But minorities have to struggle for them...


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on October 27, 2007, 11:06:14 AM

The issue of GLBT marriage? Or GLBT medical/dental/life insurance rights?


That any marriage or union requires the endorsement of any governmental body baffles me, but I'm just a crazy libertarian type wacko.

So, we can safely assume that whenever you decide to get married if the government refuses to give you a license or legal acknowledgement of your choice, if your place of business refuses to add your spouse to your health insurance, if you find you are unable to have children and the government doesn't allow you to adopt them, if your spouse gets a catastrophic illness and the hospital recognizes the wishes of your partner's family over yours.... we can safely assume that you will simply shut up and sit down?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: ponderosa on October 27, 2007, 12:14:41 PM
So, we can safely assume that whenever you decide to get married if the government refuses to give you a license or legal acknowledgement of your choice, if your place of business refuses to add your spouse to your health insurance, if you find you are unable to have children and the government doesn't allow you to adopt them, if your spouse gets a catastrophic illness and the hospital recognizes the wishes of your partner's family over yours.... we can safely assume that you will simply shut up and sit down?

I hear political candidates and advocacy groups speak of "thinking outside the box" constantly, but few seem willing to think outside the box that allows The Government (trumpets blaring, fanfare fanfaring) to meddle in decisions and contractual agreements between individuals and organizations (health care providers, insurance providers, and adoption agencies included).

I understand the reality of the situation but cannot comprehend why we continue to seek answers to problems by shifting responsibility to The Government to provide leadership and enact mostly arbitrary laws and regulations which dictate even the most mundane activities we pursue. I am baffled.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on October 27, 2007, 12:29:06 PM
Ponderosa...People seem to see government more and more as an institution that exists to protect them from the boogiemen, which would include bad employers, greedy insurers.  The Democrats have the majority in government right now, and their whole philosophy seems to be based on the premise that the populace are children who need a father to look after their interests.  Libertarians seem to understand that people need to be responsible for their own choices and lives, but they don't seem to be able to get themselves elected. 

And as far as thinking outside the box, the only box most politicos are concerned with is the one the voters check in the polls.





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: ponderosa on October 27, 2007, 12:38:28 PM
Ponderosa...People seem to see government more and more as an institution that exists to protect them from the boogiemen, which would include bad employers, greedy insurers.  The Democrats have the majority in government right now, and their whole philosophy seems to be based on the premise that the populace are children who need a father to look after their interests.  Libertarians seem to understand that people need to be responsible for their own choices and lives, but they don't seem to be able to get themselves elected. 

And as far as thinking outside the box, the only box most politicos are concerned with is the one the voters check in the polls.


Agreed. Believe me, I don't see things changing in the near future. Just offering my opinion on the ideal which ideally is not utopia, but can't be any worse than what we have now. Peace.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on October 27, 2007, 12:41:55 PM
I don't see things changing in the near future either.  I suspect that people were quite a bit more creative back in the days of the founding fathers and braver, too.  There are very few people these days who are willing to take a stand even when they know they are right.  Now, whenever new ideas are presented, you see fear come into people's eyes and "But how will that work when we've always....."


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on October 27, 2007, 12:58:09 PM

The issue of GLBT marriage? Or GLBT medical/dental/life insurance rights?


That any marriage or union requires the endorsement of any governmental body baffles me, but I'm just a crazy libertarian type wacko.

Yes, you are


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: ponderosa on October 27, 2007, 01:06:26 PM
"But how will that work when we've always....."


Yes, thank you.

And you too, kid.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on October 27, 2007, 01:59:16 PM

I hear political candidates and advocacy groups speak of "thinking outside the box" constantly



That reminds of the joke about the guy

at the undertakers convention who says:

"Gentlemen, we've got to think outside box, baby........."
     

:) :) :)




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on October 27, 2007, 02:12:40 PM
Sadly,

When politicians "think outside the box", you can be sure that we are about to lose some rights.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on October 27, 2007, 03:11:36 PM
Lhoffman, another coveted box sought by politicians is the oblong box over on the right of any bank check.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on October 27, 2007, 03:31:37 PM
Funny, but sad too, that politicians have given Americans cause to become so cynical about their governance.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on October 27, 2007, 04:05:19 PM
 
Ut,

NO ONE can make you feel any pain except when you give into them.

I'm sure Matthew Shepard had this very thought running through his mind as he died on the barbed wire.

How stupid can you be??!!

Certainly not as stupid as you show yourself to be. The offended one was talking about homophobic posters, not Matthew Shepard, the Messiah of the Gay Rights movement.

I merely advised him to ignore them.

You see offenses where there are none.

Toughen up...and Wise up.

Or shut up.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on October 27, 2007, 05:18:09 PM
Ut,

I merely advised him to ignore them.

Then why don't YOU ignore those who demand equality for LGBT people.

After all, it costs you nothing.

Equality is not a zero-sum game, old boy.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on October 27, 2007, 09:36:24 PM

The issue of GLBT marriage? Or GLBT medical/dental/life insurance rights?


That any marriage or union requires the endorsement of any governmental body baffles me, but I'm just a crazy libertarian type wacko.

I support GLBT marriage, and I'm also fine if we make everyone's union fall under domestic partnerships, and let people go to their houses of worship for other sorts of endorsement, such as religion-based views that this is limited to different genders.  Dunno if the strict libertarian model is realistic, given the life impact of some agreements.  As it's been said, and by those wiser than myself, you never really understand what marriage is, until you go through a divorce. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on October 27, 2007, 09:45:39 PM
Quote
As it's been said, and by those wiser than myself, you never really understand what marriage is, until you go through a divorce. 


Possibly the stupidest comment I've seen, and undoubtedly said by someone who went through a divorce, and who clearly never understood what marriage is.  Perhaps we'd be better off taking our advice from those who have weathered long relationships...say 25 years plus..


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on October 27, 2007, 10:21:28 PM
LHoffman,

I am coming close to meeting both your expectations and those of Inca. I was divorced, and after some years of singlehood and armed with an education, I remarried. In a few weeks, we will celebrate our 24th anniversary.

My greatest regret in divorcing was what I put my sons through, although they feel that my second husband has been a better father to them than their biological father was.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on October 27, 2007, 10:36:16 PM
I don't think Inca said that, she was quoting someone.  But perhaps the success of your marriage has to do with the fact that you were older, knew yourself better, had a better education than you had the first time around.  Suppose you hadn't had a first marriage, but had met your current husband when you were older.....


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on October 27, 2007, 11:21:47 PM
Lhoffman and Weezo,

I was quoting someone else;  a female attorney who specialized in family law and shared with me what a number of her clients had expressed.  The point, though, was more towards the responsibilities of marriage, what people often don't understand themselves as entering into.  And directed towards the notion that we embark upon a strict libertarian model where marriage doesn't exist at all.  Marriage, of course, protects people's rights.  A point sometimes better illustrated by what happens when people divorce.

LGBT persons, who are already in families, don't have the same rights in society as the rest of the populace who can marry, whose relationships are recognized.

Weezo, I completely support divorce as a reasonable and just option, a right, in our society.  While long, loving marriages are admirable, many people just stay in misraeble relationships because of social conventions [or other kinds of entanglements, some of which are created by the marriage contract itself].  This can be even more destructive to children.

So, if you think I would be judging you, I would not.

Long live the right to divorce, and the legal protections to children that go along with it.

Now, don't the children of LGBT families also deserve as much?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on October 27, 2007, 11:49:44 PM
Let me put another way, not unfamiliar to any posters here, I am sure.  Rights and responsbilities go hand in hand.

When women advanced in respect to certain rights, were/are they also willing to take on certain responsibilities?  Were/are they also willing to see men gain certain rights?

As gay families advance in certain rights, they will also have to take on certain responsibilities.

Sometimes, as when young star-crossed lovers step up to the HOLY pedestal of legal matrimony, they know not what they are really doing. 

Sometimes?  Gad, ALWAYS.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on October 27, 2007, 11:50:11 PM
Source of the quote notwithstanding, it still makes no sense.  The implication is that in order to understand marriage, you have to be divorced.  Many couples who have never been divorced understand the responsibilities and the implications of their marriages and take them quite seriously.  Perhaps this female attorney has become jaded by her profession.  And, as to her clients opinions on the matter, of course they will take this view when they are going through the difficulties of a bad marriage and divorce.  It's only human to want to feel that they are walking away with something, even if it's only an understanding of the relationship they are leaving behind.


If our government issued licenses for "civil unions" rather than for "marriage," then civil unions would offer the same protections of people's rights as marriage.  It might also begin to address the problems related to marriage as it is related to religion.

Of course, there would still be some religious gay people who find themselves in the Catch-22 of worshipping in a religion that condemns their choice to live together while refusing to marry them.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on October 28, 2007, 12:05:24 AM
Source of the quote notwithstanding, it still makes no sense.  The implication is that in order to understand marriage, you have to be divorced.  Many couples who have never been divorced understand the responsibilities and the implications of their marriages and take them quite seriously.  Perhaps this female attorney has become jaded by her profession.  And, as to her clients opinions on the matter, of course they will take this view when they are going through the difficulties of a bad marriage and divorce.  It's only human to want to feel that they are walking away with something, even if it's only an understanding of the relationship they are leaving behind. 

Well, the statement wasn't made to me in a jaded way.  It was simply a sharing of others' expressed experience.

And we can't really know one way or the other, can we, since we are talking about two groups of people who will never know the other's experience -- one, staying married, and never knowing the lessons about marriage from a divorce -- and other, divorcing and never knowing the perspective of a couple remaining married for many years under better circumstances.  [edit -- let's say, the perspective of a first-time/only-time couple .. etc. -- never scarred, forever innocent of these things]

Let's not forget the statistics on divorce, either.  50% of all first marriages today end in divorce.  And how many of the rest are a social performance -- or financial and legal entanglements -- emotional garbage pails kept in the closet?  Ask their children about that inherited experience and farce.

At any rate, the point is perhaps better worded from the personal perspective -- that, these individuals never knew what marriage was about until they got divorced. 

There is another version of that phrase, but I can't repeat if you're all going to be so serious.  That, too, sheds light on the meaning of marriage in our society, for many, at least.  And the meaning of divorce.

If our government issued licenses for "civil unions" rather than for "marriage," then civil unions would offer the same protections of people's rights as marriage.  It might also begin to address the problems related to marriage as it is related to religion.

Yes, exactly the point.

Of course, there would still be some religious gay people who find themselves in the Catch-22 of worshipping in a religion that condemns their choice to live together while refusing to marry them.

Yes, but that would be their problem then, wouldn't it, if they decided to stay in such a religion -- or, if they were unable to find enough support among their fellow worshippers to change whatever they could.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on October 28, 2007, 12:18:23 AM
Quote
Yes, but that would be their problem then, wouldn't it, if they decided to stay in such in a religion -- or, if they were unable to find enough support among their fellow worshippers to change whatever they could.

True, but I suspect that it is far more difficult to walk away from one's religious beliefs than from one's marriage.....talk about inherited experience.  And, looking at it from the outside,  I think it is always difficult to understand the impact of personal faith on other people's lives.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on October 28, 2007, 12:34:25 AM
Quote
Yes, but that would be their problem then, wouldn't it, if they decided to stay in such in a religion -- or, if they were unable to find enough support among their fellow worshippers to change whatever they could.

True, but I suspect that it is far more difficult to walk away from one's religious beliefs than from one's marriage.....talk about inherited experience. 

Perhaps.  Though randomly glancing around at people I know, there seem far more who've left a faith long ago, or are just completely unaffiliated, than those who are divorced (even if rates are high).  How many people in America even attend some form of service once a week, however they identify?

And, looking at it from the outside,  I think it is always difficult to understand the impact of personal faith on other people's lives.

Agreed.  There was a Catholic priest I read about - much beloved among his parishoners and doing important community work, including among children.  The hierarchy removed him from his position because he was gay.  It was difficult for me to understand how this individual's faith could keep them staying with such a church.  Surely, there would be another that could serve their beliefs just as well.

But I'm not Catholic -- I don't have the perspective from within that world.  Probably the closest sympathy [edit - understanding, is likely a more accurate description] I could garner for the man was through Thomas Merton, who struggled so much with the power structure in his day, and in spite of everything they did to him, found it very meaningful and worthwhile to stay Catholic.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on October 28, 2007, 12:48:23 AM
A lot of people draw strength from their religion, no matter how difficult the practice of such becomes.  But as to how many attend church on any given Sunday...I don't think anyone knows.  Barna and Gallup have polled at 40 to 45%, but even they have expressed doubts about the credibility of those polls. 

Most people I know go to church most Sundays.  Married, divorced, gay, straight, single, doesn't seem to matter.  We once had a babysitter who was gay who was quite unhappy with the attitude of her church....Lutheran...but chose to keep going because she hoped things would change.  Then there are people, like myself,  Christians who don't attend church because they feel that the institution has lost its way somewhere along the line.

Thomas Merton....I'm not Catholic either, but I've always admired the joy he brought to the practice of his faith and to life in general.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on October 28, 2007, 12:59:08 AM
A lot of people draw strength from their religion, no matter how difficult the practice of such becomes.  But as to how many attend church on any given Sunday...I don't think anyone knows.  Barna and Gallup have polled at 40 to 45%, but even they have expressed doubts about the credibility of those polls. 

Most people I know go to church most Sundays.  Married, divorced, gay, straight, single, doesn't seem to matter.  We once had a babysitter who was gay who was quite unhappy with the attitude of her church....Lutheran...but chose to keep going because she hoped things would change.  Then there are people, like myself,  Christians who don't attend church because they feel that the institution has lost its way somewhere along the line.

Thomas Merton....I'm not Catholic either, but I've always admired the joy he brought to the practice of his faith and to life in general.

If there's such a thing as saints, as far as I'm concerned, Thomas Merton is up there with them, along with Mother Theresa, Archbishop Romero, and the mothers of my childhood Catholic friends -- especially the ones who stood up to the nuns.  Seems the most religious-religious people I've known were renegades of one sort or another -- whether Catholic or another faith, they stood up to the status quo and had a very humane and compassionate approach.  Sometimes this called them to fight the powers that be from within, sometimes this called them to go somewhere else, and quite publically.  Some of the saints I've known didn't believe in god at all.  Yet, as individuals, they struck me as even more spiritual than others.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on October 28, 2007, 01:06:24 AM
Yes, that's it exactly....renegades....I think I would be quite happy to attend a church full of renegades!  Jesus himself (whether you view him as human or divine) was quite the revolutionary. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on October 28, 2007, 01:26:47 AM
Yes, that's it exactly....renegades....I think I would be quite happy to attend a church full of renegades!  Jesus himself (whether you view him as human or divine) was quite the revolutionary. 

Jesus of Nazareth always struck me as a revolutionary, and in more later years, a genius of relativistic thinking.  I've been in many houses of worship, though I myself am unaffiliated.  I come from a diverse background.  My impression is that, whether people gather in churches, synagogues, temples, or mosques, there's a basic message across all faiths about loving, accepting and helping one's fellow human, and treating others with respect, decency, and regard for equal rights.

The rest is just fluff in the wind.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: incadove0 on October 28, 2007, 05:00:30 AM
Southern Poverty Law Center has released an issue with more lengthy focus on "The Latvian Connection," problems in Sacramento, and the viscious, homophobic murder of Satender Sangh: 

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=809

The article is also posted on the immigration forum.  Here, too, more background with a piece on a related incident in Russia:

Russian Skins Attack Rights Campaigners

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=831


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on October 28, 2007, 01:14:58 PM
Ut,

I merely advised him to ignore them.

Then why don't YOU ignore those who demand equality for LGBT people.

After all, it costs you nothing.

Equality is not a zero-sum game, old boy.

ANytime you want to start making sense, just go ahead and start.

Find the posts of mine that proclaim to deny equality to gays and lesbians.


Then stop and think.

then apologize.

then shut up.
 



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on October 28, 2007, 01:21:41 PM

Southern Poverty Law Center has released an issue with more lengthy focus on "The Latvian Connection," problems in Sacramento, and the viscious, homophobic murder of Satender Sangh: 

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=809


"Members are increasingly active in several cities long known as gay-friendly enclaves, including Sacramento, Seattle and Portland, Ore. Vlad Kusakin, the host of a Russian-language anti-gay radio show in Sacramento and the publisher of a Russian-language newspaper in Seattle, told The Seattle Times in January that God has "made an injection" of high numbers of anti-gay Slavic evangelicals into traditionally liberal West Coast cities. "In those places where the disease is progressing, God made a divine penicillin," Kusakin said."


As this article mentions, these Russian Right-Wing Religious Fanatics are busy stirring up trouble here in Seattle and Portland. They cruise Capitol Hill in gangs and then attack gays and lesbians when they leave the nightclubs and taverns at night. These Russian religious fanatics beat people up bad... many cases here in Seattle...

Online harrassment is real. During the NYTimes Urban Haiku Forum... a gang of kilt-wearing homophobic Scottish creeps were constantly attacking my little innocent gay haikus... And this was in the New York City section of the NYTimes... as if they'd never heard of cosmopolitan queers?

Elba has been pretty much free of it... except for that nefarious Detective_Winslow who lurked in this forum and constantly attacked GLBT posters. No discussion was possible... because he'd jump on them and attack them by aids-guilting them and all the usual hate-crime bullshit. There are a few other ones too...

The Blogosphere is a mirror of society... what you see is what you get....







Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on October 28, 2007, 03:20:06 PM
Ut,

Find the posts of mine that proclaim to deny equality to gays and lesbians.


Do you support same-gender-marriage nationwide as protected by the Equal Protection Clause of 14A?

Do you support the portability of Massachusetts marriages nationwide, even in those states which declare marriage is between a man and a woman under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution?

Do you support the right of same-gender couples to adopt together with both their names on the child's new birth certificate?

Do you support the right of same-gender people to own property as tenants in the entirety?

Do you support same-gender people being able to name their spouses on health insurance policies?

Do you support same-gender spouses to be named next of kin for health care proxy purposes.

Do you support the spousal exemption for passing property outside a will to same-gender couples?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on October 28, 2007, 04:28:45 PM

Certainly not as stupid as you show yourself to be. The offended one was talking about homophobic posters, not Matthew Shepard, the Messiah of the Gay Rights movement.

I'm not offended by anything you or Detective_Winslow say anymore...

I'm just sick and tired of being told to sit in the back of the bus that's all...



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on October 28, 2007, 05:35:56 PM
Ut,

Find the posts of mine that proclaim to deny equality to gays and lesbians.


Do you support same-gender-marriage nationwide as protected by the Equal Protection Clause of 14A?

Do you support the portability of Massachusetts marriages nationwide, even in those states which declare marriage is between a man and a woman under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution?

Do you support the right of same-gender couples to adopt together with both their names on the child's new birth certificate?

Do you support the right of same-gender people to own property as tenants in the entirety?

Do you support same-gender people being able to name their spouses on health insurance policies?

Do you support same-gender spouses to be named next of kin for health care proxy purposes.

Do you support the spousal exemption for passing property outside a will to same-gender couples?


Do you answer a question, when it's direct and simple?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on October 28, 2007, 05:39:22 PM
PERHAPS, it needs to be in the form of a question to get through your skull, capo:

Can you find the posts of mine that proclaim or advance a position in which I support denying equality to gays and lesbians?

Again, if not...

apologize, and shut up.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on October 28, 2007, 06:12:42 PM
Dear Mister Snootley,

I see you're kicking disabled and cancer victims too... over in the Sports Forum. Bad hair day, hmmm guy?

If I were a gay cancer person in a wheelchair...you'd probably kick me down the stairs wouldn't you?

Have a nice day, tough guy. Hope you never get the Big C...




This yera's Series being so boring, the entire post-season devoid of any drama, writers are reduced to playing the "Sympahty Card":

Lester was undergoing chemotherapy.

So tonight, a cancer survivor starts Game 4 of the World Series for the Boston Red Sox. It's a neat story, even better when you consider whom Lester will pitch against.

Colorado Rockies righthander Aaron Cook also has overcome a life-threatening health issue. He was treated for blood clots in his lungs in 2004. To relieve pressure on a blood vessel, he needed to have a rib removed during an eight-hour surgical procedure.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on October 28, 2007, 10:02:47 PM
Ut,

Can you find the posts of mine that proclaim or advance a position in which I support denying equality to gays and lesbians?

I can see by your lack of response to my questions in the post before you wrote this one that you are not exactly in the forefront of advocating equality, either.

Remember, old chap, if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on October 28, 2007, 10:50:51 PM
Ut,

Can you find the posts of mine that proclaim or advance a position in which I support denying equality to gays and lesbians?

I can see by your lack of response to my questions in the post before you wrote this one that you are not exactly in the forefront of advocating equality, either.

Remember, old chap, if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.
Hmmm. Very fascist of you.

I take it you're against democracy, tolerance for varying viewpoints, and free thinking.

Seems you're your own worst enemy.

Evidently, you can't put me in a box by saying that I stand for what your against, so you throw me in the box anyway.

You could work for Joey Goebbals, if he was still employed.

 Keep up the intellectually dishonest work. It becomes you.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on October 28, 2007, 10:57:11 PM
Dear Mister Snootley,

I see you're kicking disabled and cancer victims too... over in the Sports Forum. Bad hair day, hmmm guy?

If I were a gay cancer person in a wheelchair...you'd probably kick me down the stairs wouldn't you?

Have a nice day, tough guy. Hope you never get the Big C...




This yera's Series being so boring, the entire post-season devoid of any drama, writers are reduced to playing the "Sympahty Card":

Lester was undergoing chemotherapy.

So tonight, a cancer survivor starts Game 4 of the World Series for the Boston Red Sox. It's a neat story, even better when you consider whom Lester will pitch against.

Colorado Rockies righthander Aaron Cook also has overcome a life-threatening health issue. He was treated for blood clots in his lungs in 2004. To relieve pressure on a blood vessel, he needed to have a rib removed during an eight-hour surgical procedure.




Losing an argument? Take something out of context and then make it seem as something it's not. Then...Make personal attacks. Then claim victim status.

And you want people to support you and your positions?

Never going to happen, as long as you play the poor little sheep.

Guess you got no wool.

Should I return here, again, do come up with something reasonable, well-thought out, other than just the mindless bleating in which you seem to specialize.


Ooops! There I go, offending the sheep lovers.
 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on October 29, 2007, 12:55:41 AM

Ooops! There I go, offending the sheep lovers.
 


That's right. You just couldn't help it, could you?

It just kind of slithered out of the side of your mouth, didn't it?

"Sheep lovers"....

That pretty much says it all, Mr. Snootley...

Hate-crime lingo... and fag-baiting...

You've answered your question...

With your own mouth...

 :) :) :)




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on October 29, 2007, 01:18:23 PM

Ooops! There I go, offending the sheep lovers.
 


That's right. You just couldn't help it, could you?

It just kind of slithered out of the side of your mouth, didn't it?

"Sheep lovers"....

That pretty much says it all, Mr. Snootley...

Hate-crime lingo... and fag-baiting...

You've answered your question...

With your own mouth...

 :) :) :)




And you've confirmed your own proclivity to see offense everywhere and quickly assume the position of a victim, which is what started this thread.

Congrats. Can't wait to see you on Oprah humping your book.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on October 30, 2007, 10:31:33 PM
(http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/027019/f1/nlc010069-v6.jpg&usg=AFQjCNGjFjH4iE1zuSHCKfxAScHwxKcSvw)

Thank you Mr. Snootley....

Happy Halloween...








Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on October 31, 2007, 11:34:01 AM
(http://www.imdb.com/Photos/Mptv/1021/0072-0051.jpg)

Old media icons…

They still evoke “brand loyalty” don’t they?

New media (blogs, u-tube) doesn’t seem to be so… well,

“Politically correct”…

No wonder homophobes have fun…

Jerking our chain…

Old media icons…

Gay or straight...

Old “PC” knee-jerk reactions…

Social change needs new paradigms…

Old paradigms don’t give up easy tho…

Do they?

(Please note... TPTB know this...
much better than us... SSDD  :)
Happy Halloween folks)



Read it and weep...

Or simply shrug & laugh...

Depending on your sense of camp...

And Weltschmerz IQ...

GLBT lib moves forward slowly...

Often two steps back...

One step forward  :)








Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on October 31, 2007, 02:56:55 PM
(http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/027019/f1/nlc010069-v6.jpg&usg=AFQjCNGjFjH4iE1zuSHCKfxAScHwxKcSvw)

Thank you Mr. Snootley....

I've assumed the proper position...

Please fuck me to death...

Unlike all the other Presidential candidates...

At least you're interested in me somewhat...

Jesus christ, I hope you're a good FUCK...

Because, baby, I need it bad....

At least somebody cares...

 :P :P :P



















How vile can you be?


It must be Halloween.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on November 13, 2007, 12:45:07 PM
I need a data sample for a statistics course--any help would be appreciated..........





How often do homosexuals surpass the age of 65?



I need a ballpark % estimate.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: wpsaukee on November 13, 2007, 01:44:03 PM
I need a data sample for a statistics course--any help would be appreciated..........





How often do homosexuals surpass the age of 65?



I need a ballpark % estimate.

Only once. Same as heterosexuals and tortoises.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on November 13, 2007, 05:00:49 PM
wp,

Only once. Same as heterosexuals and tortoises.

ROTFLMAO!!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on November 16, 2007, 03:30:24 PM
I need a data sample for a statistics course--any help would be appreciated..........





How often do homosexuals surpass the age of 65?



I need a ballpark % estimate.

Only once. Same as heterosexuals and tortoises.


I believe you misinterpreted the question.  Either that, or you're in denial.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: wpsaukee on November 16, 2007, 04:20:04 PM
I need a data sample for a statistics course--any help would be appreciated..........





How often do homosexuals surpass the age of 65?



I need a ballpark % estimate.

Only once. Same as heterosexuals and tortoises.


I believe you misinterpreted the question.  Either that, or you're in denial.

I believe you misstated the question. How often can you surpass any given age? Once.

Perhaps you meant to ask what percentage of homosexuals live to be at least 65. I have no idea.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on November 16, 2007, 04:56:21 PM
Did you read the bottom line, pillow biter?


Ballpark % estimate.


Retard.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: bankshot1 on November 16, 2007, 05:21:49 PM
Did you read the bottom line, pillow biter?


Ballpark % estimate.


Retard.

Urethra I feel like i shouldn't have to be posting this but:

You better think (think) think about what you're trying to do to wp
Yeah, think (think, think), let your mind go, let yourself be free


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: wpsaukee on November 16, 2007, 09:49:23 PM
Did you read the bottom line, pillow biter?


Ballpark % estimate.


Retard.

Oh, dear. With your social and linguistic skills, I'm afraid you're going to have trouble finding somebody to help you with your homework.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on November 17, 2007, 04:45:14 AM
Oh, dear.  You are so anally rententive. 




How homosexual of you.





Let me rephrase:



What is the average life span of homosexuals in the USA?

Question 2:

What is the average life span of heterosexuals in the USA? 





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on November 17, 2007, 06:20:09 AM
Uri,

Now you have phrased the questions to get an answer. Put in your questions to a search engine (I use both google and ask.com), and, if the data exists, you will get it. Because homosexuality is still a closet activity, you should be aware that the data could be skewed and not include all homosexuals. Also, be aware that the life span statistics could depend on the date when the statistics were taken. During the rage of AIDS, there were far more deaths than before and since, until the learned how to control the disease.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: madupont on November 17, 2007, 04:21:37 PM

I need a data sample for a statistics course--any help would be appreciated..........





How often do homosexuals surpass the age of 65?



I need a ballpark % estimate.


I think that you probably could use Stonewall as the cut off date for the dividing line. Of those who matured before, in the good old days, were still  wandering around to all the great happening theatrical and literary events and which were of the sort that you could go as a couple, or choose to take a date, or agree as a couple not to attend the same events. Your choice.

Within fifteen years after the riots, the life-span was shortened, sometimes dramatically.  That is, far less than the figure you offered. I remembered looking at your question that in regard to Javier Bardem movies, all equally excellent and unusual roles, his portrayal of a jejeune innocent Reynaldo Arenas was probably the source, or rather the poet himself had been of the character created in Cunningham's film,The Hours, played by Ed Harris in a flip from Virginia Woolf's own material. 

In The Hours, Cunningham describes a threesome, one young woman and two men whose company she enjoyed but they more enjoyed the company of each other until she found herself oddman out.  But  as played by Meryl Streep, she still feels responsible toward him whereas his former lover rejects him.

In the original Woolf material, Mrs. Dalloway, when Vanessa Redgrave plays the role, directed by her friend Eileen Atkins, it is a question of the loss of a lot of friends, not because of AIDS but because of the First World War when many people at better levels of society did not notice the plight experience by veterans returning with their version of PTSD, known as "shell shock" in those days. And, Mrs. Dalloway is tremendously moved, on the day she goes to the florist to pick up the flowers for her party, because of a young man, who like Ed Harris in The Hours, chooses to go out the window. The small difference between the books by Michael Cunningham and Virginia Woolf, in the films that were made, is that there is an emphasis on the shattered glass in the alley when Ed Harris has let himself fall backwards out of the window rather than attend her party because he is too exhausted to go on. The character of the veteran in Mrs. Dalloway is hopeless about the disorientation and particularly the anger he feels toward the establishment,in particular the Harwell Street doctor who has no sympathy with treating the alienation which the veteran continually experiences. The character in this version goes out the front window above the street and is impaled on the wrought iron fence below.  Suicide in either case.  They are both well-under age 65.

Looking at it from today's introspective, with a war not meant to let up, is there a difference between supposing enlistment is not suicidal, knowing what we know, and the outcome of a long-term friendship that outlived its day, it charm, its youth, remaining emotionally involved with a promiscuous lover who had no loyalties and managed to go on quite well while the originally beloved, physically involved, succumbs to what was then believed an incurable disease and inevitable death. It is now considered entirely improper to even suggest this was suicidal behavior. 

All in all, Michael Cunningham did a lot better with suggesting that the mental state in which Virginia Woolf was caught up was not at all irrational although he does not push the evidence under your nose and presumes that you know there was both an impending invasion of Britain that Hitler intended to direct in the immediate vicinity of Hogarth Press in that suburb along the coast where Virginia and Lionel Woolf were in residence; and that secondly there had been an overlooked causal factor of sexual abuse experience when Virginia was a small girl who had two step-brothers (from her father's second marriage) who took advantage of her.  Her confusion about this episode continually reoccured in her life,leaving her with the same exhaustion as the Aids victim played by Ed Harris in the same film.  Somehow, Cunningham overlooks these two factors while the reviewer that I encountered today (while looking up the name of the actor who plays Harris' father) implied that Virginia killed herself because she realized she was "gay". Somehow in the midst of writing her book, Mrs. Dalloway, he says that she realizes her friendship with Vita Sackville-West is really an affair, so she apparently terminates that possibility by committing suicide; although, we the readers know that in real life there was a real affair, even if the movie audience hasn't a clue. I always thought Cunningham very dishonest, clever but dishonest; but why did David Hare go along with it while writing the Screenplay?

We probably should not overlook that before Cunningham is quite through, we learn that he was the little boy left behind by his mother when she went off to a hotel to commit suicide(which she survived)because she could no longer resist the cloying expectations of her husband ("your father is such a good man")that she be the perfect wife. In other words, Harris as AIDS victim inherited his mother's suicidal tendencies.  His parents are played by Julianne Moore and Charles C. Reilly.




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on December 02, 2007, 12:41:57 AM

Gaydar Over in the History Forum

Here's a fascinating little Thread you might find interesting from the History Forum:


I've debated whether to mention this, but I confess my gaydar went off when Adams met John Hay.  There, I've said it.  If I'm entirely out of line, I'm sure I'll get told loud and clear and in no uncertain terms.





I've debated whether to mention this, but I confess
my gaydar went off when Adams met John Hay. 


 ??? ??? ???

Your gaydar?

My dear nytempsperdu, what do you mean by that?

I thought you were heterosexual?

If you've got "gaydar," I guess you're lesbian maybe?

Or a little bisexual? Only gays have gaydar, my dear.

Does this "gaydar" thing of yours act up every once in blue moon?

Or is it something that you've always relied on for historical insights?

Just curious. I hope you're not confusing "gaydar" with "prejudice," my dear.

You see, that's something completely different. In the GLBT community that is...

But then I'm sure a grown-up woman like you knows that...

Right?




I use the term as I have heard it used in conversation and in other forums I've participated in, without anyone claiming ownership of the term and without it being interpreted as a reference to the user's own status but to the user's perception of the potential status of others.    In this case, the language Adams used to describe his reaction to meeting John Hay seemed to me very much like that of one smitten.  You might think so, too. Or not.

And please do not wrap yourself in the rainbow flag and use the word "prejudice" with me.  I've lived 20+ years in San Francisco and said sad farewells to more gay men friends than I can bear to recall.  As a tenant's rights organizer and advocate in the late '80s, I was involved in helping quite a few retain their housing that was at risk when they became ill and unemployable, unable to afford both their meds and their homes.  I have made home visits to a Kaposi's sarcoma/pneumocystis pneumonia patient whose gay friends pretty much deserted him, and pounded on his chest and back to loosen the mucus collecting in his lungs.  That was in the bad old days, and I'm glad to say I have also rejoiced in the couple-hood of gay and lesbian friends and parents of my kid's friends.

I'm really not your dear. 





"very much like that of one smitten."
 

Well, my dear, I didn’t realize you were such a gay rights advocate.

Perhaps some of that famous SF gaydar rubbed off on you…

I must confess—I’m completely smitten with your presence now.

I'm sure the GLBT Movement is proud of you and so am I...

Long live Miss Hay and Miss Adams!!!

Long live American History gaydar…




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on December 02, 2007, 01:08:13 AM

I'd like to add this message to the above Thread if I may.

The Amercian History forum is a fascinating forum to read now and then...




Gaydar Over in the American History Forum

http://forums.escapefromelba.com/index.php/topic,49.msg47864.html#msg47864

BTW this has been such a stimulating conversation that
I've decided to post the above conversation over in the
Gay Rights Forum so they can join in with the discussion...

It's the kind of heartwarming dialog that makes me proud
of being a member of the GLBT Community. With such
ardent supporters as "nytempsperdu" then surely this
coming election will make it possible for Gay Marriage
to finally come true!!!

If historical personages like Miss Hay and Miss Adams
can do it, then surely we more humble homosexuals can
join with our straight brothers and sisters in the Joys and
Privileges of Holy Matrimony!!!






Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on December 02, 2007, 04:00:05 PM

American History, Gaydar and Writing
 
As a gay writer—I’m interested in gay words.
 
Especially words like “gaydar” and to a certain extent archaic words like “smitten” when applied to contemporary or historic homoerotic relationships.
 
Naturally, I did a little research on “gaydar”—such as read through the Wayne Dynes Encyclopedia of Homosexuality (1990). I didn’t find much on gaydar or smitten—but I did find something about myself:
 
“Postwar American Poetry. After WWII, some new homosexual poetic voices were heard in America, such as Paul Goodman, Jack Spicer, and Allen Ginsberg, with the latter attaining world fame in the context of the beat generation. Honesty increased as more and more poets “came out” at the same time pornography laws were being struck down by me courts. There are new numerous homosexual poets in North America such as Edward Field, Richard Howard, Dennis Kelly, James Merrill, and James Schuyler.”—Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, New York: 1990, page 1010.

I mention this because my gay radar senses a blip on my Elba screen.

I’m not bashful about being a gay activist poet—in fact that’s derigeur for homosexual literary pursuits.

I’m used to being politicized and criticized these past 30 years for my gay books like Chicken (1979) and Size Queen (1981)—both published in San Francisco by Gay Sunshine Press. I’ve been pushing for gay marriage and other GLBT issues thru my publications for a long time now—with or without the help of closet-cases like Senators Craig and Senator Lott…
 
So naturally, I’m interested when words like "gaydar" pop-up in the NYTimes or Elba discussions. And naturally—or perhaps unnaturally—depending on how homophobic the context of the argument presents itself, I’m more than willing to bend over backwards to further my modest understanding of words like “gaydar” and the English language in general.
 
For example, the word “gaydar” is a somewhat politically charged word in the sense that I’ve always heard it used in a gay context—usually having to do with “reading somebody’s beads” as with the recent Republican homosexual revelations in the Beltway as well as here in Washington State.
 
Dan Savage’s recent expose “Straight Acting” about the resignation of GOP state Rep. Richard Curtis in The Stranger (November 7, 2007) comes to mind—along with many other examples of gay activist “gaydar” journalism at work:

“One of all the pleasures Curtis pursued during his adventures in Spokane, the hour or two he spent at the Northern Quest Casino in the middle of the night mystifies me most. Who doesn't enjoy blowjobs and buttfucking? As for crossdressing, well, it's not my thing, but I can see how it could turn some men on. Rope and stethoscopes? I feel compelled to admit that I've got a few bondage and medical toys at home.”

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=433857
 
Having a good sense of “gay radar”, i.e. recognizing fellow gays online or at work or downtown, is important for members of the GLBT community when confronted with homophobic closet-case types— especially during Election times when these issues always come up.

In fact, having a good sense of “gay radar” is a survival tool that all gays and lesbians have had to use to get jobs and survive the workplace and keep a roof over their heads—before, during and after the Stonewall Days when GLBT rights emerged historically as more than just a “go to the back of the bus” issue in American politics. Equality for gays and lesbians is still a long ways off... but like any civil rights movement it takes time and grief like the aids epidemic. Trolls always will let us know how much progress we're making, right? Trolls and disinformation artists...
 
I’m “smitten” you might say by being a gay American today...

Whether as a gay poet or member of the GLBT community.

In fact, my gaydar tells me someday we’ll have not only national gay marriage—

But also a gay Poet Laureate to celebrate the Gay American Experience.     

Of course, it may take another century or two—but I’m patient…    ;D



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: madupont on December 02, 2007, 07:46:55 PM
Yes, troll-la-la-la-la-la, "In fact, having a good sense of “gay radar” is a survival tool that all gays and lesbians have had to use to get jobs and survive the workplace and keep a roof over their heads—before, during and after the Stonewall Days when GLBT rights emerged historically as more than just a “go to the back of the bus” issue in American politics." you've just reminded me -- of a day recently when-- I tried to give an example of a "before Stonewall" episodic period

where loss of job as a government employee was inevitable; but, before I could get the words out of my mouth, with the sweetest kind of loyalty  writer Nathanael West would visit his true writerly lady friends,Josephine Herbst and her cottage-mate,poet Jean Garrique, by traveling from Manhattan to Frenchtown and walking the bridge across the river to Tinicum to enjoy conversation with them, I was told quite publicly the equivalent of "You, sit in the back of the bus! As you, have nothing to contribute to knowledge of what has happened in the depressingly gay world of real literature before us."

I shall not suggest that if heterosexuals were related to politely with equal rights, the sooner that would be the likely result for homosexuals. They would have common bonds against the Authoritarians who are equal opportunity oppressors.  Of course, if one presumes that talking in the same tones with the same diction as Authoritarians makes you acceptable to them, bigger mistake by humankind was never made.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on December 03, 2007, 01:34:02 AM
I recently purchased a gaydar detector off eBay.  I carry it with me everywhere I go as a health precaution.  I'm no longer able to be within 50 feet of Bed Bath and Beyond or Hollister.



Damn thing goes crazy.




(http://almaer.com/blog/uploads/Gaydar.jpg)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on December 03, 2007, 02:13:25 AM
(http://emol.org/nevada/images/tinytim.jpg)

Tra-la-la-la-la

I try to "butch it up"—
But if I act "fem" everybody
Either laughs at me...
Or spits on me...

I try to tip-toe politely—
Thru the Tulips
But inevitably I somehow
Manage to step on a few toes...

Toes can be talkative—
Toes let me know right away
If I accidently step on
Them with my High Heels...



Yes, troll-la-la-la-la-la... Of course, if one presumes
that talking in the same tones with the same diction
as Authoritarians makes you acceptable to them,
bigger mistake by humankind was never made.



Title: Californis dioces splits from Episcopal Church over gay issue
Post by: kidcarter8 on December 09, 2007, 08:20:54 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/08/episcopalians.secession.ap/index.html


Title: Re: Californis dioces splits from Episcopal Church over gay issue
Post by: madupont on December 09, 2007, 12:41:59 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/08/episcopalians.secession.ap/index.html


I read that, not at cnn, as they are having the usual blog out about it with slides of the female bishops,etc.

I just find the whole fracas laughable about which Episcopalian or Anglican church is correct because their Church of England broke away from the only recognized Church to begin with that could be designated "Christian". From then on, after Henry the VIII, it was no holds barred during his reign with questions about how to defeat Lutheranism, Calvinist doctrines,and the Protestant Reformation swept Europe, with people emigrating to the New World like mad, now look what we've got, a lapse in the Separation of Church and State (for our current administration of government), while the congregation of Episcopalians that you quoted are being picayune and taking back the property from the dissenters with the male Gay Archbishop with the long-term relationship, which thus proves they are English since Henry the VIII did exactly the same thing(except for the long-term relationship) and pulled the Roman Church property away from the old Cardinals and handed out the estates and buildings to his favorite friends even those abbeys and monasteries as old as William of Baskerville otherwise known as Sean Connery who played the intellectually non-conformist monk who traveled to: Rocca di Calascio, Calascio, L'Aquila, Abruzzo, Italy; and Kloster Eberbach, Eltville Am Rhein,Rheingau,Taunus Mountains, Hessen, Germany,
In the Name of the Rose


Truth be told pungenthopeless should publish that he recanted on his diatribe against nytempsperdu as you can read for yourself what she actually said. He constantly misrepresents what other posters say,as a means to elevate his self-importance.  The ACLU calls it libel.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on December 11, 2007, 12:29:03 AM
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:5OJybCdoP02PqM:http://www.nd.edu/~agutting/Wilde_Oscar.jpg)

"It is perfectly monstrous the way people
go about, nowadays, saying things against
one behind one's back that are absolutely
and entirely true."
—Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray


Title: Joke
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on December 23, 2007, 04:55:08 AM
When do you know that you're at a gay cookout?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on December 24, 2007, 09:44:57 AM
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:5OJybCdoP02PqM:http://www.nd.edu/~agutting/Wilde_Oscar.jpg)

"When all the hot dogs taste like shit?

 :o :o :o


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on December 28, 2007, 03:47:07 AM
Precisely!



Thanks for playing, splooge.







You win one free Bash Pass.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 09, 2008, 04:01:44 PM
There is a thought among many long-time observers that Hunter Thompson killed himself because he could no longer suppress his pedophiliac tendencies.

He was arrested for possession of child pornography.

How old was he when he pulled the plug? Just over 65.

Oh...he also went to Louisville's Male High School.

So maybe there was some homosexual tendencies he never actually learned to deal with? Who knows for sure?


Title: Buttley with a cheap shot
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on January 10, 2008, 09:19:59 PM
WRONG



Pedophile?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Who are the "long-time observers" that you're referring to?  Only a bitter old queer would make up such vicious lies about the recently deceased.




Hunter was married on multiple occasions, and has at least one child.  Several of his friends comment in "Gonzo" that he pretty much had a new girl each week.



Oh, and MALE  was the prestigious high school in Louisville, where all the smart kids went.



Try again, you filthy, old, pickle-smoocher.




(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t207/BuschmanAus/LGNTTI3626ER7ZGV6RWQDGGBHNSPT45Y.jpg)













Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: madupont on January 11, 2008, 01:26:22 AM
He was married at the time of his death. It was extremely hard  for the family as he killed himself at home after drinking very heavily to get up the capacity to carry it through.  It was a somewhat Roman precaution to absent himself before the Barbarians arrived.  He had been mumbling about this, in reference to the far right suggesting there were hit squads. It turned out he was not far wrong, when the renditions began to take place

Can't you just imagine what all this will sound like fifty and a hundred years into the future, when people will have freely discussed this period we have been living through?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on January 11, 2008, 02:47:34 AM
Why are most anti-gay people always bottom feeders?

Gay men marry women more frequently than is realized.  For all kinds of reasons.  Sometimes with the full knowledge of the woman.  It's not uncommon for gay married men to father children.

Pediphiles are something different.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: madupont on January 11, 2008, 03:34:11 AM
Harold Nicholson, station chief in Teheran being one of them.  Virginia Woolf used to say that she could have killed their grandmother for telling the grandsons that their parents were both rather gay.

Oh, and then, I know that I am not supposed to mention this, why I like Edith Wharton better than Henry James.  Although Henry thought of her as sort of a best friend, in a writerly way, she knew that he used her a bit socially to meet her husband's friends, nor was she very pleased that he was not a better friend toward her, because she was one of those women who did not have full knowledge.  As a married woman, she was over forty before she took a lover.  Everyone seems to think she was a great success with all her novels but, having some of the Sisterhood in on the arrangement of travel abroad, she motorcarred Henry about the war areas of WW 1 .  It seems that he was quite a drip. So she thought, she would go off and talk to Proust, instead, at Nathalie Barney's salon.
In the end, the house having been sold by her "ex" while she was gone(as I think that I mentioned to you back when avers was still with us at nytimes.com, because she had such nice pictures of the house),Edith did poorly in her advanced years becoming quite dependent on those she had come to know in France.  For the record she left a very nice book on interior decorating of the home, and her string of important social novels on New York, no siblings, no children, and in regard to men, as well as her peer-group of women, no better off than women in general then or now.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on January 11, 2008, 12:13:05 PM
dnr,

Gay men marry women more frequently than is realized.  For all kinds of reasons.  Sometimes with the full knowledge of the woman.  It's not uncommon for gay married men to father children.

Just ask the shameless Larry Craig.


Title: Urethra, like his "hero", can't handle reality
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 11, 2008, 12:47:00 PM
Thompson was: charged with possession of child pornography, but charges were dropped, because his friendship with the local sheriff let him get away with crimes on a regular basis…violently abusive towards women because his own mother passed down her alcoholism to him…gun nut…drug addicted…bought his diploma…as big and as fake a phony as was  ever perpetrated on the American public, including those politicians he chose  to lampoon for  having the same disorder…He hung on pathetically for thirty plus years after he got lucky selling his brand of pap to equally drug-addled readers and neo-libertarians who ran like moths to a flame to snap up the new “gonzo journalism” , acting in concert as they strove to demonstrate how “different” they  were from everyone else…but in the end, your “hero” was never truly able to face life and handle it, gutlessly pulled his own plug, quite possibly because he may have been involved in a child porn ring, and not as some have tried to spin it, because he “knew” who was…your “hero” has feet of clay, a kind clay that sticks to the soles of his shoes and exudes a certain doggy—poo odor….not unlike the smell emanating from the vast majority of your posts.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on January 12, 2008, 05:46:13 AM
Thompson was accused by a porn star, doughnut puncher.  The FBI raided and searched his house without finding any evidence. 


Do you want to talk shit about Hemingway for "pulling the plug"?


You only wish you could have lived half the life HST did.


Stop with the lies.  Good thing you were never my teacher.




I would have put you in your place.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on January 12, 2008, 11:55:39 AM
Uri,

Been reading your posts for some time now, and do not see how you could have put anyone down, including a teacher. You seem to want to paint facts to your own purpose, which is never a successful tactic. It works for Rush Limpdick, but then who wants to emulate that dope fiend? Judging your ability by your posts here, you have absolutely no skills in meaningful debate or discussion. You try to fly zingers and succeed in loping off the marigold heads on occasion, but most of your zingers fall into the dead bytes bin as soon as you write them.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 12, 2008, 06:41:22 PM
Thompson was accused by a porn star, doughnut puncher.  The FBI raided and searched his house without finding any evidence. 


Do you want to talk shit about Hemingway for "pulling the plug"?


You only wish you could have lived half the life HST did.


Stop with the lies.  Good thing you were never my teacher.




I would have put you in your place.


SCHOOLED!
 
 


If you were my student, you wouldn't be so ill informed.


 



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on January 15, 2008, 01:01:31 AM
And we wonder why the youth of this nation are in a perpetually downward spiral.




Surely you aren't still teaching.






Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on January 15, 2008, 07:14:20 AM
Uri,

What facts can you present that show the "youth of the country are in a perpetual downward spiral"?

In my lifetime, the "youth" have stepped up to the plate, over and over. It is "the youth" that are always sent to die when the elders have a notion for war. It is "the youth" who made up the Peace Corps and the many efforts since to ameliorate conditions caused by colonialism and imperialism. It was "the youth" who ended discrimination, first de juer, then de facto. It was "the youth" who first created computers, then went on to make them a household necessity. It was "the youth", who developed the Internet into what we have today. Itis almost always "the youth" who do the out-of-box thinking that takes us to the next level of civilization. Downward spiral? Bite yo' tongue!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 15, 2008, 12:42:43 PM
Uri  doesn't bother with such trivial details like "facts", weezo.

He went to the Josef Goebbals School of Political Discourse in Himmler, Missouri.

The School Motto: "Just keep lying and some will start to believe you."


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 15, 2008, 12:45:57 PM
Uri,

What facts can you present that show the "youth of the country are in a perpetual downward spiral"?

In my lifetime, the "youth" have stepped up to the plate, over and over. It is "the youth" that are always sent to die when the elders have a notion for war. It is "the youth" who made up the Peace Corps and the many efforts since to ameliorate conditions caused by colonialism and imperialism. It was "the youth" who ended discrimination, first de juer, then de facto. It was "the youth" who first created computers, then went on to make them a household necessity. It was "the youth", who developed the Internet into what we have today. Itis almost always "the youth" who do the out-of-box thinking that takes us to the next level of civilization. Downward spiral? Bite yo' tongue!


Heh


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on January 15, 2008, 01:06:18 PM
Anne,

What facts can you present that show the "youth of the country are in a perpetual downward spiral"?

For one, we can look at kidcarter's response immediately above this one.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 15, 2008, 01:12:37 PM
I wasnt aware 14-16 year olds were fighting in wars.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 15, 2008, 02:08:09 PM
I wasnt aware 14-16 year olds were fighting in wars.

The Marines have been long known to look the other way  when it comes to age requirements, but generally speaking, you're right.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on January 15, 2008, 03:07:16 PM
In Africa, children as young as 8-10 years old are "pressed" into war, often times forced to kill members of their families.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on January 15, 2008, 03:28:12 PM
Thanks, DoNot,

There are many countries who, when they make war, press their 14-16 year olds into service a soldiers. But, I have no idea where anyone here said that "the youth" were 14-16 year olds. Perhaps if one is just now approaching 20, they may think of 14-16 year olds as "the youth", but history counts "the youth" as extending into the early 20's. And, yes, some branches of the service end up with young kids, especially if there is a war on and a chance for "glory".

Now, I'm still waiting for Uri to back up his statement that "the youth" are in a downward spiral. If Kid has any evidence of such, you can add it, if he knows how to spell the words to say so.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 15, 2008, 03:31:37 PM
Warrior Utes:

(http://ghostdepot.com/rg/images/san%20juan%20branch/ignacio%20utes%201925%20d2-4.jpg)

The second from the right later joined the Village People.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on January 18, 2008, 03:44:17 PM
Were you the police officer?


Title: beyotch
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on January 18, 2008, 03:48:18 PM
You must not watch the news much.

Now, I'm still waiting for Uri to back up his statement that "the youth" are in a downward spiral. If Kid has any evidence of such, you can add it, if he knows how to spell the words to say so.



Do you not watch the news?


?




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on January 18, 2008, 05:02:01 PM
Been watching the news for some 45 years now. Not much changes, just the faces and voices that predict doorm and gloom. The youth, despite their youthful indescretions, end up getting an education, getting a job, getting married, getting kids, getting old. Along the way they change their minds, get smarter, die out when they don't, and change their minds on what they once believed.. There is no "decline". It is the same learning curve cited back in the goldern days of Greece!



Title: Re: beyotch
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 18, 2008, 06:57:22 PM
You must not watch the news much.

Now, I'm still waiting for Uri to back up his statement that "the youth" are in a downward spiral.





I'm still waiting for Urine to back up anything he posits on any of the fora.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: madupont on January 20, 2008, 12:00:12 PM
weezo,
Next thing he'll ask is were you there,re:Ancient Greece.  I'm not as yet convinced that Urethra_Fran and MrUtley are not one and the same poster with two sides of a different temperament to have a good argument and twice the coverage.

Although in my opinion U_Fran has the wittier personality.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 20, 2008, 03:10:55 PM
Being humorlous and frigid yourself, you might think that...but you'd be wrong.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on January 21, 2008, 01:01:05 PM

Although in my opinion U_Fran has the wittier personality.


Ain't that the truth.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on January 21, 2008, 01:49:00 PM
(http://artsedge.kennedy-center.org/exploring/ballet/nw/images/nur_paintings/13_300.jpg)

I simply adore Urethra…

So charming, so debonair, such a gentleman…

Urethra is definitely the better half…

But then, Mr. Utley may have secret charms?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on January 22, 2008, 06:54:51 PM
I suppose it's not that hard to have a "wittier personality" than the poster boy for Alzheimer's.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 22, 2008, 07:44:16 PM
I suppose it's not that hard to have a "wittier personality" than the poster boy for Alzheimer's.

I'm sorry. What were talking about?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on January 25, 2008, 04:51:25 PM
?


What were what?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on January 25, 2008, 06:42:10 PM
u-f,

I suppose it's not that hard to have a "wittier personality" than the poster boy for Alzheimer's.

And you don't even have to play second banana to a chimpanzee to do it!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on January 26, 2008, 07:09:56 AM
LAME


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 26, 2008, 09:02:24 AM
From above:


Would you favor or oppose a law that would ban gay marriage, requiring that marriage should be between a man and a woman? Favor  9 (29%)
Oppose  21 (67.7%)
Unsure  1 (3.2%)
 

Let's see. 9 + 21 + 1 = 31 votes

Yet it says:

Total Voters: 24


Who's doing the counting in these polls? The folks in Palm Beach County, Florida?





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on February 01, 2008, 06:25:56 AM
Wow. 9-22?


I didn't realize how many homo's visit this site


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: wpsaukee on February 01, 2008, 10:46:00 AM
Wow. 9-22?


I didn't realize how many homo's visit this site

That's one of a great many things you apparently don't realize, including how to be a civilized human being and how to spell.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on February 01, 2008, 11:02:23 AM
wp,

That's one of a great many things you apparently don't realize, including how to be a civilized human being and how to spell.

What is it about the topic of gay rights that brings out the trolls and bottom feeders?  Are they that insecure?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: wpsaukee on February 01, 2008, 11:17:48 AM
wp,

That's one of a great many things you apparently don't realize, including how to be a civilized human being and how to spell.

What is it about the topic of gay rights that brings out the trolls and bottom feeders?  Are they that insecure?

I really don't know. It's very difficult to understand minds that small.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on February 04, 2008, 05:07:58 AM
No need to get defensive.



That's just an astonishing number, and certainly not the consensus.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 04, 2008, 08:42:48 PM
What is it about the topic of gay rights that brings out the trolls and bottom feeders?  Are they that insecure?

Just put them on ignore.

Their purpose is to "fag-bait" us from any genuine GLBT dialog.

You'd think gay marriage would be a 2008 campaign issue.

But it's not. The economy and war trumps everything now.

The best we can do is keep the dialog going...

Paid disinfo-artists like Urethra & Utley (same person) have one goal:

To queer the GLBT agenda before it can even be discussed...

Don't fall for their game... put them on ignore.

They'll hate it.


 :D :D :D







Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on February 04, 2008, 08:47:46 PM
Not much on political discussion myself, but I do recall that the "gay" debate was pretty much of a farce.  Do some of the candidates support gay marriage but won't put their butts on the line and say so, or are they against it but won't say so because they don't want to appear to be "too religious" or close-minded?  Or maybe they have never bothered to give it a thought.   Image is everything.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on February 06, 2008, 08:24:12 AM
What is it about the topic of gay rights that brings out the trolls and bottom feeders?  Are they that insecure?

Just put them on ignore.

Their purpose is to "fag-bait" us from any genuine GLBT dialog.

You'd think gay marriage would be a 2008 campaign issue.

But it's not. The economy and war trumps everything now.

The best we can do is keep the dialog going...

Paid disinfo-artists like Urethra & Utley (same person) have one goal:

To queer the GLBT agenda before it can even be discussed...

Don't fall for their game... put them on ignore.

They'll hate it.


 :D :D :D









We all know you're gay, splooge.


Give it a rest


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on February 07, 2008, 07:43:57 PM
I still think it's funny that pull-my-pudtopolis still thinks we're the same person, Ureter.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 07, 2008, 09:08:30 PM
"An experienced, industrious, ambitious,
and often quite picturesque liar."
--Samuel Clemens AKA MrUtely

The sages of the general store were discussing the veracity of old Si
Perkins when Uncle Bill Abbott ambled in.

"What do you think about it, Uncle Bill?" they asked him. "Would you
call Si Perkins a liar?"

"Well," answered Uncle Bill slowly, as he thoughtfully studied the
ceiling, "I don't know as I'd go so far as to call him a liar exactly,
but I do know this much: when feedin' time comes, in order to get any
response from his hogs, he has to get somebody else to call 'em for
him."


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on February 09, 2008, 06:55:42 PM
Splooge,


You're very creative, I'll give you that.



Now, stop being such a queer.






Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 09, 2008, 08:30:10 PM

You're very creative, I'll give you that.


Thank you, Mister Urethra...

I owe my creative talents and literary fame to one thing:

My "all-protein" diet...

Just ask MrUtley...


 ;D ;D ;D




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on February 10, 2008, 05:53:15 PM
Splooge,


You're very creative, I'll give you that.



Now, stop being such a queer.






He can no more stop being queer, than you can stop being a doltish freak committed to becoming a corporate slave.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 10, 2008, 07:42:31 PM

Splooge,

Now, stop being such a queer.




He can no more stop being queer, than you can stop being a doltish freak

committed to becoming a corporate slave.





Uretha_Fran and MrUtley are not fag-baiting anybody!

You'd lie about anything where fear of discovery gets
the better of your faculties of projection. 



 ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???






Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on February 10, 2008, 07:45:23 PM
Puget, you're not sound.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 10, 2008, 08:06:23 PM
(http://www.laughterlog.com/Personalities/pic/martyfeldman.jpg)


Puget, you're not sound.


I know—and it’s getting worse…

I thought it was the loony-tune Election at first…

But now I think it’s genetic…

It’s definitely BAD SEED…

I thought of getting a sex-change operation…

That way I wouldn’t have to butch it up so much…

But fuck me—Transsexuals get it worse than Fags!!!

I wrote Anne Landers for help—she just shrugged…

I wrote Miss Lonelyhearts—she said get a life…

Now they’re after me in the Film Trivia Forum!!!

Oh Lordy, Lordy—what’s a gay boy to do??? 




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on February 10, 2008, 08:19:59 PM
I think you're more hung up your being gay,
than anyone else in here would dare say.

Getting over this hump seems more than huge,

Yet, it's perfectly natural to be the one that is puge.

Go celebrate, buy a new skirt,
Stand in the mirror, take off your shirt!
 
Whatever shakes your bacon, it's okay by me,
You're free to be you, and free you must be!


(http://www.kimdemulder.com/art_for_sale/butterflyqueen_sm.jpg)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 10, 2008, 09:52:31 PM
(http://www.benturner.com/robinhood/pic_foodlabel.jpg)

In the days of old there were robbers bold—
        Who lived in a forest deep;
Their lives were free as a bumble bee—
        How I melted in their arms…


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 10, 2008, 10:38:46 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Robin_Hood_and_Maid_Marian.JPG)

Often when Robin looked her way—
        He looked through a sweet thin tear;
But he looked in a different manner, they say—
        After a case of cold beer…


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 10, 2008, 10:58:13 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/Story_of_robin_hoodsxf.jpg)

They were outlaws, as ’tis well known—
    And men of a noble blood;
And many a time was their valour shown—
    In the forest of merry Gayhood…


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 10, 2008, 11:25:45 PM
(http://web.ecomplanet.com/KIRK6479/ServerContent/MyCustomImages/KIRK6479CustomImage4698605.jpg)

So they fell in love that fateful night—
    It was on a midsummers eve;
All night long until break of light—
    Maid Marion wouldn’t leave…


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 10, 2008, 11:37:13 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Fairbanks_Robin_Hood_standing_by_wall_w_sword.jpg)

His pulse was faint, his eye was dim—
   And pale his brow of pride;
He heeded not the monkish hymn—
   They chanted by his side.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 11, 2008, 12:38:50 AM
(http://mlpeters.com/RobinHoodBW.jpg)

Then Robin Hood he bent his noble bow—
    And his broad shoulders he did spread;
Till fourteen maidens did bend down low—
    Giving him lots of head…


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 11, 2008, 12:46:40 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Little_John_and_Robin_Hood_by_Frank_Godwin.jpg)

"We will fight no more," sez bold Robin—
    "You be strong men and you don’t pout;
Come and go with me to Nottingham—
    And there we’ll drink Guiness Stout!!!"


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 11, 2008, 01:02:19 AM
(http://www.morion.com/morion/wood/wood_images/baue_troll.jpg)

Once upon a time there was this Troll—
          Around him bad things were on a Roll…
He was such a rude Party Pooper—
          With his exquisite Super Duper!!!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on February 11, 2008, 08:35:25 AM
It appears that Nutley and Puge are hitting it off famously



By the way, splooge---Please stop portraying the Prince of Thieves as being an ass-spelunker


Thanks!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on February 11, 2008, 09:11:53 AM
It appears that Nutley and Puge are hitting it off famously



By the way, splooge---Please stop portraying the Prince of Thieves as being an ass-spelunker


Thanks!



The Prince of Thieves?

I didn't see Dick Cheney's picture up.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 11, 2008, 01:01:21 PM
(http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/graphic/large/ObamaBarack.jpg)

Obama was here the other day—
         I wish he’d come for a longer stay…
I’m so tired of the usual creeps—
         From the old crummy Potomac deeps… 



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on February 12, 2008, 09:57:04 PM
Hey! How do you turn this thing off????


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080212144453.spddtsz8&show_article=1


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on February 13, 2008, 06:11:30 AM
Looks like splooge found a soulmate for hermself


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 13, 2008, 04:06:42 PM
(http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/846/f8f/846f8ffe-f669-4342-a085-c0c3d3c3d6e8)

Jockbot Joe

http://snipurl.com/1zngr

"The sexbot Gigolo Joe played by Jude Law
in Steven Spielberg's 2001 film "Artificial
Intelligence: A. I.," providing chat and
emotional support as well as sex, is at
least 40 decades away, he thinks."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080212144453.spddtsz8&show_article=1




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 13, 2008, 04:14:39 PM
(http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/172/315/17231558-9e46-40ed-93fc-4d78f6288c6c)

Vowels
—for Arthur Rimbaud

A negro E whitey I samoan
U thai O Japanese—vowels…
Someday I will recount your
Latent births—A sleek black
African stud in seward park
Overhead savage hungry gulls—
E pale truant delinquent white
Kid skipping school for me
White gold quivering jackoff—
I mulatto-samoan ecstasy
Back of the bus polynesian
Lips huge Zimba prick—
U take-out thighs laid bare
Hiding his face in the pillow
All night long so shy—
O Japantown motel  kid
Pacific heights exquisite
Eucalyptus thru window—
O—sushi octopus lips!!!

http://www.gaypoetry.com/design/poetry_dis.asp?dataID=35225




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on February 17, 2008, 11:57:00 AM
(http://esn.uc3m.es/files/closed7ko.png)

 :)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 18, 2008, 09:37:32 PM
(http://www.trivialtv.com/pics/TattooYou.jpg)

Death by Lipstick
—for Matthew Shepard & Larry King

Hey Dude—
Like I’m not here to praise
Matthew Shepard that guy 
In Laramie Wyoming—
Who got murdered…

To me Shepard—
Like going to college 
There in that Wyoming
Town was a big mistake…
Like totally stupid…

Why not Denver—
Or better yet SF or…
Some West Coast city
Where Brokeback Mt.
Wasn’t such a big deal?

But then even worse—
Getting drunk one night…
And having your fag-hag   
Drop you off at some
Cowboy straight bar…

That’s like bad news—
That’s like asking for
Trouble that’s like…
Fucking walking into
The Lion’s Den…

And even worst—
The worst thing a fag
Could possibly do—
Cruise two guys with
Their girlfriends there…

That’s like being—
At the wrong place at
The wrong time bigtime…
Just plain asking for
Trouble to happen…

That was in 1998—
Ten long years ago…
That was then and like
This is now but not
Much has changed…

The kid in Oxnard—
Should he have been
More in the closet and…
Not worn Revlon puce
Lipstick or makeup?

Was Larry’s mistake—
Being too flamboyant…
Not hiding his lifestyle
Enough and that’s why
He got shot in the head?

How does a kid learn—
To stay in the closet…
After TV sitcoms and
You-Tube rap-stars and
Hollywood movies?

Shepard was 21—
Larry King was just
Fifteen years old…
And they’re both dead—
Deader than doornails…

“Closet-cases”—
They used to be a
Dime a dozen and
How many lives got
Fucked up that way?

But young kids today—
Why should they want
To live fucked up lives
The way my generation
Stayed in the closet?

“Don’t ask don’t tell—
Keep it in the closet…
Be discrete my dear—
Don’t let anybody know
You’re a gay boy?”

Being discrete—
Not being “too-gay”…
How does a young
Gay teenager learn—
To be himself?

By getting murdered—
Shot to death by your
Fucking peer-group…
Is that how it works—
Death by Lipstick???

http://www.gaypoetry.com/design/poetry_dis.asp?dataID=35302



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 19, 2008, 02:35:33 PM

(http://gallery.venturacountystar.com/Images/12899.jpg)

1,000 hit Oxnard streets to remember Larry King
Calling for peace

By Kathleen Wilson (Contact)
Sunday, February 17, 2008

Close to 1,000 people, many of them schoolmates
of slain student Larry King, marched in Oxnard on
Saturday to honor the eighth-grader who was shot
last week in his junior high classroom.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/feb/17/marchers-rally-for-tolerance-after-15-year-olds/




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 19, 2008, 08:10:25 PM
(http://gallery.venturacountystar.com/Images/12899.jpg)

Too Gay, My Little Brother
—for Larry King

Tell me, little brother—
My little Oxnard Angel boy…
Where are you now little Larry—
My little gone chicken queen bee?

Your big sad brown eyes—
Who’s looking out thru them now…
Those beautiful long delicate
Eyelashes and brown eyes?

Your heart that refused—
To stop beating even tho
Your brains were sprayed
All over the laptop screen?

Embrace those new bodies—
Take care of them and give
Them the life that was taken
Away from you that day…

When they dream, baby—
You’ll be there too and don’t
Be afraid because they’ll be
Family & they’ll love you too…

http://www.gaypoetry.com/design/poetry_dis.asp?dataID=35322


(The kid's organs were transplanted and now give Life to others...)




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 20, 2008, 03:30:58 AM
(http://www.trivialtv.com/pics/TattooYou.jpg)

Zombie Boy
—for Kurt Cobain, Heath Leger, Larry King

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B-K4NGo2HE

Lyrics from Stephen Merritt’s latest album "Distortion"
 
Two roosters I slew
and with all of my might
I prayed, hard, for you
in Haiti at night
Your skin has turned blue
and your hair has turned white
Must be the voodoo
of this Haitian moonlight.
 
We can't take day trips
but Oh! those moonlight strolls
dressed up in silk slips,
high heels and mink stoles
You swivel your hips
as I work the controls
No blood ever drips
when I widen your holes
 
Zombie boy....
 
You seem to have died
of some form of the pox
They left you inside
your tiny black box
I heard when you cried
and I answered your knocks
Let's make you a bride
with another two cocks
 
You look pretty pure
for so long in the ground
You smell like a sewer
but you don't make a sound
I feed you ordure
to keep Poopsie spellbound
I like to be sure
you'll be sticking around
 
Zombie boy....




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 22, 2008, 02:02:18 AM
(http://www.eco.ufrj.br/semiosfera/anteriores/semiosfera07/imagens/image016.jpg)

Paul
—for Willa Cather

Willa Cather the dyke
Wrote many novels I like—
In spite of the obvious
Which was a real plus—
Her life such a subtle fugue.

My version of Paul’s story:
It would be much less story—
He’d live without fear
Nobody would fear—
An end to spoiler alerts.

Manhattan would take him in—
Elegant as a stick-pin
The deco skyline
A townhouse so fine—
Plus a rich sugar daddy.

That’s the POMO tale of Paul
Who was gay, skinny and tall—
The teachers in school
The guys who played pool—
Just didn’t know the Big Apple.

http://www.gaypoetry.com/design/poetry_dis.asp?xa=GPO&dataID=29965




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 23, 2008, 08:58:57 PM
(http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/def/830/def83089-2e8f-4435-ba11-374ed3a7fc4d)

Cute YMCA Boyz

Itway ustjay appenshay...
Iway inkthay Iway indmay-uckfay yselfmay atway ethay endway
ofway eachway oempay.
Ikelay Iway andbackstay andway ooklay atway yselfmay...
Andway aysay, itshay, aybemay onlyway away inutemay... aybemay
onlyway 30 econdssay...
Aybemay otnay atway allway!!!! Utbay at'sthay away ielay...
Iway etgay omesickhay away otlay orfay ethay uysgay Iway ewknay ackbay enthay.
Ymay ometownhay isway isthay ovelay-atehay Ingthay—
Orriblehay emoriesmay, oredombay, ignoranceway....
Ixedmay ithway away odestmay amountway ofway urepay animalway arnalitycay...
Onnieray Einzhay, Armandoway Opezlay...
Andway ethay Oodyway othersbray: Evestay andway Anleystay.
Ohway earday. Eirthay atherfay ethay Utheranlay inistermay owhay
ikelay Ichardray
Urtonbay inway Ightnay ofway ethay Iguanaway ailedfay Odgay
andway adhay exsay ithway away
Ulnerablevay ivorcedday adylay inway ishay ongregationcay...
Adbay Eedsay—itway anray inway ethay amilyfay (uckylay emay…)
Enthay oneway ayday eythay ereway allway onegay ustjay ikelay atthay.
Offway otay omesay otherway atestay andway ongregationcay…
Irstfay Iway otgay Evestay atway ethay AYMCAY afterway away
implysay uelinggray
Estlingwray acticepray—ehay asway osay inefay.
Ymay acefay ovedshay upway againstway ethay allway inway ethay owersshay.
Osethay arsbay ofway Ivoryway amecay inway andyhay…
Enthay Iway otgay ishay otherbray atway omehay afterway oolschay—
Ikelay ehay antedway otay etgay otay owknay emay ootay.
Iway asway inway ovelay ithway emthay othbay ecausebay ere'sthay—
Othingnay ikelay away ouplecay ofway inister'smay
unrepentantlyway aggressiveway
Onssay aightstray omfray Ellhay otay eachtay away irlgay aboutway…
Ethay arrownay arrowinghay athpay otay eavenhay andway ackbay
againway.
Othbay ofway emthay eryvay utchybay...oneway away ullbackfay
andway ethay otherway
Away orgeousgay ackletay onway ethay ootballfay eamtay.
Eythay ereway aturalnay athletesway andway oodgay atway itway ootay—
Ullbackingfay andway acklingtay andway estlingwray.
Everytimeway asway away eatnay urprisesay—osay ickquay…
Aybemay at'sthay ywhay Iway ikelay urprisesay endingsway.
Ickiesquay ancay ebay osay icenay andway excitingway.
Ethay ingsthay Iway ouldcay onfesscay—aboutway osethay Iblebay
Eltbay oysbay...
At'sthay ethay ingthay I'mway oodgay atway...onfessingcay ymay inssay....
Ohway Ordylay, Ordylay—osethay utecay Utheranlay oyzbay…

http://www.gaypoetry.com/design/poetry_dis.asp?xa=GPO&dataID=35361




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 23, 2008, 11:13:51 PM
(http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/846/f8f/846f8ffe-f669-4342-a085-c0c3d3c3d6e8)

Jockbot Lover Boy

http://snipurl.com/1zngr

“Grand pianos crash together—
when my boy walks down the street”
—Stephin Merritt, 69 Love Songs

It’s simply amazing—
He’s a totally new form of life…
I got him online just like that!!!!
My Ebay Lover Boy…
My cute new Jockbot Boyfriend…

Overnight delivery—
I had to have him right away…
Those pretty blue metallic eyes…
His cute Petula swivel hips—
So strong and yet so petite…

The way my Jockbot Boy—
Shoots me with his Cupid arrow…
If you don’t cry it isn’t love—
I cry and cry for all those years
Before genetic engineering!!!

All those wasted weekends—
Cruising the cabarets looking
For Love—when all you need now
Is a MasterCard and a phone—
So many Sexbots so little time…

I named him after Star Wars—
Darth Vader Space Ship Boy
With that big laser-sword of his…
Ah the wonders of modern science—
Electronic-Jiffy Lube Love!!!!

Oh the things he tells me—
Whispering sweet-nothings in
My ear sitting on the sofa watching
Desperate Housewives—gone gone
Those days of chasing lawn-boys!!!!

When he walks down the street—
All the street lights sizzle and pop…
Electric streetcars stop dead in their
Tracks oh he’s the Epitaph of my
Poor pace-maker throbbing heart!!!!

http://www.gaypoetry.com/design/poetry_dis.asp?dataID=35363




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 24, 2008, 02:38:57 PM
(http://web.csustan.edu/english/reuben/images/authors/whitman_young.jpg)

Too Gay, Too Gay
—for Robert Creeley

And I sd, my
friend, because
you’re old & gay 

Walt, you—
who were that 
way back then

Too gay—
what can we
do, too gay...

Write he sd—
for christ’s
sake, write

http://www.gaypoetry.com/design/poetry_dis.asp?dataID=35370
 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 24, 2008, 06:49:26 PM
(http://web.csustan.edu/english/reuben/images/authors/whitman_young.jpg)

Too Gay, They Say
—for Walt Whitman

Too gay—
the only way
I know how…

when I cross—
the street
I hold yr hand

when they say—
we’re too gay
I just smile

it’s not that
bad, Walt—
being too gay

“I’ll stay—
If you let me
stay,” he says

“And I’ll go—
if you want me
to go” he says

“But I’d just—
as soon stay 
with you…”

“Because—
you’re my
only home…”

http://www.gaypoetry.com/design/poetry_dis.asp?dataID=35371




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 26, 2008, 01:25:25 PM
Many divorce cases coming up now...

Lesbian divorce in New York?

http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2007/06/lesbian_divorce.html

One of the important benefits of marriage, not surprisingly, is divorce.... at least in the sense that the laws governing the distribution of assets upon a divorce provide a vehicle for courts to attempt a fair distribution, and may be better suited for that purpose than the common law of contracts or equitable principles unguided by statutory policies adopted as part of the marriage scheme.  Same-sex couples in jurisdictions that have not taken the step of affording legal recognition to their relationships and providing legal mechanisms governing their dissolution are left to fend for themselves, or to try to enlist the courts in providing assistance.

A decision front-paged in today's New York Law Journal finds one Manhattan judge grappling with such a situation.  The interesting twist to the case -- not noted anywhere in the Law Journal story -- is that the judge involved, the Honorable Rosalyn Richter, is one of a handful of openly-lesbian judges in the city.  (I should also mention that she is a faculty colleague of mine, as she has taught at New York Law School for many years as a member of our adjunct faculty.)  Justice Richter did not authorize official publication of her interlocutory ruling on a pretrial motion here, but evidently one of the parties made a copy of the opinion available to the Law Journal, and a link on their website leads one to a pdf file with a scan of the opinion, for those interested in all the details.

The case is styled C.Y. v. H.C., No. 102658-06 (N.Y. Supreme Ct., N.Y. County: Part 24), and the opinion is dated May 30, 2007. 




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 26, 2008, 03:53:13 PM
Boy’s Killing, Labeled a Hate Crime, Stuns a Town

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/23oxnard.html?_r=1&em&ex=1203915600&en=d0c85187d9ba7001&ei=5087&oref=slogin

OXNARD, Calif. — Hundreds of mourners gathered at a church here on Friday to remember an eighth-grade boy who was shot to death inside a junior high school computer lab by a fellow student in what prosecutors are calling a hate crime.

The gunman, identified by the police as Brandon McInerney, “is just as much a victim as Lawrence,” said Masen Davis, executive director of the Transgender Law Center. “He’s a victim of homophobia and hate.”

Mr. Davis said “more and more kids are coming out in junior high school and expressing gender different identities at younger ages.”

“Unfortunately,” he added, “society has not matured at the same rate.”

In interviews, classmates of the two boys at E. O. Green Junior High School said Lawrence had started wearing mascara, lipstick and jewelry to school, prompting a group of male students to bully him.
“They teased him because he was different,” said Marissa Moreno, 13, also in the eighth grade. “But he wasn’t afraid to show himself.”




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 26, 2008, 11:36:39 PM
(http://www.androphile.org/gay_love/homosexual/homosexuality/gay_sex/Hercules/Hylas/img/HercHylasFULL3.jpg)
Hercules and Hylas
Cista Ficoroni, 4th  Century BC,
Villa Borghese, Rome


Love Crimes

“And you say, I love you honey
Very funny…”
—Stephin Merritt, “Very Funny,”
   69 Love Songs

It wasn’t a hate crime—
It was a love crime, my dears…

Between two California boyz—
Both so very cute…

Larry and Brandon—
The Love Crime of Oxnard…

The Love of Malibu—
Little LA bedroom community…

Everybody didn’t know—
They thought it was a Lark…

But Love gets serious—
Just ask Romeo and Juliet…

_______________________________

“Jeremiah, another student and friend of the victim, said King had recently told the
14-year-old boy who is alleged to have shot him that he had a crush on him. "I see
no point in shooting someone for telling them that you like them," said Jeremiah,
who didn't want to give his last name.”

Brandon McInerney, 14, who attended E. O. Green with King, has been charged with
premeditated murder and will be tried as an adult. He is being held in Ventura County
Juvenile Hall in lieu of $770,000 bail. McInerney could face 50 years to life in prison if
convicted. Prosecutors added a hate crime allegation that could bring an additional
one to three years.—LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-oxnard17feb17,1,1523425.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/23oxnard.html?_r=2&em&ex=1203915600&en=d0c85187d9ba7001&ei=5087&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://www.gaypoetry.com/design/poetry_dis.asp?dataID=35402




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on February 29, 2008, 12:06:03 AM
(http://www.tate.org.uk/collection/N/N05/N05042_9.jpg)

The Obama Cantos

There’s a reason for it—
I suppose there’s a reason
For everything—stunned back
Then—Louisiana delta-green
Balcony full of jungle rot and
Huey P. Long Thirties ruin—
My eyes closed—reclining
Within another Populist tragedy—
The news from Dallas bad…

Sitting there in the art deco
Ballroom—by the balmy balcony
Overlooking the potted palms
And Olympic-sized pool that
The Kingfish built for the lucky
Youth of Louisiana—along with
All the young Cuban boys—
Doctors lawyers exiled sons
Of the Revolution…

All of us sitting there stunned—
The Spanish Revival-esque décor…
Tan stucco red-tile Ballroom—
The wrought-iron French Quarter
Huey P. Long Fieldhouse 1963—
Watching the TV denouement
Of the American century—back
Then a history major (“A boy in
love with the Past”)—but after
Dallas that was no longer me…

Dallas, Nixon, Watergate—
Then Viet Nam, Chicago ‘68, RFK,
MLK, Reagan and Nancy, lions
And tigers and bears oh my…
The lovely Bush Boyz, and now
The news from Oxnard—two
Shots in the head for being
A gay little chicken kid—too
Fucking gay—just too gay—
So gay and alive…

A 15-year-old California kid—
High-heeled boots and death
By lipstick—the latest in a
Long list of Populist dreams—
Gender expression freedom—
You-Tube kid coming out—
Turned into the usual crummy
Nightmare—each generation
Put thru the same Inferno—

That’s why I’m an Outsider—
On the outside—always, well,
Looking in—I’ve given up—
We baby boomers didn’t
Even have a chance—and
Neither did the Gen-X’ers—
The same with Larry King
And his generation—plus
His cute little jilted lover—
Brandon McInerney—and yes,
As old Walter Cronkite would
Say—“Yes, my dears—Yes—
And I too was once there…

http://www.gaypoetry.com/design/poetry_dis.asp?dataID=35422
_______

Democratic Candidates Release Lawrence King Comments

http://www.queerty.com/democratic-candidates-release-lawrence-king-comments-20080225 




Title: Larry King—A Prayer
Post by: pugetopolis on March 02, 2008, 08:25:21 AM
Larry King—A Prayer

“Eurydice and Orpheus and
Hermes were all simple-minded”
—Jack Spicer, The Heads of the Town

Our chicken—
Who art
In heaven
Baby…

Oxnard kid—
Hallowed be
Your name
Larry King…

No more—
Tears baby
Boy with your
Big brown eyes…

Drive on—
My little chauffeur
Kid Heurtebise
Drive on

http://www.gaypoetry.com/design/poetry_dis.asp?xa=GPO&dataID=35385




Title: Get Rid of DOMA
Post by: pugetopolis on March 07, 2008, 05:08:24 PM
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/images/4dred10m.jpg)
Dred Scott

DOMA Haiku

As long as the Act—
Exists my lover and I =
A pair of Dred Scotts…

_________________________________________

We gay couples can be taxed
Like property but we are just
Slaves to the system—we can’t
Get married—and that’s that…
It’s go to the back of the bus if
We want to serve in the military…
Don’t ask don’t tell is just
Another 4 words for saying
There’s nothing else to lose…
We can get married in MA
But the Underground Railroad in
Isn’t the Underground Railroad out…
Even a West Coast state like CA—
Still let’s kids like Larry King die…
Gay Rights in America today—
Is still “Back of the Bus, Fag”…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6217-2004Jul22.html





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 07, 2008, 05:52:41 PM
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/images/4dred10m.jpg)
Dred Scott

DOMA Haiku

As long as the Act—
Exists my lover and I =
A pair of Dred Scotts…

_________________________________________

We gay couples can be taxed
Like property but we are just
Slaves to the system—we can’t
Get married—and that’s that…
It’s go to the back of the bus if
We want to serve in the military…
Don’t ask don’t tell is just
Another 4 words for saying
There’s nothing else to lose…
We can get married in MA
But the Underground Railroad in
Isn’t the Underground Railroad out…
Even a West Coast state like CA—
Still let’s kids like Larry King die…
Gay Rights in America today—
Is still “Back of the Bus, Fag”…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6217-2004Jul22.html




An insightful post into the matter:

In regard to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, it was one of many acts Clinton was "forced" to sign during his tenure.  There was also the infamous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," policy that Clinton compromised on, afraid to push the issue of recognizing gays in the military any further.  Time and time again, the Clinton administration caved into conservative interests, and Hillary hasn't exactly stood out in the Senate when it comes to standing up to Bush and the Republicans.  I guess it comes with 10 years in the Governor's mansion of notoriously conservative Arkansas. 

If I was Obama, I would strike to the heart of the Clintons claim to be the defenders of personal liberties and liberal policies -- their pathetic tenure in Arkansas where they represented conservative interests throughout his administration.  Hillary has tried to sugar coat her time on the board of Wal-Mart when it is clear that she was a token woman board member, as she was a token partner at the good ol' boy Rose Law Firm,

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4617.html

The Clintons have a long history of selling out to conservative interests, which makes me wonder how they ever rose so high up the Democratic ladder.  It seems the Dems were so desperate for a candidate that could win the South (a few states anyway) that they put their lot behind the "Boy from Hope" in '92 when no other candidate seemed viable in the general election.  Talk about being in the right place at the right time.  Since then, they have been doing a great job of rewriting their shared history, starting with that wonderful propaganda piece the Bloodsworth-Thomasons did for them at the convention.  Hard to believe it has been almost 16 years.  My how Chelsea has grown. 

Of course the best way to avoid the glaring eye of the media focusing on your past indiscretions is to force the media to focus on your opponent's indiscretions, which is what the Hillary camp has been able to do this past week.  The media, seeming to have momentarily lost its infatuation for Obama was all too willing to comply.  Follow the bouncing ball, obbie.  Now Obama has to hit back, and do so by digging into the Clinton hope chest, which is loaded with goodies that Hillary and Bill would just assume not talk about. 

It will get ugly, very ugly, over the ensuing weeks and I will imagine there will be no more talk about a shared ticket.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 07, 2008, 06:35:25 PM
(http://www.jnpa.com/DSN/wwwjnpacom/Content/Images/dred%20scott%20right.jpg)

DOMA = Dred Scott

DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act) has spawned other acts such as The Marriage Protection Act. As far as I’m concerned, all this legislation means one thing—Dred Scott.

DOMA = Dred Scott etc etc etc

___________________________________


The Marriage Protection Act of 2007 (MPA, HR 724) is a bill in the U.S. Congress to amend the federal judicial code to deny federal courts jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or the MPA.[1] Originally introduced in 2003 as HR 3313, the Republican-controlled 108th Congress passed it in the House in 2004, but not in the Senate.

On October 16, 2003, the bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by John Hostettler (R–IN) and immediately referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The committee considered the proposal on July 14, 2004, and subsequently amended the Act, which was then placed on the House calendar on July 19, 2004. On July 21, 2004, the House Rules Committee provided rules for consideration of the Act. On July 22, 2004, the rules were accepted by the House and the Act was immediately considered. The Act passed the House by 233 yea to 194 nay votes.

The bill was handed to the Senate, where it was received and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 7, 2004. It died in committee, and was reintroduced by Hostettler as HR 1100 in the 109th Congress on March 3, 2005, referred to the House Judiciary Committee, and passed on to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property on April 4, 2005; it then had 76 cosponsors. It again died in committee and was reintroduced, this time by Dan Burton (R–IN) as HR 724 in the 110th United States Congress, on January 30, 2007, with 50 cosponsors. Since March 1, 2007, it has rested with the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Protection_Act




Title: President Obama
Post by: pugetopolis on March 07, 2008, 08:26:48 PM
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0702/obama0201.jpg)

President Obama

Imho the Presidency of the United States of America—depends on DOMA…

That’s why I’m voting for Obama.

The GLBT swing vote from Clinton to Obama will happen…

My prayer is that President Obama—will shed these chains
of Dred Scott from me and my brothers & sisters…

So that we in turn can set an Example to the young
gay generation coming into Power… to give them
the Freedom denied me.

And to be like any other American = FREE




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on March 08, 2008, 10:57:25 AM
puget,

Kid Heurtebise

It's Hurtubise, but thanks for the reference in your poem.

He was one of the greats!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on March 08, 2008, 11:06:14 AM
I thought Pugetopolis was using Heurtebise in the sense of one trying to make sense out of that which can make no sense...a reference to Cocteau's Orpheus.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 08, 2008, 11:45:10 AM
Heurtebise

Heurtebise appears in both Cocteau's poem as well as his film Orphée.

In my poem Heurtebise symbolizes the murdered gay boy Larry King.

Larry King is my "guide" down into the hell of America today.

When kids are murdered in school for being "too gay"...

There is something very wrong with America.

Discrimination against gays or blacks is uncalled for.


L’Ange Heurtebise” (poem by Cocteau)

http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-24459/LAnge-Heurtebise

Orphée (1950)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041719/



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on March 08, 2008, 02:19:59 PM
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~lenin/Jean_Cocteau_rr.html


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 10, 2008, 05:23:28 PM
There is a theory that Jesus was gay.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on March 10, 2008, 05:25:05 PM
there are perfectly credible theories that he never existed as a historical figure, so you can spin him or her any way you want.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on March 10, 2008, 05:37:13 PM
actually, anything you come up with is a lot more credible than the theory that a mere few seconds ago--which is all that 2,000 years is in the 16 billion year life of the universe--the creator of the universe impregnated a human woman who then gave birth to the creator's son, who was a man, a god and a ghost, who then walked on water and healed the sick, and then was put to death, and then came back to life, and then went away but was supposed to come back to finish the things prophesied for a messiah to do that he utterly failed to accomplish during his life and his first resurrection, but so far hasn't had the time or opportunity to come back and save humanity--although he told people he'd be back during their generation 2,000 years ago--and although there were 2 world wars and atomic weapons used, and his own people were almost wiped out by the nazis.

funny story.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 11, 2008, 11:18:21 AM
Yes, but think of the good in Jesus name....each December we get all those sales on electronic equipment.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: liquidsilver on March 11, 2008, 11:25:43 AM
I just think its kinda funny whenever Easter comes before Passover


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on March 11, 2008, 11:32:20 AM
The real weirdness  is that the Catholics can't celebrate St. Patrick because his day falls during Holy
Week.  And apparently he isn't important enough to get his day moved after Easter.  Who knew?

In our area (many Catholics here), many cities will celebrate St. Patrick on Saturday, March 15.  The original thought was March 14, but that would pretty much put a damper on the whole Corned Beef thing....falling on a Friday in Lent and all.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 11, 2008, 03:57:55 PM
More crap from the RC coalition.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on March 11, 2008, 06:27:01 PM
is it ok to celebrate Purim during Lent?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on March 11, 2008, 06:30:47 PM
Is Esther a saint?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 12, 2008, 12:00:44 PM
 If the lion lays down with the lamb is he a perverted domestic animal abuser, and does that make him a follower of the Ayatollah Khomeini?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on March 12, 2008, 12:20:20 PM
if mcgreevey used his resignation speech to announce that he was a gay american, shouldn't spitzer have referred to himself today as "a straight bareback american"?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 12, 2008, 12:25:27 PM
if mcgreevey used his resignation speech to announce that he was a gay american, shouldn't spitzer have referred to himself today as "a straight bareback american"?

Quite right. Here's my question, though. Why do all these wives come out and stand next to their husbands everytime one of them is exposed for his infidelity?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on March 12, 2008, 02:18:49 PM
the last time my wife caught me cheating, she stood by my side out on the front porch.  we'll actually, she was there tossing my clothes onto the lawn, and i was laying on the floor bleeding.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on March 12, 2008, 02:25:34 PM
a 25'ish female co-worker just brought me some papers to sign.  as she leaned over my desk, and as i was admiring her phenomenal rack, i commented on her new scent as being rather noticeable, albeit attractively so on her.  so she tells me it's a male scent she's just tried out and aren't i the perceptive one.  so, here's my question.  if i'm like swollen hard with excitement and wanting to caress avery inch of her body, does that make me a gay american?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 12, 2008, 03:59:41 PM
I think your last two post are very related, law.

But here's my question.

It's always Gay RIGHTS that gets discussed.

What about Gay LEFTS? HUH?



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on March 12, 2008, 05:02:46 PM
bah-da-boom!  we have a future together in stand-up, phillyman, which is what this forum is all about.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 12, 2008, 07:10:13 PM

But here's my question.

It's always Gay RIGHTS that gets discussed.

What about Gay LEFTS? HUH?


That's because...

most guys are right-handed...

Right?


 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D






Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 13, 2008, 01:32:43 PM
bah-da-boom!  we have a future together in stand-up, phillyman, which is what this forum is all about.

Stand up, sit down, I don't think it will make much difference.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: GrannyM on March 13, 2008, 05:50:20 PM
is it ok to celebrate Purim during Lent?

Hope so.  I'm busily baking Hamentaschen.  The poppy seed stuff didn't come out well, but I have high hopes for the ginger fig filling. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: madupont on March 13, 2008, 10:16:42 PM
Granny M, you don't happen to do your baking on the square at Chapel Hill do you? What's the last day I can put together Hamentaschen, I like apricot. Please assure Law that it is cool to celebrate Purim in Lent; as in, I "Lent" you some fun and games for Purim. I think by now, somewhere on the Calendar they mention Esther, as I don't think they would cut everybody off like a cut-off day at Macy's just because the New Law went in effect following the Old Law.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 15, 2008, 04:10:09 AM

Stand up, sit down, I don't think it will make much difference.


Ditto.

SSDD......


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 17, 2008, 12:01:31 PM
This is interesting, in light of Jim McGreevey's "personal truth":

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Blotter/wireStory?id=4462114



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 17, 2008, 11:56:11 PM
This is interesting, in light of Jim McGreevey's "personal truth":
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Blotter/wireStory?id=4462114

Ditto.

SSDD......


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 18, 2008, 12:34:06 AM
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/30/fashion/30baggy600.1.jpg)

Droopy Pants Too Gayl!!!

Baggy pants crackdown goes national!!!


RIVIERA BEACH — Pull’em up or pay up! That’s the order voters gave tonight by overwhelmingly approving Mayor Thomas Masters “saggy pants” law.

“I am thankful to the people who came out and voted their conscience and defined what is indecent in our city,” said Masters after hearing the measure won 72 percent of the vote.

http://the0011.com/381/florida-voters-approve-%e2%80%9csaggy-pants%e2%80%9d-law/




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 18, 2008, 01:16:12 AM
(http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/24/images/large/Perspec_maxwell_1734199.jpg)

So Gay = Too Gay?

The Cajun town of Delcambre, La., (pop. 1, 700) recently passed an ordinance, which states: "It shall be unlawful for any person in any public place or in view of the public to be found in a state of nudity, or partial nudity, or in dress not becoming to his or her sex, or in any indecent exposure of his or her person or undergarments, or be guilty of any indecent or lewd behavior."

Delcambre Mayor Carol Broussard said of the new law and of saggers: "If you expose some of your privates - the crack of your behind - if somebody feels insulted, they should press charges. If you're offended by it, we want to straighten that out."

According to the Christian Science Monitor, Broussard is not alone. In many other parts of the country, school districts, city councils and mayors are fed up with saggers and are seeking questionable legal action, which I disagree with. Civic groups in Atlanta, Detroit and Birmingham, Ala., are organizing antisagging measures. A Florida senator hasn't given up on a bill to outlaw saggin' pants in public schools.

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/24/Opinion/Pull_up_your_pants__y.shtml




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: ponderosa on March 18, 2008, 07:32:49 AM

Baggy pants crackdown goes national!!![/b]


Are you surprised? The assault on personal liberties and private property ain't new. Think drug laws. Smoking bans. Trans-fat bans. Yada-yada-yada rama-linga-ding-dong.

First they came for the Jews, but I was not Jewish...


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: weezo on March 18, 2008, 08:12:00 AM
Ah, the saggy pants of middle teen-hood. A fashion expression that upsets authorities. Does it really do any good to try to suppress a mode of dress that seems to be currently in vogue with a certain age or stage of growing up?

I remember one student I had, whose pants sagged constantly. I kept telling him to pull them up, which he did, and then they would sag again. I once told him, to the delight of his classmates, that I had seen more of his underwear than I had of my husband's. It didn't change his behavior, but it gave his classmates some ammunition when he offended others in the class by his exposure of his undergarments.

In the same year, I had a girl with schizophrenia, who was going through a sexy stage, and would come to school with a bare midriff. When the black boys in class wanted to touch her, she objected, but had no objection to attention from the white boys, and she wanted me to engineer some understanding of who could comment on her sexiness. I went to her father and asked him to better supervise what the girl wore to school. I told him I would not discriminate in the class, and if she wanted to show her wares only to some, then showing them in the classroom was not the time or place for it.

Saggy pants, are, to me, less indication of sexiness than of personal sloppiness. There is nothing sexy about seeing a male's underwear.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 18, 2008, 09:53:18 AM
There is nothing sexy about seeing a male's underwear.

I agree completely...

There's nothing more uncouth and discourteous...

Than a young man wih his pants hanging down around his knees..

I've found out the best solution is to stare at what's being revealed...

And then to simply ask, "Is that for me?"

It works everytime...








Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on March 18, 2008, 10:05:35 AM
 :) , Puge.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 18, 2008, 11:03:29 AM
Delcambre Mayor Carol Broussard said of the new law and of saggers: "If you expose some of your privates - the crack of your behind - if somebody feels insulted, they should press charges. If you're offended by it, we want to straighten that out."

Plumbers, beware!


Title: Headline sex again.
Post by: caclark on March 18, 2008, 04:30:55 PM
We are now told that Jim McGreevey wooed the future Mrs. McGreevey by including his chauffer in his intimate courtship moments with her. This disclosure comes from no less knowledgeable a source than the chauffer himself who is fearlessly sullying himself as well as his former boss all because it angered him seeing Dita McGreevey on TV last week commenting on the Spitzer episode. I wonder how many people will buy that.

Rather than feeling betrayed by a former trusted aide, the ex-Governor promptly confirmed the charge which smears his estranged wife just as she is suing him for a large divorce settlement. The aide making the charge will be a witness for her husband in the divorce trial. My, what a surprise.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: madupont on March 18, 2008, 08:49:50 PM
Somehow, I doubt that in New Jersey the marital sexual conduct "among" consenting adults will have any negative bearing on her divorce proceedings and how it turns out.

What do you think, MrUtley?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 19, 2008, 07:01:55 AM
Somehow, I doubt that in New Jersey the marital sexual conduct "among" consenting adults will have any negative bearing on her divorce proceedings and how it turns out.

What do you think, MrUtley?

New Jersey has a diverse population with many diverse opinions.

That said, who has the better lawyer  is generally how divorces work here.

I think Dina has law120b for hers.

Keep your fingers crossed.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 19, 2008, 07:48:04 AM

Plumbers, beware!


(http://photoshopcontest.com/images/fullsize/7487911331b4c61fe393ae3dd298b7a72a3b83e9372855.jpg)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 19, 2008, 10:04:37 AM
(http://www.compleatseanbean.com/caravaggio15.jpg)

For My Young Gay Friends Who Are Afraid

There’s a time when you will
find in the closet of your youth,
in the quickness of your mind—
deep down inside you, a voice that
might have caught you by surprise
and maybe others too, but it will be
for you, just for you and nobody else—
your young passing voice that finds
its way by being afraid. That country
is there, for us, and we’ve got to cross
it like its our own cross to bear, and
what you fear won’t go away: it will
take you into yourself and bless you
and keep you. That's the world, and
we all live there.

http://www.gaypoetry.com/design/poetry_dis.asp?dataID=35590




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 19, 2008, 12:56:21 PM
Why not just write: "Come out, come out, wherever you are!"


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: caclark on March 19, 2008, 01:03:10 PM
madupont: ".... I doubt that in New Jersey the marital sexual conduct "among" consenting adults will have any negative bearing on her divorce proceedings and how it turns out."

Smearing your client’s spouse is a common tactic that divorce attorneys use when a case goes to court or, more often, to try to force a settlement out of court. In this case, the McGreeveys are battling not just over the size of the divorce settlement, but over custody of their six year old daughter as well.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 19, 2008, 02:38:22 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Sancta_Simplicitas_-_Punch_cartoon_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_14514.png/492px-Sancta_Simplicitas_-_Punch_cartoon_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_14514.png)
Punch, or the London Charivari, Vol. 102, April 23, 1892

New Jersey Soap Opera

“I didn’t mind him being in love with the chauffeur, Margaret. But when he insisted that I be “Lucky Pierre”—well, my dear, that was simply more than I was willing to take…”


 :o :o :o


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 19, 2008, 03:44:11 PM
(http://image.cbslocal.com/320x240/images_sizedimage_226091353.jpg)

"No, honey, that's not a lighthouse. That's what daddy and mommy call a phallic symbol."


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 19, 2008, 03:45:21 PM
(http://daytimetalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/dinamcgreevey.jpg)

"Have I ever been to TGIF? Why do you ask, Dina?"


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 19, 2008, 04:18:33 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Jester_kicking_the_world_%28Punch%2C_volume_1%2C_1841%29.png/489px-Jester_kicking_the_world_%28Punch%2C_volume_1%2C_1841%29.png)
Punch magazine volume 1, published in London in 1841

In a stunning announcement, New Jersey Governor James McGreevey announced that he had an extramarital affair with another man. Finally a Democrat who can honestly say, "I did not have sex with that woman!" The Tonight Show’s Jay Leno said recently.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: caclark on March 19, 2008, 04:20:24 PM
MrUtley,

Poor. poor New York Times. Scooped again by the New York Post. According to the Post, TGIF began with the three having dinner before Dina and the Guv licked barbecue sauce off of boy toy Pederson's body.

Slightly different from the ABC News link you provided yesterday. It has boy toy claiming his sexual contact was limited to Dina. I guess that means Jim was just on hand to watch.

Anyway, the big picture I get is that Pederson’s telling conspicuously marginalizes Jim’s conduct while making Dina’s alleged role the entire point. Do I sound unduly suspicious?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 19, 2008, 04:23:47 PM
MrUtley,

Poor. poor New York Times. Scooped again by the New York Post. According to the Post, TGIF began with the three having dinner before Dina and the Guv licked barbecue sauce off of boy toy Pederson's body.

Slightly different from the ABC News link you provided yesterday. It has boy toy claiming his sexual contact was limited to Dina. I guess that means Jim was just on hand to watch.

Anyway, the big picture I get is that Pederson’s telling conspicuously marginalizes Jim’s conduct while making Dina’s alleged role the entire point. Do I sound unduly suspicious?


Cynic.  ;)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 19, 2008, 04:37:39 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Crime_wave_-_Punch_cartoon_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_16394.png/800px-Crime_wave_-_Punch_cartoon_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_16394.png)
Cartoon from Punch magazine, February 11, 1920

"It's like our gay governor," said Ms. Woodley, referring to James E. McGreevey, who declared himself a "gay American" last summer. "I don't have a problem with his being gay, but it sure was a New Jersey secret."


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 19, 2008, 04:48:10 PM
It was no secret. It just had never been formalized in the press until the Israeli blackmailer got started. But it was NO secret.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on March 19, 2008, 05:04:39 PM
yeah, ham was in on it, because he cleans the tiolets on the garden state rest stops as his night job.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on March 19, 2008, 05:06:57 PM
we all knew he was gay; it was 'common knowledge' all over the state.  the big surprise was when he called himself an 'american.'


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 19, 2008, 05:21:20 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Robert_Horne_and_Eric_Geddes_-_Punch_cartoon_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_16684.png/709px-Robert_Horne_and_Eric_Geddes_-_Punch_cartoon_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_16684.png)
Punch, or the London Charivari, Vol. 159, July 7th, 1920

"At First I Just Thought I Was Bipartisan"


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 19, 2008, 08:08:58 PM
yeah, ham was in on it, because he cleans the tiolets on the garden state rest stops as his night job.

law's my supervisor. Because he went to school and he's edjudicated and can spell "tiolet" on the forms we have to fill out.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on March 20, 2008, 01:04:14 PM
yeah, that's the ticket--they have special spelling rules up at harvard law.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 20, 2008, 03:46:45 PM
To compensate for the affected Transatlantic accents that everyone adopts.

 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: law120b on March 20, 2008, 04:20:07 PM
when i was there, there were as many accents as there are places where english is spoken, but that's a long time ago.  now i keep my distance for fear that elena kagan will spot me and want to trade one of her warm bear hugs for an extra 5 grand contribution to the law school fund.

egad, i'm posting about a fear of a hug from a woman on a gay website.  vay is mir!!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 23, 2008, 08:06:07 AM

egad, i'm posting about a fear of a hug from a woman on a gay website. vay is mir!!


That reminds me of the joke about the four Jewish men who are sitting around a table.

The first one moans, "Oy!" and looks down dejectedly.

The second one sighs, says, "Oy, vay!" and just shakes his head hopelessly.

The third one says, "Oy, vay iz mir!" and just looks down at the floor in utter dispair.

The fourth one says, "Look, if you guys are gonna talk politics, I'm leaving!"

Many times I’ve felt that same way…about being gay. 

"Oy, vay iz mir."

Not just being gay—but being a gay poet. 

"Oy, vay iz mir" is Yiddish for "Oh, woe is me."

There’s a politics to "Oh, woe is me."

And I should know because…




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 23, 2008, 08:08:12 AM
Because I’m the only gay guy in Melba?

What in the world am I doing here?

Posting in a straight website?

A post-NYTimes one at that…

Didn’t I learn my lesson from the Big Apple?

"Oy, vay iz mir—"Oh, woe is me."

The Old Gay Lady—she don’t like Hart Crane…

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/books/review/Logan.t.html?ref=review

 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/books/review/Letters.t-1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

But then what’s new—"Oy, vay iz mir.”

I dunno—the funny thing is that I seem to get along…

Better with straight jocks—than most of my sisters.

My poetry is too Outré—for most closet cases…

"Oy, vay iz mir.”




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 23, 2008, 09:49:59 AM
I actually think urethra is gay, but can't deal it. Maybe you can help the poor young struggling MBA candidate as he comes to grips with  his feelings of intellectual inadequacy, his sexual identity, and his overdue paper on the false charges of cultural imperialism lodged against McDonald's and Coca Cola.

Regardless, puge, I'm glad you're here, if ony for the laughs I get from your posts.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on March 23, 2008, 03:08:37 PM
Puge, your personhood has many more sides than just being gay.  It's great reading when you let us see other sides of yourself.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on March 28, 2008, 03:43:22 PM
I actually think urethra is gay, but can't deal it. Maybe you can help the poor young struggling MBA candidate as he comes to grips with  his feelings of intellectual inadequacy, his sexual identity, and his overdue paper on the false charges of cultural imperialism lodged against McDonald's and Coca Cola.

Regardless, puge, I'm glad you're here, if ony for the laughs I get from your posts.


Your (b)latent homosexuality is blinding me, Nutley


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 30, 2008, 04:36:22 PM
I actually think urethra is gay, but can't deal it. Maybe you can help the poor young struggling MBA candidate as he comes to grips with  his feelings of intellectual inadequacy, his sexual identity, and his overdue paper on the false charges of cultural imperialism lodged against McDonald's and Coca Cola.

Regardless, puge, I'm glad you're here, if ony for the laughs I get from your posts.


Your (b)latent homosexuality is blinding me, Nutley

yup...he's gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with it on the coasts--but in the Heartland, he has to keep it under wraps.

Poor fellow, spending his days masking his sensitive nature with false bravado and the bright red armband of the GOP.


Title: The Lisp
Post by: pugetopolis on March 30, 2008, 11:16:53 PM
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/radioassets/photos/2007/7/12/24146_2.jpg)

The Lisp

“The stutter is the plot.”
—Charles Olson

Lips tell the Truth—
Lips don’t Lie nor do
They languish in
Flummoxed lassitude…

Lisps don’t lie either—
They tell the Truth
Every time I open my
Embarrassed mouth…

Lisps are like—
Billy Budd stuttering
As Mister Claggart tells
Lies, lies, lies…

Lisps are like—
Zones of catastrophe…
Not just eccentricities
But disobedience too…

I hear the Lisp—
Speaking petulantly…
In butchy writers as
Well as poets…

There’s no women—
In Melville’s Moby Dick…
No women in Olson’s
Maximus epic either…

There’s a Lisp tho—
It’s the Lisp in
American Literature
That interests me…

History happens—
Gays are just as much
Witnesses as victims
To its Happening…

I’ve got the Lisp—
And I’ve been expelled
From the Garden
Of the Straights…

I’m into it tho—
My Lisp is really
Radical postmodern
Representation…

Willa Cather—
She got it right…
With “Paul’s Case”
How it really works…

The Lisp is more—
Than just simply Lisping…
It’s Limp Wrists and the
Way I tend to Mince…

Some of us—
Have it worse than
Others doing our gay
Performance art…

We’re the Ladies—
That the Pequod lacks…
We’re Miss Maximus
Lisping out of Gloucester…

We’re the Scarlet Letter—
Except ours is Lavender…
We haunt Miss Hawthorne
The moody Berkshires…

The worst thing of all—
Being an uppity Queen…
With a nasty sneer
And queer disposition…

Straights just can’t—
Stand it but I really
Can’t blame them…
Resenting the Lisp…

The Lisp is a Voice—
It can articulate Love…
Or trash it with the
Most snarky Dish…

The Lisp speaks—
It’s what I hear in
Myself and others like
The Muse speaking…

The Lisp is Lesbian—
She sounds a lot like
Emily Dickinson and
Elizabeth Bishop…

The Lisp is gay—
He sounds a lot like
Rimbaud and Verlaine
Miss Auden & Merrill…

The Lisp is bitter—
It sounds a lot like
Coleman Dowell and
Nasty Miss Larkin…

The Lisp is coy—
Like Ziggy Marsh
The Lipstick Dreamer
Fighting for Her Life…

The Lisp is moody—
Like Langston Hughes
And Essex Hemphill
And James Baldwin…

But the Lisp can be—
Smoke, Lilies and Jade…
Just like Bruce Nugent
And the Negro Literati…

The Lisp can be—
Latino like Reinaldo
Arenas and his Palace
Of the White Skunks…

The Lisp can be—
Jim Everhard’s Cute
And Miss Ginsberg’s
Nude Neil Cassady…

The Lisp can be—
Miss Eliot late at night
In the creepy London fog
Of The Waste Land…

The Lisp can lurk—
In the dark at the top of
The stairs in Henry James’
Ghostly The Jolly Corner…

To say nothing of Miles—
And poor little Flora with
Peter Quint leering thru
The Turn of the Screw…

The Lisp can be—
Campy like David Trinidad’s
Phoebe Ode to Bette Davis
And All About Eve…

The Lisp can lurk—
There in Sunset Boulevard…
Smirking at Norma Desmond’s
Kept man William Holden…

The Lisp can weep—
Like poor Miss Havisham’s
Tragic love for cute Pip in
Great Expectations…

The Lisp can be—
Cruel as Dennis Cooper…
Cinematic as Frank O’Hara’s
Halleluiah to Hollywood…

The Lisp can be dirty—
Or clean as Peter Orlovsky’s
Clean Asshole Poems
City Lights Press…

The Lisp can be Lorca—
Latched onto by Jack Spicer
Thru Cocteau’s radio-verse
Vast serial universes…

The Lisp can convolute—
Into itself sometimes…
Inscrutably like Basho
And John Wieners…

The Lisp lacks no—
Astute critics like acerbic
NYTimes William Logan
Or Miss Yvor Winters…

They simply hated it—
Hart Crane’s mock-heroic
Dish of the great American
Whitmanesque myth…

The Lisp goes on & on—
A queer undertow and
Sublime subtext to the
Usual White Trash Text…

But I come to praise Lisp—
Not trash it letting you
Know that each Lisp is
Unique and yours…

Lisping is to Live—
Meeting oneself thru
The Magic Muse that
Others despise…

Lisping opens up—
Vast ancient Archives…
Worse than even Miss
Nixon’s secret Tapes…

Having your Secretary—
Erase the Lisp with nice
Big gaps of Silence…
Doesn’t do any good…

Lisping is like Acting—
Screenplays down thru
Time all those lost
Gay Filmographies…

But that’s Okay—
The Lisp will survive…
As well as the Mince
And Limp Wristology…

http://www.gaypoetry.com/design/poetry_dis.asp?dataID=35679




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on March 30, 2008, 11:39:54 PM
Well done, Puge.  I say well done but I mean much more than that.  You are so well read you lose me sometimes (but I still get the gist, for which I haven't a clue how that happens.)  I am an amatuer reader compared to you.  So, I can't really 'splain how I understand that "Lisp" is a powerful poem.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 31, 2008, 12:29:53 AM
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/radioassets/photos/2007/7/12/24146_2.jpg)

The Mince

The Mince—
It’s the ultimate
Curse for all modest
Closet-cases…

The Mince—
So transparent and
Revealing my dears…
It’s simply awful…

The Mince—
It’s like having your
Beads read by just
About Everybody…

The Mince—
It’s like the Emperor’s
New Clothes when he’s
Really quite nude…

The Mince—
It’s much worse than
The Lisp because of
Every step you take…

The Mince—
You can always keep
Your Mouth shut to
Avoid the Lisp…

The Mince—
But you’ve got to
Get to work and go
To Lunch and…

The Mince—
There’s nothing quite
As bad as trying to
Avoid the Swish…

The Mince—
It takes so much time
And energy to butch
That Mince up…

The Mince—
Surely it’s genetic
The way it sort of
Creeps up on you…

The Mince—
Being told by your
Lovely Peers that
You’re just too gay…

The Mince—
Scolded for being
Too Fem and too
Homosexual…

The Mince—
It can certainly
Make mince-meat
Of your Façade…

The Mince—
Manhandled by stares
And the worst kind of
Snickering Snotty Looks…

The Mince—
Worse than having a
Pair of nelly queenly
Faggy limp wrists…

The Mince—
So archetypically
The sashay of the
Greek gods too…

The Mince—
Back when Olympus
Was Omni-sexual
Cruising Athens…

The Mince—
Purest and cruelest
Of all the world’s
Truest Give-aways…

The Mince—
The Lisp and the
Famously limp wrist
The Holy Trinity…

The Mince—
Thru all the Stations
Of the Cross each
And every day…

http://www.gaypoetry.com/design/poetry_dis.asp?dataID=35681


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 31, 2008, 02:12:21 AM
Well done, Puge.  I say well done but I mean much more than that.  You are so well read you lose me sometimes (but I still get the gist, for which I haven't a clue how that happens.)  I am an amatuer reader compared to you.  So, I can't really 'splain how I understand that "Lisp" is a powerful poem.

Thanks, donotremove, I'm happy you liked it. I liked your other post too and it made me feel good. Lately I've been lurking a lot... hanging around Poetry and Movie Club like I usually do. The Campaign Trail forum is pretty intense... so much excellent dialog and keen argumentation. I like it a lot. My only problem is that I can't take anything seriously anymore. I've got this bad attitude problem...a kind of wise-ass satirical view toward everything. But that's okay... a lot of people think that way. Posting is lots of fun... especially with images. It's a lot different than the NYTimes isn't it? Every once in awhile I get homesick for the Big Apple... for a minute.  ;D ;D ;D



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on March 31, 2008, 07:51:04 AM
Puge, if you can read all the posts in Campaign Trail you're a better man than me.  I scroll and scroll and scroll.


The Mince made me think, immediately, of Hank Azaria's house boy portrayal in The Birdcage.  Delicious.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on March 31, 2008, 12:01:22 PM
Albert: I'm leaving you my stereo...
Agador: I don't want it.
Albert: My red boots?
Agador: I don't want them.
Albert: And my wigs?
Agador: Which wig?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on March 31, 2008, 02:32:16 PM
Yes!  Yes!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on March 31, 2008, 05:15:10 PM
It's getting way to friendly in here?

Where's Urethra?!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: madupont on April 01, 2008, 12:13:01 AM
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/people,817,calls-for-mosley-to-quit-after-tabloid-sting,23156


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on April 01, 2008, 01:13:12 AM
(http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/050614/182848__bird_l.jpg)

"Oh dear me!!! Nazis, tigers and bears... oh my!!!!!!!!!!"


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on April 01, 2008, 08:36:56 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/Birdcage55.jpg)

Miami News Recap

http://www.miamibeach411.com/news/index.php?/news/comments/the-birdcage/

For those who have not watched “The Birdcage”, the film opens with a shoot of South Beach that has never been before seen. The sky is dark and camera flies in low across Atlantic Ocean, sweeping over the surf and sand to the night time neon glow of Art Deco that is South Beach.

“The Birdcage” released March 1996, a remake of the 1978 French film “La Cage aux Folles”.  The film directed by Mike Nichols circles around the engagement of Val Goldman (Dan Futterman) and Barbara Keeley (Calista Flockhart) as the two decide to introduce their oh-so opposite families for the first time.

Armand Goldman (Robin Williams), Val’s father, is the owner of the Birdcage an illustrious South Beach nightclub that features a nightly drag show staring “Starina” (Nathan Lane) Armand’s partner and their housekeeper Agador (Hank Azaria).

With 12 years passing since the film was made quite a lot has changed. In search for more information about the area, I found myself in the Palace Bar (1200 Ocean Drive) that sits on the same block as the Carlyle. The Palace Bar has been a fixture here for over 20 years and is often thought of by people as the Birdcage.  I spoke with Alexis du Bois, the manager of the Bar, and with a few other long time South Beach residents. They all told me Palace Bar has sat as a keystone for the gay community of South Beach. Its strong presence is what helped move the gay beach area that proudly flies the rainbow flag from 23rd St. down to the present location just off 13th St. 

The Bar also hosts drag shows every Friday at 9pm, Saturday around 5pm and sometimes midweek during holidays. So, if you’re looking for drag queens or a possible drag show then this is the authentic ticket on Ocean Drive.

When “The Birdcage” filmed here, the area was still on the up swing from the decay of the 70s and 80s.  Many buildings in the area would still have been vacant and the main Ocean Drive locations would have been the Palace Bar, Clevelander and News Café.

One of the reasons some believe this became a comfortable and open gay community was the acceptance by the older Jewish community that was here.  The unscientific thought is that people whom have faced prejudice themselves are less likely to be bigoted. The area was then more “loud and proud” so to say. Not that the area has any less of gay population nor is there pressure on the gay community, Miami Beach is one of those progressive havens where people have integrated.

The word is not tolerance, but acceptance and appreciation of each other’s differences that gives the area its flavor. In recent voting issues on supporting gay civil rights the city commission has voted 7-0, unanimously in favor of each issue that has come up for vote.

The transformation of the area from then to now was summed up in quote from one of people I met at the Palace, “less gay, more hip hop. More commercial, less bohemian.” The early days of the South Beach renaissance was much more bohemian as things were taking shape. Industries shape things and the music industries’ swing into hip hop changed the scene which has in turn faded into today. Now, an expensive commercial scene is the dominant force, which impacts all aspects of the area and scenes.

The gay community of the early 90s is now aging in the sense that they are working 9-5 jobs and are stable in the community. There is less of an influx of young gays to the area because of the exorbitant cost of living here now. Another impact is the club laws that allow 18-21 year old guests into clubs in mainland Miami which draws people away from the beach.

The final nail in the coffin may be the steep rents for business as well. As more business come and go in the cutthroat economy several gay bars have gone. Many of them have resettled in Fort Lauderdale, more people from the gay scene are too for the more affordable cost of living.




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on April 01, 2008, 09:42:19 AM
Puge, thanks for post #933.  This information enhances the film The Birdcage, which I own and have watched at least a dozen times.  Like Going South with Jack Nicholson, Birdcage is a classic (along with As Good as it Gets.)  Of course, I have hundreds of "favorites" on video, which they say is going the way of the Dodo bird.  I' m so old I won't live to see the need for replacing all mine with DVDs, thank the gods.

Speaking of video, my uncle Rex (till his death) lived with his companion, Bruce, for 34 years.  They had a two story lake house, and when we'd go visit, often Bruce was no where to be seen.  When asked, uncle Rex would explain, "He's upstairs watching gay porn."

When my gay son died, the front porch was crowded with men wanting to have my son's porn collection.  I let them go through it but telling them they could take only 5 videos each.  Oh Lord, the anguished voices coming from my son's bedroom from men deciding then changing their minds.  Trading amongst each other.  It went on for over an hour.

Anyway, thanks for the South Beach info.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: madupont on April 01, 2008, 04:20:49 PM
(http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/050614/182848__bird_l.jpg)

"Oh dear me!!! Nazis, tigers and bears... oh my!!!!!!!!!!"


Perhaps, your next full length Criterion recap should be a peek at James Ivory's, The Remains of the Day, which has British Nazis and a tiger under the dining table as told by the old man who plays Anthony Hopkin's father, in service,to Lord Darlington. No bears.  But it would do you a spot of good to discern what Hopkins is doing in this role and what it is about in our day.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on April 01, 2008, 08:18:23 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/Birdcage55.jpg)

 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: madupont on April 01, 2008, 09:10:36 PM
(http://)  Worshipping Walt:
                   The Whitman Disciples
                    Michael Robertson


Cloth | 2008 | $27.95 / £16.95
368 pp. | 6 x 9 | 27 halftones.

| Endorsements | Table of Contents
Introduction  or [PDF]
 
 [email protected]
Princeton University Press
Despite his protests, Anne Gilchrist, distinguished woman of letters, moved her entire household from London to Philadelphia in an effort to marry him. John Addington Symonds, historian and theorist of sexual inversion, sent him avid fan mail for twenty years. And volunteer assistant Horace Traubel kept a record of their daily conversations, producing a nine-volume compilation. Who could inspire so much devotion? Worshipping Walt is the first book on the Whitman disciples--the fascinating, eclectic group of nineteenth-century men and women who regarded Walt Whitman not simply as a poet but as a religious prophet.

Long before Whitman was established in the canon of American poetry, feminists, socialists, spiritual seekers, and supporters of same-sex passion saw him as an enlightened figure who fulfilled their religious, political, and erotic yearnings. To his disciples Whitman was variously an ideal husband, radical lover, socialist icon, or bohemian saint. In this transatlantic group biography, Michael Robertson explores the highly charged connections between Whitman and his followers, including Canadian psychiatrist R. M. Bucke, American nature writer John Burroughs, British activist Edward Carpenter, and the notorious Oscar Wilde. Despite their particular needs, they all viewed Whitman as the author of a new poetic scripture and prophet of a modern liberal spirituality.

Worshipping Walt presents a colorful portrait of an era of intense religious, political, and sexual passions, shedding new light on why Whitman's work continues to appeal to so many.

Michael Robertson is professor of English at the College of New Jersey. He is the author of the award-winning Stephen Crane, Journalism, and the Making of Modern American Literature and the coeditor of Walt Whitman, Where the Future Becomes Present. A former freelance journalist, he has written for the Village Voice, the New York Times, Columbia Journalism Review, and numerous scholarly journals.

Endorsements:

"That Whitman imagined himself to be at heart a religious visionary is as clear as day, but this spiritual striving has been repeatedly obscured in his literary canonization. The concealment of religion has been even more pronounced through the neglect of Whitman's most devoted admirers. Michael Robertson's Worshipping Walt brilliantly recovers the religious world that Whitman generated through Leaves of Grass and beautifully unveils the "Whitmanites" in all their social, erotic, and creative complexity."--Leigh E. Schmidt, author of Restless Souls: The Making of American Spirituality

"Whitman's nineteenth-century worshippers have long hovered in biographies of the poet like so many ghosts, always there but barely visible. In this well-researched book, Michael Robertson brings them passionately alive. The would-be lovers (male and female), the mystics, social reformers, starry-eyed teenagers, and jaded truthseekers--all attracted by Whitman's rapturous poetry and personal magnetism--come sharply into focus in Robertson's book, which makes an important contribution to our understanding of the poet's world."--David S. Reynolds, author of Walt Whitman's America

"'I stop somewhere waiting for you,' Whitman says in the last line of 'Song of Myself.' Michael Robertson gives us the stories of readers who, in Whitman's own lifetime, took him at his word. This informative and highly readable book is a window onto the world of Whitman's early readers. It teaches us how devoted they were to him, and how they read his poetry in a religious idiom, as a new kind of devotion. Illuminating and personal, it gives us Whitman anew through the eyes of these disciples who knew him."--Michael Warner, Yale University

More endorsements

Table of Contents:

Acknowledgments ix
Walt Whitman and His Principal Disciples xi
Introduction 1
Chapter One: William O'Connor and John Burroughs: Reading Whitman's New Bible 14
Chapter Two: Anne Gilchrist: Infatuation and Discipleship 51
Chapter Three: R. M. Bucke: Whitman and Cosmic Consciousness 97
Chapter Four: John Addington Symonds, Edward Carpenter, Oscar Wilde: Whitman and Same-Sex Passion 139
Chapter Five: J. W. Wallace and the Eagle Street College: "Blazing More Fervidly Than Any" 198
Chapter Six: Horace Traubel and the Walt Whitman Fellowship: The Gospel according to Horace 232
Afterword 277
Notes 297
Index 337


Subject Areas:

American Language and Literature
Poetry
For customers in the U.S., Canada, Latin America, Asia, and Australia
 
  Cloth: $27.95 ISBN13: 978-0-691-12808-5
 





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on April 01, 2008, 09:53:15 PM

Puge, thanks for post #933.  This information enhances the film The Birdcage, which I own and have watched at least a dozen times.  Like Going South with Jack Nicholson, Birdcage is a classic (along with As Good as it Gets.)  Of course, I have hundreds of "favorites" on video, which they say is going the way of the Dodo bird.  I' m so old I won't live to see the need for replacing all mine with DVDs, thank the gods.

Speaking of video, my uncle Rex (till his death) lived with his companion, Bruce, for 34 years.  They had a two story lake house, and when we'd go visit, often Bruce was no where to be seen.  When asked, uncle Rex would explain, "He's upstairs watching gay porn."

When my gay son died, the front porch was crowded with men wanting to have my son's porn collection.  I let them go through it but telling them they could take only 5 videos each.  Oh Lord, the anguished voices coming from my son's bedroom from men deciding then changing their minds.  Trading amongst each other.  It went on for over an hour.

Anyway, thanks for the South Beach info.


Yes, Donotremove—The Birdcage is one of my favorite movies too. Along with La Cage aux Folles and The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.

I also like very much the exquisite scene in Some Like It Hot—when Tony Curtis and Jack Lemon are in drag trying to desperately escape the Mob on the train…

There’s also a very funny drag-scene in Graham Greene’s The Comedians—a charming book we all got to read during the late great NYTimes Book Discussion Group.

Again it’s a cross-dressing shtick sort of escape routine—but the British have a completely different “dry humor” sort of approach to such things. And in many ways more open than ours. Although drag has a long and honorable history with vaudeville and burlesque (Jimmy Durante)…as well as Hollywood comedies…

I enjoyed your reminiscence about your son—and his friends upstairs excitedly going through his erotica collection. I can just imagine you sitting downstairs—listening to all those queens chatting it up over the movies. That would make an excellent screenplay—a man having flashbacks about his son, his uncle and the movies they all watched. Something like dzimas and his remake of Sunset Boulevard—an architect remodeling a Beverly Hills mansion only to fall in love with it…and the ghost of Norma Desmond…

I have a similar collection—mostly brainless Bel Ami Frisky Summer boyish romps in Europe and in the Mediterranean and in the woods and just about everywhere. They’re light-hearted and gay—the kind of happy entertainment I like to see.

But there’s a serious side to me too—with such dvd dramas as Greg Araki’s Mysterious Skin, Tarnation, Latter Days, Brothers of the Head, Gus Van Sant’s Mala Noche, Looking for Langston and Genet’s Un chant d’maour…

And then my favorite campy comedy—The Ladykillers with Alec Guinness, Peter Sellers and Herbert Lom…




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on April 02, 2008, 04:35:44 AM
Puge, how could I have forgotten Pricilla?  Terence Stamp is so beautiful and alluring I wouldn't mind snuggling with her myself.

I must be the only person in the world that hasn't seen Some Like it Hot all the way through.  Same with The Comedians.

What was that movie Clint Eastwood made about the antiques dealer in Savannah?  I kept being amazed at how tiny the drag queen was.  Great legs.   :)

My son's funeral was SRO, including "Bob" his favorite male manikin (Lord, getting Bob to the funeral home, and seated, was a Keystone Cops affair.)  Some of "The Boys in the Band" and I have stayed in touch over the years, but I've gone to a lot of funerals.  And some parts of town are hard to go through.  Makes me remember all the restuarants and fun places the guys treated me to.  Too many of those faces, ghosts now.

What to do?  What to do, Puge?  Just keep on keeping on, I guess.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: madupont on April 02, 2008, 12:23:20 PM
"I also like very much the exquisite scene in Some Like It Hot—when Tony Curtis and Jack Lemon are in drag trying to ...", go on a date,in a motorboat with Joe E. Brown who proposes to Jack Lemon. Tony Curtis is otherwise occupied.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: ponderosa on April 02, 2008, 12:38:43 PM
I came up with (or overheard somewhere) the term "The Spicoli Factor" applied to Sean Penn's performance in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. He was so good at playing Spicoli I figured he was just a stoner beach bum they chose to play the part. I thought Guy Pearce was a real Australian drag queen when I first saw Priscilla..., and it took me about half an hour into L.A. Confidential before I realized it was the same guy. Wonderful performance.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on April 02, 2008, 01:46:04 PM
(http://www.booksamillion.com/bam/covers/0/67/975/152/0679751521.jpg)

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil

I dunno… I don’t think there’s anything we can do except try to be a good care-person for those we love and try not to get burned out when all our friends are gone… and try to help the young ones down in the trenches now… the ones like the kid in Oxnard… too young to die… not old enough to be jaded yet like me… knowing what I know now… knowing much too much… Larry King and all the ones we don’t even read or know about… thrown into this dog-eat-dog world that could care less about you and me… that’s why I’ve posted poems here and published them there in gay poetry com… some of them with 60 hits so far… which means somebody’s reading them… and that’s the one candle I light to fight the darkness… along with what I’ve been trying to do in Poetry and the Movie Club… doing the only thing I can do… writing my socks off… building castles in the sky… telling the young ones they can do it too… the more young people write from their heart the way they really feel… the better off they'll be... they’ll at least be able to stand on their own two feet… knowing the thing that all poets know… and moviegoers too… and directors like Billy Wilder with Sunset Boulevard… that Faulkner talked about when he got the Nobel Prize… that the human spirit will survive… no matter what... until the last goddamn ding-dong of this crazy old world…

In the meantime what else is literature and movies for?

Other than to delve deep into The Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil

And question our lives and wonder why we're here?

What else can we do... in the light of all the darkness around us?


What to do?  What to do, Puge? 
Just keep on keeping on, I guess.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on April 04, 2008, 01:06:20 PM
(http://www.foothilltech.org/rgeib/english/orwell/primary_sources/faulkner.jpg)

The Fart and the Fury
—for William Faulkner

"Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow—
I fart in this shitty place from day to day…
Down to the last stinky turd of recorded time,
And all my diarhea has flushed me clean in
This place of shitty death. Out, out, stinky fart!
Life's but an endless toilet, a poor plunger
That struts and frets its hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: a Rotor-Rooter
Child-idiot, full of farts and fury…
Signifying nothing."

http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~egjbp/faulkner/faux.html




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on April 04, 2008, 03:16:59 PM
(http://www.foothilltech.org/rgeib/english/orwell/primary_sources/faulkner.jpg)

Sanctuary
—for William Faulkner

I was dead—deader than a doornail. The orchestra was playing Nearer, My God, To Thee. A drunk whore in a red dress came in the door unsteadily, “Whoopee,” she said, “so long, Red. You’ll be in hell before I can even reach Little Rock!!!”

“Shhhhhh!!!” voices said. “Clump clump clump!!!” feet went. They were already surging and clamoring and dancing away. “Gangway!!! Gangway!!!” a couple of soiled young men shouted—hauling in suitcases full of gin. Over it all the rich blare of a cornet—it was thundering and raining outside…

“C’mon folks!!!” Miss Reba cried out—wiping the tears and snot from her face. “R-e-e-e-e-e-d-d-d-d-d!!!” the whore in the red dress cried out weeping—pushing everybody aside to get a look at me. There I was laid out in my coffin—with a bullet hole in my forehead. It was still oozing formaldehyde a little bit—with a little tinge of scarlet.

“He looks so pretty,” Temple Drake said. “Oh baby, we sure enough had some good times in Miss Reba’s joint didn’t we?” That made me feel kinda good—knowing she liked me that much. We sure did have a good time in that old rickety brass-bed—Temple Drake sure had a lot of class. And she fit pretty nice—with all our vile Memphis venality. Both of us nekkid as a couple of snakes—with Popeye holding onto the bedposts and howling at the moon. All I can say is that I may be a stiff now—but oh baby I was really stiff back then!!!!

“Folks!!! Folks!!! the proprietor shouted. “Please calm down!!! There’s a bier in this room!!!”

“Beer!!! Beer???” said Miss Reba loudly. “What are you trying to do—insult me? C’mon folks—we got whiskey and gin!!! Let’s drink up to Red!!! The best Alabama boy—that gawd ever laid!!!”

The orchestra played on & on—the weeping flowed & flowed. The black male quartet were singing Sonny Boy—they were all in vaudeville drag doing burlesque routines just for me. They knew how much Popeye loved to drive around Memphis in his big black Packard—all dressed up like a French Quarter two-bit Mardi Gras whore. It seems like only yesterday—I was Popeye’s handsome chauffeur and right-hand man. Now look at me—a poor son of bitch in a barroom speak-easy coffin…

A fight broke out by the crap table. “Get that damn corpse outta here!!!” Suddenly the bouncer showed up—and there was scuffle. Pandemonium broke out—bursts of filthy language mixed with the sad tunes of tearful old spirituals. Somebody hurled a wreath—and then another. Before long all the floral offerings were getting trampled on the dance floor—and the orchestra stopped playing. It was just awful—right in the middle of I Can’t Give You Anything But Love Baby… The band members were standing on their chairs—holding their instruments above the fray…

The bouncer, one of my best friends, whirled around with the most  unbelievable celerity—sending the troublemakers smashing into my coffin up against the wall. I could feel it teeter on the edge of the table and begin to slide. “Catch it!!!” the proprietor shouted. But it was too late. My coffin did the slow slide bounce routine down the steps of the stage—spilling me out sedately with my face on the dance floor.

“Play something!!!” bawled the proprietor, waving his arms. “Play something—play anything!!!”

There I was—down there with all the feet. Clomping and stomping and kicking around me—I could hear all their footsteps down in my cold heart. The plug of painted embalmer’s wax popped out of my forehead—like a cork in a fizzy champagne bottle.

I could hear the hearse and Packards with their engines warming up in the parking lot—it was time to get the show on the road. A nondescript line of taxis, roadsters, sedans with lowered shades would join us—as we made our way thru downtown Memphis and out to the cemetery. I was ready for a little peace and quiet—Miss Reba, Minnie, Temple, Popeye, Miss Myrtle, Miss Lorraine, Uncle Bud and the rest. They were sad to see me go—but I was glad to get rid them.

http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~egjbp/faulkner/faux.html




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 04, 2008, 04:01:44 PM
If Faulkner had been from Brooklyn, he would have changed his name:

Hey! Fawk-nuh! Who-ja fawk last night, eh?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on April 08, 2008, 03:28:04 PM
Yup, Nutley's certainly a homosexer....




It's all starting to make sense now


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 08, 2008, 07:56:07 PM
Yup, Nutley's certainly a homosexer....




It's all starting to make sense now

 Urine...stick to something you know something about, as soon as you know something about anything.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on April 10, 2008, 02:05:00 PM
(http://www.women.it/les/ladies/0bx.gif)

Lana’s Rain

"And drips the rain
with seeming sad,
insistent beat”
—Djuna Barnes

It’s melodramatic—
Like all her Grade B flicks…
Lovely Lana Turner in
The Rains of Ranchipur (1955)…

Almost as melodramatic—
As Djuna Barnes mon amour…
My Lesbos Good Witch Glenda
My Ruby Slippers Girlfriend…

Long ago I ditched them—
Michael Rennie and moody
Sonorous Richard Burton
Always the drunken sot…

Drip, drip, drip—
The dark Parisian night
Rains my Sapphic Lady
Loved way back then…




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on April 10, 2008, 06:39:06 PM
(http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/pictures/walt_whitman.jpg)

Solidarity

“…you got me back
with Boyshadow Haiku!”
—Boyshadow

“The manic solution,
all and only about attention”
—Liam

It’s not about Guilting me—
Or getting even or putting
Somebody down or being
Jealous about the Muse…

It’s about Solidarity—
And sticking up for the
Young gays & lesbians
Like the Kid in Oxnard…

Why waste Time—
Guilting me into silence
Or political correctitude
When Death is here…

Death isn’t Polite—
Dame Death doesn’t
Wait nor does she
Kvetch or complain…

Not just Larry King—
Fifteen-year-old Oxnard
Kid killed because he
Was just “Too Gay.”

Not just Mathew Shepard—
Pleading for his life there
Beneath cold Wyoming
Stars tied to a Fence…

But also the Plague—
It’s already silenced
Hundreds of poets to
“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”…

Steve Abbott, Reinaldo
Arenas, Charles Barber,
Jack Bissell, Walta
Borawski, Joe Brainard…

Christopher Cox, William
Dickey, Tim Dlugos,
Robert Ferro, Michael
Foucault, David Frechette…

Richard Hall, Essex Hemphill,
Derek Jarman, Michael Jay,
Michael Lynch, Freddie
Mercury, Paul Monette…

John Preston, Vito Russo,
Assotto Saint, Howard
Shapiro, Randy Shilts,
George Stambolian…

George Whitmore,
David Wojnarowicz,
And many more poets
That I could name…

Death knows us—
Sooner or later we
Will join the List above
And then Silence…

The GLBT Muse lives—
Nervously, hesitantly,
Biting its Fingernails
Like me and you…

I wish I could be—
Confident like Whitman,
Suave like Merrill and
Dyke-cool like Djuna Barnes…

Maybe someday we’ll have—
A Gay / Lesbian Poet Laureate
Like Elizabeth Bishop again
Or Future John Ashbery…

Or maybe some Poet—
Here among us imbued
With what I lack and can
Only hope & pray for…

But I’m not the One—
I struggle with each poem
Like Jacob wrestling with
His Angel the Other…

But I can tell you this—
That Kid down in Oxnard
Sitting before his computer
Was the same as you & me…

The next time you write—
And see the Word on the
Screen think about him…
And how lucky you are…

http://www.gaypoetry.com/design/poetry_dis.asp?dataID=35744




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 10, 2008, 07:03:31 PM
Every underprivileged group
Needs a martyr.

Someone to nail to their own cross,
and parade through the streets.

Is there nothing sacred?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on April 10, 2008, 07:35:53 PM
Every privileged group
Needs a minority.

Someone to kick to the back of the
Bus or exile them to Elba…

Nothing is sacred…


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 10, 2008, 11:21:32 PM
Every privileged group of self-proclaimed victims
Needs an excuse for its own failure,

Something to maintain the pain,

Nothing's sacred but the suffering.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on April 11, 2008, 03:23:54 PM
I dunno...

Maybe you're right. I hadn't thought of it the way you
mention it. Those last two couple of ways...

It's like turning myself inside out...Rhetorically

You're better at rhetoric than me. That's why I stay
out of the Campaign Trail forum...

I end up getting mind-fucked...

But then, well, what's new?
   :D :D :D



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 11, 2008, 04:34:10 PM
 Inner phobic?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on April 11, 2008, 08:25:44 PM
Maybe we all have a little bit
of "fear & loathing" inside us...
Regardless of sexual persuasion...

I know I'm not perfect...
but I do know it's the weekend...

Enjoy your baseball
& the weekend...

puget


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on April 12, 2008, 05:38:35 AM
Get a room, you two!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on April 14, 2008, 06:29:48 PM
(http://www.ieeff.org/dadanyfabiennelloyd.jpg)
Mina Loy

American Rose
—for Mina Loy

Late American Rose—
Wilting Rose paradox Rose…
Tinted with Old World prim
Gilt luster-scion bloodless
Petals imperial guilt…

New World Rose—
Tainted tepid incest Rose…
Postmodern pink paralysis
Sweetened smell of the
Same old Empire du jour…

Conservative Rose—
Never-setting-sun dead Rose…
Delirious rosebud shriveled
Culled by Cupid Inc
Nostalgic Albion…

Religious Rose—
Bristling with huffy Jehovah…
Last Judgments proverbial harlots
Zero Literature to elevate us
Scarlet Rose offspring…

Anglo-Saxon Rose—
Pouting pretentious Rose…
Feverish imperial male geopolitics
Percentages corporate intrigues
Sub-umbilical mysteries…

Wild Rose—
Passionate westering Rose…
Immigrating from Euro-madness
Escaping from the mad madhouse
Ancient mature flesh & devil…

Empire Rose—
Machiavellian truant Rose…
Possessed by exorbitant greed
Crushed by impeccable steely
Superior superimposed petals…




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on April 14, 2008, 08:26:17 PM
(http://www.que-leer.orange.es/queleer/images/fotosreportajes/reportaje-epigrafe1247.jpg)

Thelma Wood
—for Djuna Barnes

“I wasn’t lesbian—
I just loved Thelma.
—Djuna Barnes

Thelma was Butch—
She was 19 when I got
Her adolescent thighs
Tight around my neck…

Thelma’s problem—
She’d get bored and
Get drunk and end up
A drunk somnambulist…

I’d track her down—
Some dumpy bar in the
Parisian night and then
I’d end up drunk too…

The night sky-light
Red-light District of our
Lunar lusts and hates…
Zodiacal carrousels

Onyx-eyed Thelma—
Nude Kansas Odalisque…
With me the Ornithologist
Observing the flight of Eros…

My jealous ogling Eyeball—
Her crystal concubine curves
Her “un brute mystique”…
My waxing & waning love…
 
 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 30, 2008, 12:41:20 PM
Free the people of Lesbos from this terrible affliction:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2008-04-30_D90C82S80&show_article=1&cat=breaking


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on May 13, 2008, 05:10:38 PM
(http://www.all-creatures.org/works/images/w-forsythia.jpg)

Sapphic haiku

Gertrude & Alice—
in the forsythia bush
a single blossom



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on May 14, 2008, 10:26:23 PM
If it wasn't for the recessive 'queer gene,' you would think they would die off after several hundred generations.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on May 15, 2008, 01:31:47 AM
If it wasn't for the recessive 'queer gene,' you would think they would die off after several hundred generations.

What's the matter, jbottle?

Got bored with the Campaign Trail boyz?

Hmmm?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 15, 2008, 07:58:10 AM
If it wasn't for the recessive 'queer gene,' you would think they would die off after several hundred generations.

One more bottom feeder.

What threatens these folks so much about gay and lesbian people?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2008, 03:45:41 PM
California justices rule, yet?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2008, 04:28:35 PM
Yes, they have:

WASHINGTON — In a resounding victory for gay men and lesbians, the California Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage.
The 4-3 decision makes California the second state, after Massachusetts in 2003, to allow same-sex couples to marry.

The California court based its decision on its state constitution. As a result, the decision sets no legal precedent beyond California's borders. Yet the ruling is likely to add momentum to the ongoing legal fights over gay marriage across the country and could reshape the politics of the upcoming November elections in California and nationally.

"I respect the Court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-15-calif-gay-marriage_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2008, 04:29:33 PM
If it wasn't for the recessive 'queer gene,' you would think they would die off after several hundred generations.

We would lose or have lost a lot of great people that way, don't you think, jbot?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 15, 2008, 04:30:40 PM
I hear the Shwarzeneggers are looking at property in Austria and taking the political temperature there ahead of a possible run for office.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 15, 2008, 05:01:08 PM
I hear the Shwarzeneggers are looking at property in Austria and taking the plotical temperature there ahead of a possible run for office.

How does this relate to your being a self-confessed political novice?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2008, 05:08:19 PM
I hear the Shwarzeneggers are looking at property in Austria and taking the plotical temperature there ahead of a possible run for office.

I hear there's some property available that comes with a special "bunker" for Herr Arnold.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on May 15, 2008, 05:25:40 PM
The article announcng the court ruling (LATimes) says there will be an amendment to the CA constitution on the ballot this November stating that "marriage is only between a man and a woman."  How many voting age gay haters are there in California?  You can bet every last one of them will go to the polls and vote to pass this amendment. Alas.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: caclark on May 15, 2008, 06:19:39 PM
Some opponents of same-sex marriage do not oppose domestic partnership laws or even civil unions which a handful of states have. The sticking point in same-sex marriage is not the guarantee of equal financial benefits or domestic rights but rather the definition of marriage itself. Same-sex marriage challenges a time-honored social code that defines family with implications for social respectability. It’s a pecking order that is perceived as being encroached upon and to many traditionalists, that’s carrying universal equality too far.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 15, 2008, 07:47:16 PM
An interesting poll would be of same sex partners wishing "marriage"

a)  because we deserve the same benefits of married male/female couples

b)  because we are no different, so we deserve what every living member of society has

How many are most concerned with the financial aspect, moreso with just the RESPECT part of the equation?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on May 15, 2008, 08:41:48 PM
"We would lose or have lost a lot of great people that way, don't you think, jbot?"

It was a joke, but at least I admitted that it was nature, not nurture, like your mom made you play with dolls and wear dresses, which is another way to "turn queer," as we say in the South.

California has succeeded in taking away the last remaining cool thing about being gay, not having to get married, be careful what you wish for queer nation.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2008, 09:18:55 PM
It just so happens today is my 20th anniversary.

I feel that it's a good thing if people who truly love each other can stay together for many years, because there are layers and levels of love that you have no idea could ever exist, until you're in a long-term officially sanctioned, publicly declared relationship.

So, I hope that many gay and straight folks get to experience the positive aspects of a real commitment to another human being.

 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on May 15, 2008, 09:39:29 PM
Yeah, but marriage is still square, no matter how you parse it.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 15, 2008, 10:11:47 PM
An interesting poll would be of same sex partners wishing "marriage"

a)  because we deserve the same benefits of married male/female couples

b)  because we are no different, so we deserve what every living member of society has

How many are most concerned with the financial aspect, moreso with just the RESPECT part of the equation?

Why would you even think of asking ANY couple, same gender or opposite gender such a question? ???

MYOB!  It's not your concern.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on May 16, 2008, 01:17:13 AM
It affects the tax-burden of non-queers, and there's no constitutional right to gay marriage, so it's every taxpayers BUSINESS.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 16, 2008, 04:18:59 AM
It affects the tax-burden of non-queers, and there's no constitutional right to gay marriage, so it's every taxpayers BUSINESS.

NON-Queers, eh?  Kinda tells the form where you're coming from.

There is a fundamental right to marriage in this country.  See Loving v. Virginia.

Since it is a fundamental right, to grant it to one group of American and not another is a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

But you knew that.

BTW, I'm single, and straight marriage affects my "tax burden".  If that's the sum and substance of your objection, you don't really have one.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2008, 08:40:31 AM
Yeah, but marriage is still square, no matter how you parse it.

No parsing. There is something fundamentally different about a long-term relationship that is sanctioned publicly.

Of course, I'm only speaking from my own personal experience, but I would liken it to the difference between working with children and having your own. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2008, 08:48:13 AM
Wedding Belles:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90MMH1O0&show_article=1&catnum=-1

Ellen DeGeneres is putting the California Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage into action—she and Portia de Rossi plan to wed, DeGeneres announced during a taping of her talk show.

DeGeneres was taping the episode of "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" on Thursday, the day the state's high court struck down California laws against gay marriage, and it was to air Friday, a person close to the production said.

The person, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity.


And "the person, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly",  wrecked the "surprise"!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: caclark on May 16, 2008, 05:48:35 PM
"....California has succeeded in taking away the last remaining cool thing about being gay, not having to get married...."

I wasn't aware that anyone had to get married. But gays at one time often did feel compelled to stay in the closet for their own welfare. How cool was that, jbottle?

"....marriage is still square, no matter how you parse it...."

You might tell that to the gays and lesbians who will be lining up to apply for a marriage license. Maybe they’ll listen to you instead of their own hearts. But I doubt it.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on May 16, 2008, 09:55:44 PM
(http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/030731/132130__casablanca_l.jpg)

As Time Goes By

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_bMFVDu9yo

You must remember this
A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by.
And when two lovers woo
They still say, "I love you."
On that you can rely
No matter what the future brings
As time goes by.
Moonlight and love songs
Never out of date.
Hearts full of passion
Jealousy and hate.
Woman needs man
And man must have his mate
That no one can deny.
It's still the same old story
A fight for love and glory
A case of do or die.
The world will always welcome lovers
As time goes by.
Oh yes, the world will always welcome lovers
As time goes by.

© 1931 Warner Bros. Music Corporation, ASCAP




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 17, 2008, 08:42:53 AM
"THIS COULD BE THE BEGINNING OF A BEAUTIFUL RELATIONSHIP"

That's what Rick says to Louis as they stroll off together.

Imagine if Casablanca had gay marriage. That line might hold a far different meaning than the one originally intended.

(http://www.talkingpeople.net/tp/audio/movies/casablanca/casa9b.jpg)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on May 18, 2008, 06:57:20 PM
"There is a fundamental right to marriage in this country..."

Good argument that I could try to engage you in further, because I disagree and was only "flaming" the forum in a way, and take a different view of "equal protection" than you do, but nice retort, might pick it up another day.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 18, 2008, 08:49:10 PM
"There is a fundamental right to marriage in this country..."

Good argument that I could try to engage you in further, because I disagree and was only "flaming" the forum in a way, and take a different view of "equal protection" than you do, but nice retort, might pick it up another day.

If you have a retort, take it to the Supreme Court.

The language is theirs, not mine.

It was used in Loving v. Virginia to overturn that state's ban on interracial marriage.

Once people of different races were declared to be a fundamental right, that subjected any law infringing on that right to strict scrutiny.  That meant that the state had to show a compelling reason for the infringement.  Otherwise, the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause will control.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on May 19, 2008, 01:17:34 AM
That's RACE.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 19, 2008, 07:15:01 AM
That's RACE.

NOT ONLY!!

Marriage has been deemed a fundamental right by the Court in Loving, so all the other Constitutional clauses now are put into play.

Any State attempting hereafter to ban same-gender marriage will need a COMPELLING reason to do so.

The fact that it might trigger some bigoted folks' YUCK factor is irrelevant.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on May 19, 2008, 07:21:41 AM
It'll be interesting to pay attention to how the AIDS rate of California increases now


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 19, 2008, 11:28:00 AM
It'll be interesting to pay attention to how the AIDS rate of California increases now

How did it increase in Massachussetts?
Bring the facts, Dick.

And since we're talking in right-wing Republicode about "morals", how come Texas, with its ban on gay marriage has all that polygomy stuff going on?



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 19, 2008, 12:03:10 PM
Utley,

And since we're talking in right-wing Republicode about "morals", how come Texas, with its ban on gay marriage has all that polygomy stuff going on?


Don't you get it?  That's DIFFERENT!

That don't involve no (YUCK!) GAYS!

Pardon the grossness but down in Tejas they say, "Old enough to bleed, old enough to seed!".


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on May 20, 2008, 08:54:04 PM
(http://www.all-creatures.org/works/images/w-forsythia.jpg)

Sapphic haiku

Gertrude & Alice—
in the forsythia bush
a single blossom



Many thanks for your thoughtful replies to my modest little “Gertrude and Alice” haiku.

I got into the habit of jotting down haiku-notes in the margins of books and magazines when we were still doing haikus for the NYTimes Urban Haiku forum. I was reading Diana Souhami’s “Gertrude and Alice” biography that night—“a dark and stormy night” with me and my cat in bed with the rain pouring down.

The more I read about how tacky and shabby Allan and Roubina Stein were toward Alice after Gertrude died, the more sad and bitter I became. How many GLBT marriage relationships have ended up that way? Allan was Gertrude’s racetrack horseracing no-good nephew and Roubina his divorced wife. They were co-executors of the Stein estate. They were basically jealous grasping in-laws grabbing everything like vultures. Making a nightmare for the surviving gay or lesbian spouse? The biography’s last chapter is a sad read…

Many of us have been there and done that. The new CA partner rights bill may help things out. But even with a will and planning, things in a hostile heterosexist milieu can be difficult. I believe in “creative resistance” so I publish haiku and poetry. The days of Stonewall and Act-Up are over for me now—but I can still write.

Sapphic haiku

Gertrude & Alice—
in the forsythia bush
a single blossom…

http://forums.escapefromelba.com/index.php/topic,49.msg89970.html#msg89970

This haiku published in the gay rights forum of Elba has caused quite a flap. There’ve been 30 online responses to it; more than any responses I’ve ever got in the Elba poetry forum. Along with many email messages. Usually poetry and politics don’t merge so effortlessly, but in this case it did.

“Gertrude and Alice” is what I call a Steinese portrait. Some can be short like this haiku one while others can be longer like the others on Elba. The idea though is doing a quick succinct word-portrait of somebody or something using the immediacy of the moment—continuously, all at once and memnoir-esque (please see “The memnoir rose” in the Poetry forum).

Stein did lots of these portraits between The Making of Americans...

and The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: JakeJoliet on May 23, 2008, 12:07:56 AM
"There is a fundamental right to marriage in this country..."

Good argument that I could try to engage you in further, because I disagree and was only "flaming" the forum in a way, and take a different view of "equal protection" than you do, but nice retort, might pick it up another day.

If you have a retort, take it to the Supreme Court.

The language is theirs, not mine.

It was used in Loving v. Virginia to overturn that state's ban on interracial marriage.

Once people of different races were declared to be a fundamental right, that subjected any law infringing on that right to strict scrutiny.  That meant that the state had to show a compelling reason for the infringement.  Otherwise, the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause will control.

That's an interesting path to take Loving (npi) down.... does this mean that should I feel the urge to marry my daughter, or my dog, that no laws shall bar the way, thank you Supremes? 

Do you think there's perhaps a more fundamental reason for striking the reprehensible concept of "miscegnation" from the moldy law books than perhaps color of someone's skin?   

Think about it.    ;)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: JakeJoliet on May 23, 2008, 12:10:16 AM
Utley,

And since we're talking in right-wing Republicode about "morals", how come Texas, with its ban on gay marriage has all that polygomy stuff going on?


Don't you get it?  That's DIFFERENT!

That don't involve no (YUCK!) GAYS!

Pardon the grossness but down in Tejas they say, "Old enough to bleed, old enough to seed!".

That's different?    Then why did they arrest the lot of them?

Logic much?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on May 23, 2008, 03:12:34 AM
It'll be interesting to pay attention to how the AIDS rate of California increases now

How did it increase in Massachussetts?
Bring the facts, Dick.



You must realize that a hike in AIDS victims is now inevitable in CA?


Are you gay, Nutley?


I promise not to think any differently of you.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 23, 2008, 08:59:41 AM
It'll be interesting to pay attention to how the AIDS rate of California increases now

How did it increase in Massachussetts?
Bring the facts, Dick.



You must realize that a hike in AIDS victims is now inevitable in CA?


Are you gay, Nutley?


I promise not to think any differently of you.

Let's see, Dicky, you're short on facts--again.

Enlighten us as to the drastic moral collapse that took place in Massachusetts after gay marriage was legalized. Include the FACTS.

I see you still cling to the Reagan Doctrine that AIDS is a gay disease.

BTW, still banging your labrador? I won't think less of you. In fact, I don't know that it's possible to think any less of you than I already do.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 23, 2008, 09:39:28 AM
"There is a fundamental right to marriage in this country..."

Good argument that I could try to engage you in further, because I disagree and was only "flaming" the forum in a way, and take a different view of "equal protection" than you do, but nice retort, might pick it up another day.

If you have a retort, take it to the Supreme Court.

The language is theirs, not mine.

It was used in Loving v. Virginia to overturn that state's ban on interracial marriage.

Once people of different races were declared to be a fundamental right, that subjected any law infringing on that right to strict scrutiny.  That meant that the state had to show a compelling reason for the infringement.  Otherwise, the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause will control.

That's an interesting path to take Loving (npi) down.... does this mean that should I feel the urge to marry my daughter, or my dog, that no laws shall bar the way, thank you Supremes? 

Do you think there's perhaps a more fundamental reason for striking the reprehensible concept of "miscegnation" from the moldy law books than perhaps color of someone's skin?   

Think about it.    ;)

If you can make the case that you have a fundamental right to do any of the things you suggest, then go make your case to the SCOTUS.

In fact, why not have someone read the Court's holding in Loving to you so that you can try to understand just what the Court said.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: JakeJoliet on May 23, 2008, 05:52:42 PM
"There is a fundamental right to marriage in this country..."

Good argument that I could try to engage you in further, because I disagree and was only "flaming" the forum in a way, and take a different view of "equal protection" than you do, but nice retort, might pick it up another day.

If you have a retort, take it to the Supreme Court.

The language is theirs, not mine.

It was used in Loving v. Virginia to overturn that state's ban on interracial marriage.

Once people of different races were declared to be a fundamental right, that subjected any law infringing on that right to strict scrutiny.  That meant that the state had to show a compelling reason for the infringement.  Otherwise, the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause will control.

That's an interesting path to take Loving (npi) down.... does this mean that should I feel the urge to marry my daughter, or my dog, that no laws shall bar the way, thank you Supremes? 

Do you think there's perhaps a more fundamental reason for striking the reprehensible concept of "miscegnation" from the moldy law books than perhaps color of someone's skin?   

Think about it.    ;)

If you can make the case that you have a fundamental right to do any of the things you suggest, then go make your cae to the SCOTUS.

In fact, why not have someone read the Court's holding in Loving to you so that you can try to understand just what the Court said.

Yes, why don't I just run out and have someone do that for me?   ;D

I see you've abandoned that last admonition.  "Shockers!"


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on May 24, 2008, 05:03:49 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Whitman%2C_Walt_%281819-1892%29_and_Doyle.JPG)
Walt Whitman and Peter Doyle


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 27, 2008, 09:33:25 PM
Admit gays to Scouts or pay higher rent:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-27-philly-scouts_N.htm



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on May 28, 2008, 04:00:04 AM
Admit gays to Scouts or pay higher rent:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-27-philly-scouts_N.htm



Good for your fair city.

NOW, would you please tell Charlie Manuel to quit beating up on my poor Rockies! :)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 29, 2008, 12:03:53 PM
It's not Charley...it's Chase!!


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 02, 2008, 10:09:49 PM
(http://www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/comicads/xray.jpg)

Amazing Queer Studies Research

It’s really amazing the discoveries one finds sometimes—trolling the highways, byways & back alleys of the mysterious Blogosphere.

For example, queer studies. I’ve always been of the opinion that GLBTQ Studies can be done by anybody—straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual & queer.

I’m not heterosexist—in fact some of my best friends are heterosexual. Kinsey I think was straight—his research into the sex lives of American males was pretty competent & fair & scientific etc. And there have been oodles of other studies into the percentages of GLBTQ Americans since Kinsey’s 10%. The people who really know are probably the advertising & marketing crowd—but I’m sure the number crunchers on the Campaign Trail are busy with their surveys & studies & prognostications as to the “queer odds” (pardon the pun)…

One of the best “queer crunchers” is right here amongst us in Elba—the esteemed Mister Jbottle himself. I’ve long admired his panache in the Campaign Trail Forum as well as the Movie Forum and the Gay Rights Forum—his research is truly mind-boggling with his astute insights into queer behavior.

It goes all the way from genetics:

http://forums.escapefromelba.com/index.php/topic,49.msg90232.html#msg90232

If it wasn't for the recessive 'queer gene,' you would think they would die off after several hundred generations.

To constitutional law:

http://forums.escapefromelba.com/index.php/topic,49.msg90472.html#msg90472

It affects the tax-burden of non-queers, and there's no constitutional right to gay marriage, so it's every taxpayers BUSINESS.

Jbottle has got the queer number crunching right down there to the queer percentages—kinda like a horse track racing form. Where he gets the percentages I don’t know—perhaps he’s privy to information that I’m not aware of. Perhaps he’s done research on the topic in various gay bars or whatever as he mentions below:

http://forums.escapefromelba.com/index.php/topic,30.msg57373.html#msg57373

Sexual preference and sex is a continnuum [sic], so that a guy who might have like, 10% fag in him is not going to jump the fence into ACTION.  Yeah, we get it, it's not black and white, and it has to do with chemistry levels and whatnot, someone with 18-22% fag in there is likely to hold one hand over one eye while intoxicated and striking out at the straight bars.  But for those of us in the 2-7% range, it's not an experiment at all, somebody is going  to get their ass kicked, and I hate that the world is that way.  A lot of cops fall into the 9-32% range, that's why they are so weird and become cops in the first place. Am I going to judge that cop? No. Am I going to admit to .0003% fag, sure, if it makes THE COMMUNITY feel better.  We all have a little fag in us, but some people take it up as a lifestyle and get the cable package and shit.  Hey, no prob. I'm a closeted wannabe homicidal maniac, but then, I think, ah, better NOT DO THAT. So I'm in general agreement that we all have to deal with the violent or sexual beast inside our dome's, but normally after a couple of beers I relax and am quite charming.

I find these queer number-crunching statistics very interesting. The queer 18-22% range Jbottle brings up is according to him based on chemistry levels. If that’s true than surely we don’t need the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy” in the military or purges or witch-hunts—all we have to do is test the man or woman for the queer % level in their… their what? Blood? I had no idea there’s a blood level test for how much your queer % is.

Theories have been floating around for years about nature v. nurture and all that. Studies pop up—“We’ve discovered the Queer Gene!!!” Or “Holy Shit!!! We’ve discovered the queer lobe of the human brain!!! Just look at it!!! It’s all grossly enlarged & lurking over there beneath the lizard medulla thingy at the base of the skull!!”

I dunno—maybe Jbottle could enlighten us with his percentage game. It seems to work over in the Movie Forum for the Top Selling Weekend Movies—heck it may work at the Race Tracks too? Too bad Bukowski isn’t still around—I bet he could give a race-track expert opinion about the queer percentages.

The 18-22% range possible Fags compared with the 2-7% range interests me—in terms of closet-cases & the safety of my fellow males on weekends at the local bars. According to Jbottle: “But for those of us in the 2-7% range, it's not an experiment at all, somebody is going  to get their ass kicked, and I hate that the world is that way.”

Those stats bother me somewhat since the 18-22% range possible Fags apparently put themselves in danger if they get overly-intoxicated around the boyz in the bar watching games on the weekend or playing pool or just sitting around on the barstools schmoozing like men do when they get a little buzz or a big buzz. Surely public safety needs to be considered here one would think. 

Jbottle has thought of this too with his excellent GLBTQ intense research: “A lot of cops fall into the 9-32% range, that's why they are so weird and become cops in the first place. Am I going to judge that cop? No.” And yet Jbottle seems to have already judged them by putting cops in the 9-32% range of queerdom—just as he’s put “out” queers in the 18-22% range & the “closet queers” in the 2-7% range. In other words, the perception or judgment one uses in playing the percentage game seems to be the same for all 3 categories regardless of how non-judgmental Mister Jbottle claims.

Most interesting of all is Jbottle crunching the queer stats on himself & his behavior after a couple of beers: “Am I going to admit to .0003% fag, sure, if it makes THE COMMUNITY feel better.  We all have a little fag in us, but some people take it up as a lifestyle and get the cable package and shit.  Hey, no prob.”

I find Jbottle & his .0003% fag level to be incredibly miniscule almost to the point of counting the number of angels on the head of pin. Of course, I’m not implying that this fascinating queer percentage game is the work of a mentally challenged low IQ Pinhead—far be it from that! If Jbottle has figured out he’s .0003% fag then surely he’s done some kind of Research into this serious matter.

What pray tell constitutes a .0003% homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, queer behavior or to be more succinct what kind of worldly bedroom backseat quickie Sexual Experience adds up to a tiny little .0003% of Anything? Curious minds want to know—it must have really been a quick quickie that’s all I can say. Maybe Jbottle had a nocturnal emission or some abnormal abysmal flashback or quirky thought out of nowhere for him to come up with such a strange statistically insignificant .0003% finding.

We’ll probably never know how Jbottle arrived at these fascinating percentages. Perhaps he did some field research in Charleston or maybe Virginia Beach & Norfolk. I heard that Hart Crane did similar research in Brooklyn—whenever the Fleet came in. But then Crane was merely a poet—and not Film Politics Gay Forum commentator & pundit.

For example, here’s the latest Jbottle posting on the subject:

http://forums.escapefromelba.com/index.php/topic,30.msg93479.html#msg93479

Maud:  I can't go see S/C without being gay or unprincipled, I'm a moral featherweight but this is a sticking point, and they don't want me there, the significant bother or any other gay male or consumerist bitch female in the audience, see how they wouldn't like me laughing at the wrong time. So, I went to see I/M this Sat., but noticed the sizable S/C crowd, but let's be clear:  I did not see S/C, and only heard the horde of anorxia neurvosa babes heaving popcorn and skittles as I went to go pee beer out of my penis.

GLBTQ Studies certainly is fascinating isn’t it?


 ??? ??? ???




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on June 02, 2008, 10:45:45 PM
Puge, whatever it is that you just said in the above post I agree with 100%.   :)

Got rain out there in Seattle?  Hotter than an outlaws pistol in Dallas.  I'm sitting here in my shorts. My left leg is swollen.  I think I've got a blood clot in my foot and I'm waiting for it to break loose and kill me.  Mid-sentence, as it were.  I've got the air on 79-80° since I can't afford to have that little dot on the wheel of the electric meter go any faster than it already is.

I've got a gay Internet friend, lives in Portugal, a bit shy of 70.  He's written a memoir about his life (mostly on the East Coast.)  Would you like a link to that?  I can leave it for you in the message box.  Interesting guy.  He lived on Cyprus when I first met him (I was reading Colin Thubron's book on that country.)  He's thinking of coming back to the states to some sort of assisted living (he's got bad back problems and is starting to not be able to get around all that well.)  Well read, sophisticated guy.

Take care, my friend. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on June 02, 2008, 11:55:20 PM
I read .003% of Puget's sounds above, and most of it reminded me of some of my funny jokes, sorry if I piss off the QUEER COMMUNITY, but I'm not one to deny a good QUEER the right to go to S/C with his girlfriends and enjoy sychophantically that he is able to be employed in the bitch grooming business in some capacity from hair to shoe, etc., but really, puget, get a sense of humour will you??  That show, S/C, comes from a gay perspective in the sense of wonder at all measure of stupidity women come up with to "compete" with each other for men, and for Darrin Starr, I'm sure he doesn't consider it misogny that he looks at them as vapid survival of the fittest via Fendi, Prada, etc., because that would be wrong.  Is he sexist in the way he exploits their consumerism and lack of moral compass??  I don't know.  I'm not a fag judging and writing about women.  I'm a heterosexual making jokes.  I would say something insulting, but the problem with you is that you want the world to be like you want it to be and I'm comfortable making jokes about it as it is, for so much cut and paste, I almost feel like a restraining order or the casual "get a life" might be in order, but, I imagine you have a life, have fun with it, I'm sorry that I like poontang and you went to art school.  So fucking oh well, get over me, jagoff.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 03, 2008, 01:22:32 AM
Puge, whatever it is that you just said in the above post I agree with 100%.

Got rain out there in Seattle?  Hotter than an outlaws pistol in Dallas.  I'm sitting here in my shorts. My left leg is swollen.  I think I've got a blood clot in my foot and I'm waiting for it to break loose and kill me.  Mid-sentence, as it were.  I've got the air on 79-80° since I can't afford to have that little dot on the wheel of the electric meter go any faster than it already is.

I've got an Internet friend, lives in Portugal, a bit shy of 70.  he's written a memoir about his life (mostly on the East Coast.)  Would you like a link to that?  I can leave it for you in the message box.  Interesting guy.  He lived on Cyprus when I first met him (I was reading Colin Thubron's book on that country.)  He's thinking of coming back to the states to some sort of assisted living (he's got bad back problems and is starting to not be able to get around all that well.)  Well read, sophisticated guy.

Take care, my friend. 

Please get well. Please have your daughter or grandkids take you to a doctor. We need you here. A voice of common-sense & experience.

Yes, please send me your friend's address. We all need a support group as we enter "Modern Maturity."   ;)

It's still rainy & cloudy... summer doesn't start here until August and the Blue Angels.

I'm very pleased & happy with the gay rights forum. You & the other Elba writers give me hope for Equality someday...

When things get down, I sing that Jimmy Durante song "As Time Goes By."

Take care. Puget











Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on June 03, 2008, 02:07:03 AM
Well, the world is full of mommy's little "dreamers."


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 03, 2008, 02:21:51 AM
(http://www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/comicads/xray.jpg)

More Amazing Queer Studies Research


puget continues to redefine the "douchebag"

and I don't even remember those jokes

so thanks for a laugh

even if you don't have an original thought other than "proud queer" in your head. 




… but I'm not one to deny a good QUEER

the right to go to S/C with his girlfriends and enjoy sychophantically [sic] employed in the bitch grooming

Darrin Starr, I'm sure he doesn't consider it misogyny [sic]

I'm not a fag judging and writing about women.

I'm a heterosexual making jokes

I'm sorry that I like poontang

So fucking oh well, get over me, jagoff.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on June 03, 2008, 02:29:11 AM
jbottle....about sexism and misogyny....I don't think most women are offended at jokes about closets and shoes.  Spend a Saturday at a mall and you will observe that women do like clothes, shoes and makeup.  But most women are offended by men who refer to them in phrases and slang that reduces them to one dimension...

Donotremove...I hope you are able to get medical care for that foot.  It sounds serious.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on June 03, 2008, 05:28:28 AM
Puge,I corrected that post.  My friend, Jack, is gay, so naturally he's looking for a gay friendly place, although, truth be told he's a loner and the Portugal thing is financial, since Portugal is not known (as far as I know) as being overly gay friendly.  I've lost the link to his memoir and have asked him to send it to me again (I had to reformat after a crash and lost my bookmarks.)

Hoffman, yes, I'm a bit worried and have an appointment. Drat, my life is nothing like those commercials showing the elderly enjoying retirement. Note: I was reading about the stuff in plastic to see what's harmful to my great grand children's health (besides Chrissy, there's Dalton, now) and I came across the stuff that's in cosmetics of all kinds, including lotions and shampoos.  Oh me, woman.  READ THE LABELS. If it's got poly anything, Google before you buy.  And don't dye your hair!

In general, to whomever: Jbottle IS. You have to take that into consideration when reading his posts in whatever discussion.  And it depends on the time of day, too. When he's good, he's very, very good and when he's bad he's rash, rude and probably in his cups.  Most important, his humor is often hard to recognize. Off hand, I'd say let's keep him.   :)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 03, 2008, 07:25:51 AM
jbottle....about sexism and misogyny....I don't think most women are offended at jokes about closets and shoes.  Spend a Saturday at a mall and you will observe that women do like clothes, shoes and makeup.  But most women are offended by men who refer to them in phrases and slang that reduces them to one dimension...

Donotremove...I hope you are able to get medical care for that foot.  It sounds serious.

Yeah, a lot of chicks have that hang-up.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on June 03, 2008, 10:59:47 AM

Hoffman, yes, I'm a bit worried and have an appointment. Drat, my life is nothing like those commercials showing the elderly enjoying retirement. Note: I was reading about the stuff in plastic to see what's harmful to my great grand children's health (besides Chrissy, there's Dalton, now) and I came across the stuff that's in cosmetics of all kinds, including lotions and shampoos.  Oh me, woman.  READ THE LABELS. If it's got poly anything, Google before you buy.  And don't dye your hair!

In general, to whomever: Jbottle IS. You have to take that into consideration when reading his posts in whatever discussion.  And it depends on the time of day, too. When he's good, he's very, very good and when he's bad he's rash, rude and probably in his cups.  Most important, his humor is often hard to recognize. Off hand, I'd say let's keep him.   :)

Glad to hear you have that appointment.  Labels....I am the label queen.  Daughter cannot eat soy or yeast, husband cannot eat oxylates and needs low sugar/low cholesterol but doesn't really care for many vegetables, son and DIL are vegetarian and you would be surprised at hidden animal products.  The grocery store is always a trip.  But make-up, shampoos...when my daughter discovered she was allergic to soy, we went online to find soy free products.  It is quite surprising to know how few products don't contain soy....and it is not always labeled as soy.  For example, most lecithin on labels is soy based, vegetable oils, unless their source is specifically named, usually contain soy.  And even though this is a common allergy, it is not usually listed in the warnings.  Even the mineral based makeups contain soy.  Apparently it is a good binder. 

I've had to cover my gray since I was 23...I think I will have to hope for the best there  ;)



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on June 03, 2008, 11:46:15 AM
jbottle....about sexism and misogyny....I don't think most women are offended at jokes about closets and shoes.  Spend a Saturday at a mall and you will observe that women do like clothes, shoes and makeup.  But most women are offended by men who refer to them in phrases and slang that reduces them to one dimension...

Donotremove...I hope you are able to get medical care for that foot.  It sounds serious.

Yeah, a lot of chicks have that hang-up.

But you know Utley, a lot of roosters don't know that.  And the behavior seems conflicting because men often assume that women act the way they do for the sole purpose of attracting attention.  Women get ready to go out, flattering clothes, makeup, hair...and what most guys don't get is that it's not for them....it's for other women.

High heels...probably that's for men, but they do have a way of making one's legs look good.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 03, 2008, 01:49:16 PM
(http://www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/comicads/xray.jpg)

More Amazing Queer Studies Research

I’ve got this confession to make—I’ve been in a sort of sitcom dead-end funk for awhile.

I’ve been deeply engrossed with the boxed set of Desperate Housewives with Justin played by Ryan Carnes, the love interest of Andrew Van de Kamp, played by Shawn Pyfrom.

Carnes also starred in the 2004 film Eating Out & I’m looking forward to Trailer Park of Terror 2008. It’s been, well, simply  exhausting—all this intense Amazing Queer Studies Research into Desperate Housewives.

I haven’t seen any Sex and the City episodes—but recently checked out the imdb memorial quotes thingy. What an eye-opener. And I thought the Desperate Housewives were desperate.

The S/C dialog is tres risqué & naturally I was simply shocked. What a seminal goldmine for Amazing Queer Studies Research. Each quote left me deeply disturbed & desperate:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0159206/quotes

Stanford: It's so not fair. All the good ones are straight... even the gay ones.

Samantha: You have a lot of nerve telling me to get a wax. If you were in Aruba the natives could bead your back. And it's not just there: every time I blow you I feel like I'm flossing.

Samantha: There isn't enough wall space in New York City to hang all of my exes. Let me tell you, a lot of them were hung.

Samantha: Last night I could not stop thinking about a Big Mac. I finally had to get dressed, go out and pick up a guy.

Samantha: Well, I don't know how you people do it. All that emotional chow-chow. It's exhausting.

Samantha: What am I supposed to say? "Hi, this is my lesbian lover. And p.s.: I'm done with dick"?

Samantha: You've got to get online, honey. If only for the porn.

Miranda: Do any of you have a completely unremarkable friend or maybe a houseplant I could go to dinner with on Saturday night?

Miranda: I used to masturbate to a busboy who was rude to me once. What do you think that means? All right. The cheese stands alone.

Charlotte: Trey, you have a boner... I can't discuss my notes if you have a boner.

Samantha: Can we cut the cake? I have to go to a Three-way.

Miranda: After years of odd men, God is throwing me a bone.
Carrie: And possibly a boner as well.

Samantha: The country runs better with a good looking man in the White House. I mean, look what happened with Nixon; no one wanted to fuck him, so he fucked everyone.

Samantha: If we could perpetually do blowjobs to every guy on earth, we would own the world. And at the same time have our hands free.
Samantha: You men have no idea what we're dealing with down there. Teeth placement, and jaw stress, and suction, and gag reflex, and all the while bobbing up and down, moaning and trying to breathe through our noses. Easy? Honey, they don't call it a job for nothin'.

Carrie: Later that day I got to thinking about relationships. There are those that open you up to something new and exotic, those that are old and familiar, those that bring up lots of questions, those that bring you somewhere unexpected, those that bring you far from where you started, and those that bring you back. But the most exciting, challenging and significant relationship of all is the one you have with yourself. And if you can find someone to love the you you love, well, that's just fabulous.
 
Carrie: It was all very familiar. She was having a dejà-fuck.

Anthony Marantino: I am sleeping and walking! Sleeping and walking! How am I doing that?

Miranda: I'm dating skid-marks guy. When your boyfriend is so comfortable that he cannot be bothered to wipe his ass, there's a problem.

Carrie: I revealed too much too soon. I was emotionally slutty.

Carrie: The most important thing in life is your family. There are days you love them, and others you don't. But, in the end, they're the people you always come home to. Sometimes it's the family you're born into and sometimes it's the one you make for yourself.

Carrie: Man may have discovered fire, but women discovered how to play with it.




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 03, 2008, 02:16:52 PM
jbottle....about sexism and misogyny....I don't think most women are offended at jokes about closets and shoes.  Spend a Saturday at a mall and you will observe that women do like clothes, shoes and makeup.  But most women are offended by men who refer to them in phrases and slang that reduces them to one dimension...

Donotremove...I hope you are able to get medical care for that foot.  It sounds serious.

Yeah, a lot of chicks have that hang-up.

But you know Utley, a lot of roosters don't know that.  And the behavior seems conflicting because men often assume that women act the way they do for the sole purpose of attracting attention.  Women get ready to go out, flattering clothes, makeup, hair...and what most guys don't get is that it's not for them....it's for other women.

High heels...probably that's for men, but they do have a way of making one's legs look good.

Yeah, well, a lot of us do get women. We understand them, their worries, their concerns, their need to seek approval for their opinions, their grasp of the obvious, their capacity to anticipate others' feelings, and how their whining isn't complaining, but rather just a way of thinking out loud and examining the options. Her need for approval and her need to be seen as not needing approval. 
 
The biggest problem any woman can truly have, though, is a man that understands her.

It rattles her. It shakes her to the core. It's what she wants, and what she spurns at the same time. The twin sides of the female heart is pulled in two directions, and she finds herself in need of other women who can explain it to her...and they try, but they cannot..for they are as confused as she is, and they are jealous...and wish the man in their lives understood them as well as the man in the other woman's.





Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on June 03, 2008, 02:49:27 PM
Tell me about high heels, Hoffman.  Back when I could still do such things, I went to parties, now and then, in drag.  My red, spangled dress still hangs in the closet over my red spangled shoes sitting directly underneath on the floor.  Makes me smile to see them.  Then I remember how miserable my feet (especially my toes) felt after about an hour in those heels.  However, I got lots of "Hey! Great legs, Doug."  Yes, I shaved my legs.  Unshaven legs in panty hose gives you a sense of the creepy-crawlies. Alas, such shenanigans all long gone now, but the memories linger.

That red dress.  You think I should be buried in it?  Bound to be a show stopper at the funeral.

What women want, and think?  If you listen carefully they'll tell you.  But it's like deciphering sanskrit.  Lots of your "eureka" moments (like in, "Oh, this is what you mean") will bring forth withering looks of dismissal.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 03, 2008, 02:51:32 PM
A woman never says what she means, but she means what she says.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on June 03, 2008, 02:53:16 PM
Utley...it doesn't sound to me that you view women as one dimensional.  But the need to be understood is not just a female thing.  Women seem to express it differently than do men and as you pointed out, it involves verbal communication.  Men are different in that they seem comfortable when they are doing something with their mate....the companionship is more important than verbal communication....except when it comes to expressing admiration.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on June 03, 2008, 02:55:56 PM
Tell me about high heels, Hoffman.  Back when I could still do such things, I went to parties, now and then, in drag.  My red, spangled dress still hangs in the closet over my red spangled shoes sitting directly underneath on the floor.  Makes me smile to see them.  Then I remember how miserable my feet (especially my toes) felt after about an hour in those heels.  However, I got lots of "Hey! Great legs, Doug."  Yes, I shaved my legs.  Unshaven legs in panty hose gives you a sense of the creepy-crawlies. Alas, such shenanigans all long gone now, but the memories linger.

That red dress.  You think I should be buried in it?  Bound to be a show stopper at the funeral.

What women want, and think?  If you listen carefully they'll tell you.  But it's like deciphering sanskrit.  Lots of your "eureka" moments (like in, "Oh, this is what you mean") will bring forth withering looks of dismissal.

Red Dress (I want one of those)  LOVE IT!!!!!!  And aren't you full of surprises.   :D


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on June 03, 2008, 02:58:08 PM
A woman never says what she means, but she means what she says.

What are you saying here? ;)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 03, 2008, 03:00:45 PM
Utley...it doesn't sound to me that you view women as one dimensional.  But the need to be understood is not just a female thing.  Women seem to express it differently than do men and as you pointed out, it involves verbal communication.  Men are different in that they seem comfortable when they are doing something with their mate....the companionship is more important than verbal communication....except when it comes to expressing admiration.

Far from it...not one-dimensional, just far less complex than the view a woman prefers for herself...

I work with women, I live with women, and women are waaay different than men.

I am as comfortable saying "vive le differance!" as the next man...as long as the next man is not a woman pretending to be a man...;)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 03, 2008, 03:02:10 PM
A woman never says what she means, but she means what she says.

What are you saying here? ;)

Oh, I was just getting in touch with my feminine side.  Reserving the right to redefine my previous comments...you know.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: harrie on June 03, 2008, 03:03:09 PM
The biggest problem any woman can truly have, though, is a man that understands her.

It rattles her. It shakes her to the core. It's what she wants, and what she spurns at the same time. The twin sides of the female heart is pulled in two directions, and she finds herself in need of other women who can explain it to her...and they try, but they cannot..for they are as confused as she is, and they are jealous...and wish the man in their lives understood them as well as the man in the other woman's.

Okay, I don't regularly contribute to this forum, so I'm probably speaking out of turn, but I find the above perhaps well-intentioned but slightly patronizing.  It reeks of "Oh, poor women don't know what they want; and when they get a man who gets them -- heavens to Betsy, but they're all aflutter and don't know what to do."  Scarlett O'Hara's dead.  (It's either leave it at that or write 5 pages, so I'm leaving it at that.)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on June 03, 2008, 03:05:06 PM
Utley...Not one of those guys who hates women in pants are you?  I will give you that Mrs. Clinton has given pants an unforgettable image over the past few months....the woman makes millions, you'd think she could hire a tailor who would make her clothes flattering.  Either that or work out those glutes.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on June 03, 2008, 03:11:44 PM
Harrie...there is something to what Utley says.  On the one hand there is the need to find someone who truly understands you, on the other hand, there is the saying "familiarity breeds contempt." 

I think that is why it is important for even old couples to go out on dates and to look for ways to surprise one another.  It sort of keeps the aura of mystery and romance alive. 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on June 03, 2008, 03:13:08 PM
Although I wouldn't agree with a blanket statement that women are afraid to be understood.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 03, 2008, 03:48:25 PM
Although I wouldn't agree with a blanket statement that women are afraid to be understood.

Of course you wouldn't. It would reveal the great truth about women. Admitting so would be saying you were understood, and you're not ready for that.

I understand.

Really.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 03, 2008, 03:50:53 PM
Scarlett O'Hara's dead.

No, she's just playing possum in her feminist clothes. Underneath, she's what nature intended her to be...vulnerable from within...holding close her secrets and wanting and waiting for the right man to come along and unlock her hidden desires...

Which could be as mundane as wishing he'd pick up the check.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: harrie on June 03, 2008, 04:04:22 PM
Scarlett O'Hara's dead.

No, she's just playing possum in her feminist clothes. Underneath, she's what nature intended her to be...vulnerable from within...holding close her secrets and wanting and waiting for the right man to come along and unlock her hidden desires...

Which could be as mundane as wishing he'd pick up the check.

I want to call you a sexist pig, but can't seem to fight the urge to pick up a Harlequin romance instead....


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 03, 2008, 04:06:20 PM
Scarlett O'Hara's dead.

No, she's just playing possum in her feminist clothes. Underneath, she's what nature intended her to be...vulnerable from within...holding close her secrets and wanting and waiting for the right man to come along and unlock her hidden desires...

Which could be as mundane as wishing he'd pick up the check.

I want to call you a sexist pig, but can't seem to fight the urge to pick up a Harlequin romance instead....

LOL.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on June 04, 2008, 12:50:45 PM
Puge, here's the link to the memoir I mentioned:

http://www.nycnotkansas.com/


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on June 04, 2008, 02:30:58 PM
The moon has a weird effect on the personality of the woman-half of the species.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on June 04, 2008, 11:19:56 PM
Oh, sorry, I meant the "Man-God Orb."


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 04, 2008, 11:23:52 PM
(http://www.pierretristam.com/Images/delon.jpg)

When My World Was

http://www.nycnotkansas.com/YellowBrickRoad.htm

“And those magazines are still hidden on the top shelf of my closet, sitting there like a silent reproach.”

Now all we have to do is push a button & beefcake jumps out at us—or rather it just kinda oozes out of your computer screen. How lucky the younger glbtq generation is—altho in some ways their existence is just as problematic & precarious as ours.

Donotremove, I’m thoroughly enjoying this year-by-year gay autobiography. Your friend is an excellent writer—and the photo-artwork enhances the story immensely. I’m reading thru it tonight & will discuss things as we go along. So many astute & charming insights. Thank you.




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 05, 2008, 04:14:03 AM
(http://www.pierretristam.com/Images/delon.jpg)

Down the Yellow Brick Road (1956-1960)

http://www.nycnotkansas.com/YellowBrickRoad.htm

This “coming-out” scene with his parents is just priceless. It’s both hilarious & horrible—if such a thing is possible. But then anything back in the ‘50s was possible—the same now I suppose.

The father & mother such control freaks...
________

He turned off the car, gripped the steering wheel and looking straight ahead not at me, asked:  "Are you a homo......................
(at least a three beat pause) sexual?"
 
"Yes, I am."
 
He was gripping the wheel so hard I thought it would break and tics were shooting down the side of his face like lightening:
"....................are you a Communist too?"
 
"WHAT??!!"
 
Though I was petrified of him, this was a moment I almost laughed - I knew we were lost.  We had just slipped into Rod Serling's Twilight Zone and I was sitting next to the captain of the Titanic.
 
When I entered the house my mother confronted me in the dining room: "It's not true you're a homo................(same pause) sexual, is it?"
 
"Yes, it is."
 
She ran into the living room, threw herself full length onto the couch and cried out, "That means I'll never have any grandchildren!!"
 
"Fairy" I might have expected.  But this:  Commie?  Failed stud bull?
 
I was ordered to sit down in the living room with my parents and my aunt.  She was my mother's widowed sister who had lived with us until she had remarried when I was nine.  My father began a shouting tirade and worked himself into a fury.  I was certain that he was about to leap out of his chair and beat me to a pulp.  I was shaking.  I had nothing to lose now.  The worm turned.  I shouted at the top of my lungs:  "I hate you.  And I've always hated you!" 
 
My father looked as if he'd been hit in the face with a baseball bat.  He put his hand over his eyes and sank back in his chair.  Too many times he had been a terrifying bully - I was not sorry.
 
Curiously neither religion nor morals seemed to figure very large in their dismay.   In the years to come that continued to be the case.  To my father it seemed to be almost too much to even put into words, but I can remember that he sat there in the living room that day and said, very emphatically," I know it's nothing I did.....," then after a long pause he rushed to add, "and it's not your mother's fault either."  Considering the content of  many of his past battles with her, I seriously doubt that he was honestly convinced of the truth of the latter. 
 
In these early days my mother's focus was almost exclusively on my destiny as a breeder.  My mother loathed the body, and was obsessed with "dirtiness" in every form imaginable; sex horrified her as if it were like having a tarantula in your underwear.  Despite an unceasing lament about not having other children, she refused as often as possible to have sex.  It was not surprising, therefore, that my expected production of a litter of kids loomed very large in her thoughts.   In a very bold statement, considering my mother and father's sex life, she asked, "How do you know you don't like sex with women?"  (I had not made any such declaration.)  "When you get married you'll like it."  I told her that I'd done it many times and that I knew I preferred it with guys.  Her mouth dropped open and she snapped, "With who?"  With who?  Four years with the same girl, and she can't guess?  When I said her name my mother let go with a series of gasping whoops and her eyes began to bug out so that I was afraid that she was having an apoplectic fit.  Then matricide could have been added to my bill of indictment. 
 
My aunt was the only one who thought about what being homosexual might do to my life.  She had listened as my parents and I had shouted, accused and threatened, and then she said with a sad look on her face:  "I worry that people will want to hurt you because of it."  No dummy she.
 
[In retrospect my father's fear that I might also be a Communist as well as a homosexual were hardly as ridiculous as I thought at the time.  I was young enough during the McCarthy era to have paid only superficial attention to what was going on, and, thus, was ignorant of the extent to which a gay witch hunt was part of it.  However, even in the late Fifties, newspaper columnist Lee Mortimer was able make hay with the same association.]



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 05, 2008, 04:51:06 AM
(http://www.pierretristam.com/Images/delon.jpg)

Down the Yellow Brick Road (1956-1960)

http://www.nycnotkansas.com/YellowBrickRoad.htm

I had learned growing up that being "American" wasn't a clear cut matter, that some of us were other things (Italian, Catholic, black, etc.), and that these other identities/loyalties were not usually looked at very positively in the predominant WASP view.  Despite the ambivalence that might arise, these other - conflicting - identities were often sources of pride and reassurance.  In retrospect, I think this experience was probably something that made my transition into "gay life" more comprehensible to me, and a bit easier.   While this previous knowledge and experience (of counter-identities) did not reduce the pain and fear that anti-gay hostility and discrimination would cause, it did make the plain fact of being part of an inassimilable minority far less remarkable than it must seem for many young white Americans today, most of whom probably lack the experience of having a counter-identity.  With the fading of European ethnic identification and the declining appeal of ethnic religious orthodoxies, I wonder if today's younger white queers might not sometimes feel more put upon by American society in some respects - despite the academic doctrines and reassurances of Queer Theory - because they lack any personal pre-coming out experience of sustaining identities outside the mainstream.  Perhaps this may explain in part why assimilation and the compulsion to emulate hetero-normative lifestyles have become so pronounced in the post-AIDS era. 




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 05, 2008, 04:58:50 AM
(http://www.pierretristam.com/Images/delon.jpg)

Down the Yellow Brick Road (1956-1960)

http://www.nycnotkansas.com/YellowBrickRoad.htm

The bar was owned by a middle-aged straight woman, Connie, a loud-mouthed homophobe who often tended bar and enjoyed baiting her customers.   A few customers would quietly slip a low-keyed sarcastic remark back to her, but Johnnie, one of the older guys had no compunctions about engaging her in brutal duels of mocking insult, especially if he'd had one too many - these were never conducted quietly.   The fact that she didn't throw him out (that I can recall) even though she was inevitably made a fool of, says to me that she realized that she was operating a gold mine.  I don't know how well the place did during the day (when it was probably straight), but at night in this retail neighborhood she would have been dying without a bar full of gay guys.  In her manic moods she presented herself provocatively, even pulling her skirt more than halfway up and jiggling her boobs, however the amount of pork she carried on a short frame and an over-estimation of her feminine charms made this a no-class act.   One time when she was yelling at Johnnie because he had used some language she didn't like, she made the mistake of saying, "I'm a lady, and don't you talk like that to me!"  He looked at her with abject hatred written all over his face and spat out, "Pull your skirt over your head and say that!"   She went berserk, but he just kept repeating his remark.

Johnnie, Connie's adversary, and Don, the pianist, had a repertoire of anecdotes about past gay life in Syracuse.  One of them concerned Ada Keep.  According to them, she had run a "whorehouse" in the city, which had a bar that was patronized by gay men.  One of her older customers was nicknamed "Washroom Alice" from his habit of hanging around the entrance to the men's room and following customers in.  At one point some of Ada's bar customers got in trouble with the law.  When their court appearance was announced Ada, dressed in her best - and probably with a wicked gleam in her eye - attended and took a seat in the very front of the courtroom.  So the story went, as the judge entered and everyone rose, Ada said in a loud voice, "That's Washroom Alice!"  Case dismissed.




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on June 05, 2008, 05:00:14 AM
Thanks for that excerpt, Puge. It's been a long time since I've read the beginning. And the gay hunt by McCarthy remark just now went POP-POP-POP in my brain (Angels in America, Cohen in the closet.)  OF COURSE.  Thank goodness the text size gets larger as he progresses.  This first part is hard on my eyes.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 05, 2008, 05:10:31 AM
(http://www.pierretristam.com/Images/delon.jpg)

Down the Yellow Brick Road (1956-1960)

http://www.nycnotkansas.com/YellowBrickRoad.htm

He writes so well, Donotremove. And it's so "campy" too.

I'll close tonight with this little Syracuse anecdote of his.

Thanks again for the link.

__________

If last year’s “most unforgettable character” in the Syracuse gay world had  been Daisy, this year’s was Midnight Mary.  Mary was a legend in her own time, and I heard her story before I ever met her.  She liked to dress in drag – always black outfits, hence her nom de drag – and sometimes came downtown in the evening to stroll around.  On one such excursion, wearing a smart sheath dress, hat with veil and patent leather purse and high heels, she boarded a bus heading down to Salina Street, the main street.  She rang for her stop and got up to exit from the front door, however, she was unable to manage stepping down as her dress was too tight and her heels too high for her descent to the sidewalk. The bus driver got out of his seat, slipped past her down to the street and gallantly assisted her.
 
I was introduced to Mary in the Bell Room.  She was a very slim man, pale and gaunt-faced, probably in his late thirties, but possibly older. Mary’s hair was a brassy chemical blond, slicked back and very long for a man’s haircut of that era.  While her eyebrows were plucked and she wore mascara, she was of course not in the bar in drag - though even her non-drag outfits were usually all black.  Connie seemed to waver between fascination and incredulousness where Mary was concerned, and she would engage Mary in rather loud conversations from behind the bar, which usually ended with Connie shaking her head in disbelief.
 
Surprisingly, I think now, I was not put off by Mary and we always chatted awhile when she came into the bar.  Perhaps it was the fact that she had a rather “hard” demeanor that lurked not far beneath the feminine mannerisms, or maybe it was that she owned and operated a small truck line. (My father did the same thing, so perhaps Mary was emerging as some kind of Oedipal alter-lodestar on my psychological horizon.)

One winter night after my class at the University College we ran into each other in the Downtown Show Bar.  A blizzard had started late in the day, and by the time we left the snow was knee-high everywhere and drifts were piling up in the streets.  We decided to walk together toward the Hill as Mary lived in the same direction.  The streets were empty until we saw a guy trying to shovel his car out of a drift he’d swerved into.  Mary said if we could push him out, he’d probably give us a ride.  “Butch it up,” she admonished me as we approached him.  We did manage to get him free, and as she had thought he gratefully offered us a ride. As we went around to the passenger side, Mary said, “I’ll sit next to him and do the talking so he doesn’t know we’re gay.  You just sit there.”  I did.  She did.  And I cannot imagine what he thought.  The freezing cold and howling blizzard reminded Mary of Montreal, which is where she went on her annual shopping trips for women’s clothes.  Mary got so carried away she didn’t even have to say the words “drag queen,” as she sounded like a recording of Women’s Wear Daily for the blind.
 
The man looked over at me finally, and asked, “And what do you do?”
 
My shopping was considerably less interesting, of course, so I simply said, “I’m a student.”
 
He looked at me, he looked at Mary.  I disobeyed her order and asked him what he did.  It seemed like an overdue courtesy as Mary hadn’t asked him jackshit about himself.
 
“I’m a policeman.”
 
A very weak, “Oh,” was all I could manage as Mary had wedged six inches of her elbow between two of my ribs, and I could feel my left lung collapsing.
 
When he let us off, Mary gave me a furious look.  “I told you to keep your mouth shut!”  And she turned on her heel (fortunately not a high one this evening) and stalked away, looking like a black egret picking its way fastidiously through the drifts.




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on June 05, 2008, 08:45:15 AM
 . . . collapsing lungs and  black egrets picking their way fastidiously . . . .

By the gods, Puge, that story is delicious.  His writing is so very good.  I wonder if he ever intends to submit to a publisher?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 05, 2008, 04:15:58 PM
SEATTLE (AP) - Most of the time, a kiss is just a kiss in the stands at Seattle Mariners games. The crowd hardly even pays attention when fans smooch.
But then last week, a lesbian complained that an usher at Safeco Field asked her to stop kissing her date because it was making another fan uncomfortable.

The incident has exploded on local TV, on talk radio and in the blogosphere and has touched off a debate over public displays of affection in generally gay-friendly Seattle.

"Certain individuals have not yet caught up. Those people see a gay or lesbian couple and they stare or say something," said Josh Friedes of Equal Rights Washington. "This is one of the challenges of being gay. Everyday things can become sources of trauma."

As the Mariners played the Boston Red Sox on May 26, Sirbrina Guerrero and her date were approached in the third inning by an usher who told them their kissing was inappropriate, Guerrero said.

The usher, Guerrero said, told them he had received a complaint from a woman nearby who said that there were kids in the crowd of nearly 36,000 and that parents would have to explain why two women were kissing.

"I was really just shocked," Guerrero said. "Seattle is so gay- friendly. There was a couple like seven rows ahead making out. We were just showing affection."

On Thursday, after an internal investigation, the Mariners said in a news release that their seating staff had acted appropriately, and the couple was approached because of their behavior—which included "making out" and "groping" in the stands—and not their sexual orientation.

"We have a strict nondiscrimination policy at the Seattle Mariners and at Safeco Field, and when we do enforce the code of conduct it is based on behavior, not on the identity of those involved," Mariners spokeswoman Rebecca Hale said earlier this week.


A kiss is just a kiss...maybe.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 05, 2008, 04:22:01 PM
Amen, Mariners.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 05, 2008, 05:15:46 PM

A kiss is just a kiss...maybe.


What if this incident happened in NY, CA, MA, VT where "gay marriage" is recognized?

A married lesbian couple in the baseball stands kissing each other?

You know, like straight married couples do every once in awhile?

I've seen straight couples kiss & hug each other all the time...

Married or otherwise...

With kids around...

During baseball games, football games, movies, in the mall, everywhere...

So, sooner or later, GLBTQ couples are going to have to cross that PC barrier too, I suppose...

Go Mariners... maybe.











Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 05, 2008, 06:44:51 PM
(http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/0cc/363/0cc363bc-ecf3-4d56-a72a-b4a059fd2dce)

Redefining “douchebag”


“puget continues to redefine the "douchebag"


I’m shocked—simply shocked.

I’ve been called many snarky things by trolls, miscreants & evil former lovers—but never anything as shocking & tacky as “douchebag.”

I take the use of word “douchebag” very seriously—especially in regard to the famous Jbottle Douchebag Law that everybody surely knows by now:



"Jbottle' Law," more generally is that the longer an ad homenim [sic] exchange goes on, the likelihood of one participant or the other is a "doucebag" [sic] approaches certainty.


Now, in all sincerity, I hesitate to continue this so-called “ad hominem” thread since I might seem to appear somewhat of a “douchebag” myself just talking about it—however given the shocking misspellings of “douchebag” & “ad hominem” in the above Jbottle post, I see it as my literary obligation as a conscientious littérateur to briefly opine & hopefully clarify certain things about this troubling “douchebag” syntax.

Let’s see now—where should we begin? Why not look at contemporary Elba usage of this rather skanky term?

First, the charming Jbottle definition:



“Thank god Hilary will be handing in her douchebag, ICKY HAROLD, and the rest of the gang that couldn't shoot straight, tomorrow.”


Then there’s the astute MrUtley definition:


“So, for those few, here's a hanky, the ladies room is --->
where a douchebag like you belongs.”


And then, another Jbottle quickie:


“Our governor is one of the biggest douchebags of all the governors nationwide...” 


Followed by the always lucid Urethra_Franklin:

http://forums.escapefromelba.com/index.php/topic,50.msg52609.html#msg52609

“Paranoid douchebag conspiracy”

And last but not least:


“Said the old douchebag.”


Of course, these uses of “douchebag” really don’t define what a “douchebag” is—so let’s turn to a more extended online analysis by both the esteemed forumites MrUtley & Luee who make an excellent distinction between the term “douchebag” & the equally problematic word “assclown”—a very important distinction indeed.


"Whatever, you're a douchebag, he is a douchebag, I am one, everybody is a douchebag."
 
I don't think you can get away with that. We can't ALL be douchebags.

Quite frankly, by your own definition, "My preference in descriptive terminology for nasty clueless types is the more contemporary assclown. When someone personally attacks posters by calling them an inanimate object or an entire nation a wild animal they are douchebags or assclowns."

Only YOU qualify as a "douchebag". You don't get to turn that around and send it back our way.

So, from now on, I think we need to call you luee-douche'.

It sounds so French, too.

Luee-Douche'!

Mange du merde et meurt, pute!” 


For those of you who don’t know French, here is the translation of the above naughty Frenchy phrase:

“Eat fuck and die, whore!”

Naturally I’m shocked—simply shocked!!

But let’s try to calmly conclude this syntactical & somewhat oxymoronic thespian exercise in futility:

The word “assclown” dovetails rather nicely into our little discussion of the word “douchebag.” Far be it from me to arbitrarily define what either “douchebag” or “assclown” means—since the above Elba posters probably know much more in depth about these intimate words than me…   ;D

Forgive me if I tread where Angels fear to tread—after all for all I know I could indeed be unwittingly both a “douchebag” & an “assclown”!!! Heaven forbid—surely nobody thinks I qualify for both louche characterizations????

Although, I must agree with Jbottle that perhaps I’m trying redefine what “douchebag” means or could possibly mean in the context of an ongoing ad hominem argument. Whose ad hominem argument though?

For example, I must confess that my being a “proud queer” may appear to Jbottle as a pompous ridiculous pose—but really pride in the sense of “gay pride” actually has nothing to do with it. “Pride” is just another 5-letter word for nothing else to lose.

What GLBTQ people have had to go thru to get “gay marriage” on the books in NY & CA & VT & MA is more the story of trampled pride & swallowing one’s pride & trying to maintain a modicum of pride in the face of ongoing day-to-day homophobia which most straights don’t understand or comprehend—legally, emotionally or existentially.

There’s this “ad hominem” Thread going on inside our heads—it’s like a tape-loop that’s been going on for a long time now.

Elba has helped me redefine what it is—thru an ongoing day-to-day dialog with others. It's not only a gay dialog—it's a state-to-state dialog.

It’s about one thing—What is a Gay American?



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 05, 2008, 07:16:43 PM

A kiss is just a kiss...maybe.


What if this incident happened in NY, CA, MA, VT where "gay marriage" is recognized?

A married lesbian couple in the baseball stands kissing each other?

You know, like straight married couples do every once in awhile?

I've seen straight couples kiss & hug each other all the time...

Married or otherwise...

With kids around...

During baseball games, football games, movies, in the mall, everywhere...

So, sooner or later, GLBTQ couples are going to have to cross that PC barrier too, I suppose...

Go Mariners... maybe.



Well, if you read what I read, I think they were getting a bit carried away, and I don't give a shit who you are, PDA that is OOC should be discouraged...strongly...

for anyone.












Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 05, 2008, 08:48:35 PM
Lesbian kiss at Seattle ballpark stirs debate
By MANUEL VALDES – 3 hours ago

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOad7MrHB-xGaWYJAIvKTV0eAZugD9145DJ02

Guerrero denied she and her date were groping each other, saying that along with eating garlic fries, they were giving each other brief kisses.

On Tuesday, Guerrero said a Mariners director of guest services had apologized to her. The team spokeswoman could not immediately confirm that.

Web sites have been swamped with blog postings for and against Guerrero and her date. And the story has people talking in Seattle.

In 2007, an Oregon transit agency chief apologized after a lesbian teenager was kicked off a bus when a passenger complained about her kissing another girl.

Also in 2007, a gay rights group protested a Kansas City, Mo., restaurant they said ejected four women because two of them kissed, and a Texas state trooper was placed on probation in 2004 for telling two gay men who were kissing at the state Capitol that homosexual conduct was illegal in Texas.

"There's a double standard. That's the bottom line," said Pat Griffin, director of the It Takes a Team! Education Campaign, an initiative from the Women's Sports Foundation to eliminate homophobia in sports."



__________________________________________



So anyway, MrUtley, I'm like you. I'm only reading what I read. I wasn't there. I wasn't a witness. It's all hearsay as far as I'm concerned.

It does open up the issue of homophobia & sports, a topic I'm not particularly interested in.

Since most of the Elba activity centers around sports, I'm sure there are many negative opinions.

So I'm staying out of this one. I'm more the literary type dontchaknow.
   8)






Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 05, 2008, 09:16:34 PM
(http://www.pierretristam.com/Images/delon.jpg)

Camp—Theory & Practice

—from “Down the Yellow Brick Road”

http://www.nycnotkansas.com/YellowBrickRoad.htm

Donotremove—I found these 2 paragraphs in the online gay autobiography very interesting. They pretty much cut thru all the academic yakity-yak about “camp” being a transgressive postmodern performance art & all that…

When actually it was a realistic down-to-earth pessimistic reaction of most NYC cosmopolitan gays to the draconian police repression & Mafia business arrangements of the gay bars in the Big Apple.

Before Stonewall in 1968—being gay was more like being exiled to the Gulag Archipelago. Reading the memoirs of what it was like back then in “Down the Yellow Brick Road” is a real eye-opener even for me. I knew things were bad but not that bad. Why live in such a crummy rat-hole one might ask.? I wouldn’t want to have lived there then. Or now either. They can take NYC & stuff it.

After the NYTimes Readers Group fiasco—I don’t think things have changed that much. At least with the NYTimes & the publishing-journalism racket. They can have that too. I could give a flying F about the NYTimes—look what they did to Gore Vidal & recently to dead Hart Crane. Nothing like kicking a dead guy who can’t talk back…

So camp isn’t funny to me—it’s pretty pessimistic. Critics can call it “self-loathing” all they want—it’s true. The way most gays & lesbians deal with homophobia is chicken-shit anyway. If you’re living in a “No Exit” situation, then it’s easy to dish both straights & gays. NYC sucks…

“Nowadays the much celebrated "transgressive" aspect of camp is part of queer theory orthodoxy.  What's ignored is that camp was based on an unrelenting cynicism not just about the straight world, but about everything -- and this included even the gay world.  Twenty minutes of relentless camping, and it was like the air had been sucked out of the room.  Ultimately there was nothing - and no one - that couldn't be ridiculed and demolished in the spirit of camping.  If the bitchy heroines of camp were ready to go down defiantly with all flags flying against straights, they were also happily willing to undermine their gay "sisters" with just as much fervor.  But then, why not?  Internalized homophobia - self-loathing, to put it less antiseptically - was so prevalent that it could have been in the beer.”
 
“Much of the temper of the gay life I had been exposed to was cynical to the point of misanthropy.  While psychologists, sociologists and gay commentators have written endlessly about the reasons for the pervasive negativity in gay life of this time, the bottom line was that I found it thoroughly unpleasant and demoralizing to live with whatever those reasons may have been.”


 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on June 05, 2008, 11:00:54 PM
Puge, I'm not feeling well this evening--nauseous and waves of heat rolling over me--so this will be short.

I don't understand the douche bag analogy.  A douche bag holds water and usually some sort of cleansing agent, like vinegar, that works on gravity to deliver this solution to a woman's vaginal canal.  So, if the reference is cunt, why wouldn't the douch baggers just say cunt and be done with it?  Like, saying right out, bottom feeder or scum bag or dog shit.

He's right about camp.  Viscious stuff, that, oftentimes.  So much of the "gay scene" is the dance of the seven veils. Why?  Because of the history and the reality of how "things" ARE, and the drumbeat, shamefully different, shamefully different, shamefully different.

I'm convinced that gays just want to live a normal life with their partner.  Why is this so hard when the only difference from the straights is the partner of choice? With normal mixing of gays and straights, the destructive elements that gays beat themselves and each other with would wither and die away.  But gays are thrown together by reason of being "outside" and their activities and entertainment descends quickly into "Boys In The Band."  With so many channels closed off, is it a wonder that so many gays are walking wounded?

You'll have to call me on it if I go astray, since I am not gay and as a straight am outside the gay experience.  But I have been seriously interested since there are gays (most now deceased) on both sides of my family--all perfectly normal people from what I could see--and my son was gay (also deceased) and such a wonderful son he was.

Anyway, douche bag is a puzzlement to me.  When people feel like cutting me a new cyber space ass hole, I would think that standard English usage would serve them quite well.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Lhoffman on June 06, 2008, 01:22:36 AM
Very impressive post on on the whole DB issue, Pugetopolis. 

On the ballpark....I'm out of step here, but I don't like PDA's.  It's always seemed rude to me...and probably makes those not participating feel quite lonesome.   Of course my daughter disagrees....her attitude has always been,  if you feel it, why not show it.  (Boy didn't we have a BLAST during her dating years...)

I'm guessing that the ballpark doesn't have a leg to stand on in this case.  Most parks these days have those "kisscam" things to encourge couples.  Were they meaning to encourage only certain couples?  Ours often highlights couples where the female has lots of blond hair and is usually sporting a tank top that's two sizes too small.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on June 06, 2008, 03:40:56 AM
Puge, look in your Melba message box.

Hoffman, I hear you on the blonde in the two-sizes-too-small tank top.   ;D


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 06, 2008, 12:56:08 PM
Lesbian kiss at Seattle ballpark stirs debate
By MANUEL VALDES – 3 hours ago

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOad7MrHB-xGaWYJAIvKTV0eAZugD9145DJ02

Guerrero denied she and her date were groping each other, saying that along with eating garlic fries, they were giving each other brief kisses.

On Tuesday, Guerrero said a Mariners director of guest services had apologized to her. The team spokeswoman could not immediately confirm that.

Web sites have been swamped with blog postings for and against Guerrero and her date. And the story has people talking in Seattle.

In 2007, an Oregon transit agency chief apologized after a lesbian teenager was kicked off a bus when a passenger complained about her kissing another girl.

Also in 2007, a gay rights group protested a Kansas City, Mo., restaurant they said ejected four women because two of them kissed, and a Texas state trooper was placed on probation in 2004 for telling two gay men who were kissing at the state Capitol that homosexual conduct was illegal in Texas.

"There's a double standard. That's the bottom line," said Pat Griffin, director of the It Takes a Team! Education Campaign, an initiative from the Women's Sports Foundation to eliminate homophobia in sports."



__________________________________________



So anyway, MrUtley, I'm like you. I'm only reading what I read. I wasn't there. I wasn't a witness. It's all hearsay as far as I'm concerned.

It does open up the issue of homophobia & sports, a topic I'm not particularly interested in.

Since most of the Elba activity centers around sports, I'm sure there are many negative opinions.

So I'm staying out of this one. I'm more the literary type dontchaknow.
   8)






Clearly you can try to make this issue a homophobic one, but the Seattle case is not a case of homophobia, it's a case of two people letting their sexual feelings for each other cause them to forget that they are in a public venue that is not designated for the kind of activity that they felt everyone should be willing to witness.

It wasn't because they were gay.

It was because they were explicitly all over each other at a ballgame...

I wouldn't have gone to the usher to complain. That's too polite. I would have said, "Get a friggin' room or get the frug outta hear!"

But that's northeast baseball for you...we're a little more vocal than the Pac West fans.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 06, 2008, 07:02:30 PM
Take Another Look

Sam Nunn, former Democrat US senator from Georgia, said June 3 it's time to reassess the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported June 4 that Nunn said "it's appropriate to take another look" at the 15-year-old rule, like any personnel policy of that age, and "see how it's working, ask the hard questions, [and] hear from the military." He made these comments after a seminar in Atlanta on national service. The ex-lawmaker, who was instrumental in establishing "don't ask, don't tell" in 1993 early in the Clinton Administration, would not say whether he personally supports putting an end to it, the newspaper said. Nunn's comments came only days after the death of Charles Moskos, a retired sociology professor who was the architect of the controversial policy. Moskos, 74, died May 31 of cancer. (Click here for Associated Press piece on his death.) And just last month, an ousted Air Force Reserve flight nurse won an appeal in federal court that may give her another shot at reinstatement.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Pages/default.aspx



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 06, 2008, 07:19:43 PM
All military personnel has the right to know if their colleagues are homosexers.



It's simple a health precaution, considering that over 90 % of America's current AIDS patients are homosexuals.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 06, 2008, 11:53:15 PM
That should get you promoted to a Sergeant by your handlers...

Maybe it'll even get you a "raise."


 8) 8) 8)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on June 07, 2008, 12:25:04 AM
DetW, if the military services allowed gays to serve openly then everyone, gay or straight, would "know."


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: jbottle on June 07, 2008, 04:14:04 AM
Puget:  Go ahead and sign up if you are ready to serve your country in wartime, otherwise stay out of shit you know nothing about, you reveal your ignorance every time you post more than five words, and you hide behind some kind of you're here, you're queer shield that nobody respects especially since you can't talk worth a fuck.  You should consider reading before posting, or taking community college classes to approach logic or critical analysis, but not the "anal-ysis," where you have your head up your own ass, the kind where you think before you demonstrate your idiocy.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on June 07, 2008, 05:43:18 AM
Jbot, does gay bashing make you feel good?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 07, 2008, 06:22:21 AM
The moon has a weird effect on the personality of the woman-half of the species.

Booze has a weird effect on the personality of certain male brain-dead child-idiots who think they’re God’s gift to men & women in the Blogosphere.

The only problem is that booze is boring & kills brain-cells—it’ a sad & tragic way to go. There’s this guy over in another forum—he’s got one single neuron left. He’s like a broken record—it goes on & on like some kind of tacky TV Guide that won’t quit.

What’s truly entertaining isn’t what he says—it’s how he says it. It’s not just sexist garbage like the quote above—what’s entertaining is the way he wiggles out of it the next day with his hangover. His “I’m just joking” jokes about gay men being douchebags—or erasing his messages when he’s sober again.

Booze also gets rid of any goodlooks a boozer might have had in the past—real quick. The ravages of alcohol are grim—the list of gone plastered moviestars is a sad one. Kenneth Anger’s Hollywood Babylon has lots of pics of boozers beaten-up & hung-over after skuzzy LA escapades.

Yes, it’s a sad case. One-too-many cheap 6-packs—guzzled down each night.

Destroying one’s liver & what’s left of one’s brain-cells.

It’s not a pretty picture—Ray Milland in The Lost Weekend.




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: harrie on June 07, 2008, 09:11:47 AM
Donot, the bashing -- and baiting -- goes both ways in this relationship.  You can't force posters to use the ignore function, I guess; but it would be a nice step towards a peace of some kind.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on June 07, 2008, 10:54:20 AM
You're right, Harrie.  I go to only two discussion boards (Melba and another one,) and the problem is at both places.  People lock horns and are forever together/apart.  Frustrating to others on the board but they/we are helpless to stop it.  Seems so basic to me.  Don't respond.  But Puge will tell you--and he has on this board many times--that he's tired of sitting back and "enjoying it."  And you can't blame him for that.  Jbot will tell you that he will be damned if he shuts up, that he has as much right . . . .  And that's true, too.  However, it's not the way of diplomacy, to which I lean, heavily.  Diplomatic methods usually are slow to show progress, alas.  Not too many want to go that route.

I quit the Immigration discussion (several months back) when polarization there became so solid as to make further discussion meaningless, and name-calling became the norm.  There are many "couples" at Melba that, for whatever reason (usually misreading of posts at the onset, IMO) got off on the wrong foot and they will go to their graves unreconciled.

Believe it or not I was a firebrand, a misogynist, and more "else" than I care to mention, in my younger days.  I began to assess my "technique" for playing with others when my wife left me--not for another man--she left ME.  How could this be?  Well, after many years of self examination, what I saw about myself was not pretty.  And not just about marriage, or women, but religion and a whole host of other things.  My shedding of my upbringing (pure Texan) put me on the outside of my family, my friends at the time, and many males that I worked with.  And it is lonely out here, sometimes.  But more and more folks in the world are "getting it" and that's what keeps my hope up.

Well, I see your eyes glazing over   :)  so I'll get off my soap box.  Senator Hillary Clinton is speaking at 12:00 PM Eastern Time on CNN.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: harrie on June 07, 2008, 11:56:15 AM
Well, I see your eyes glazing over   :) 

Not at all, donotremove - you're an interesting person who has had interesting experiences.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 07, 2008, 01:27:47 PM
Puget:  Go ahead and sign up if you are ready to serve your country in wartime, otherwise stay out of shit you know nothing about, you reveal your ignorance every time you post more than five words, and you hide behind some kind of you're here, you're queer shield that nobody respects especially since you can't talk worth a fuck.  You should consider reading before posting, or taking community college classes to approach logic or critical analysis, but not the "anal-ysis," where you have your head up your own ass, the kind where you think before you demonstrate your idiocy.

Dude, chill.

The guy who should be signing up for duty is our little MBA candidate from Kansas...Bob Dole's lost grandson is busy fighting the war at KUBS...

Must be tough, being so "tough".


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 07, 2008, 07:50:21 PM

"I've simply done the best I can to ignore his tired posturing." 



Jbottle sure does a lot of time over here...ignoring me.

 8) 8) 8)


Title: What Is A Gay American?
Post by: pugetopolis on June 08, 2008, 10:32:14 PM
(http://www.thenewyorkerstore.com/assets/2/46183_l.jpg)

What Is A Gay American?

1. Thank you Donotremove, MrUtley & others—for debating this issue calmly, rationally & diplomatically.

2. The issue of gay rights is an issue I’ve tried to discuss here in the Elba Gay Rights Forum as well as The NYTimes Reading Group Forum—What is a Gay American?

3. The issue has many angles—from gay marriage rights to what are the other rights of gay Americans?

4. I’ve tried to be calm, rational and diplomatic—after all I should know what a Gay American is after being one for over half a century don’t you think?

5. As a Gay Writer I don’t claim to be Truman Capote or Gore Vidal—nor am I a famous Gay Poet like Hart Crane or Walt Whitman—nor am I an eloquent GLBTQ Spokesperson like Allen Ginsberg or Gertrude Stein.

6. I’ve been “out” & open to discussion here in Elba, in The NYTimes Book Discussion Group, Gay Poetry Online, The Advocate, The Seattle Gay News & other venues…

7. But there always seems to be an Irrational Discriminatory Attitude tho—that comes out of Left Field to surprise me.

8. It rears its Ugly Head not just in this Gay Rights Forum—but in the Poetry Forum, the Fiction Forum, the Movie Forums, the Meandering Forum…

9. I want to debate the Gay Rights Issue—that’s why I use the Ignore Function selectively. I want to know what my Homo-Critics are saying. I’m curious about their Irrational Discriminatory Attitudes—their Opinions & Anecdotes…

10. The NYTimes Hart Crane homophobic review by Logan, for example, has been discussed on the Internet a great deal both here in Elba & many other discussion sites.

11. Gay Poetry & Gay Literary Criticism is nothing new—nor is Gay Film Criticism a Forbidden Topic among Gay Postmodern Intelligentsia in the Modern Language Association—as well as the recent Yoknapatawpha Conference on William Faulkner and Human Sexuality.

12. And yet no matter which online venue I’ve posted in—there’s always an Irrational Discriminatory Attitude that pops up.

13. The way IDA engages itself thru different posters in these different Forums is interesting.

14. The NYTimes Urban Haiku Forum—one would expect a more cosmopolitan attitude toward Gay Haikus since after all New York City is the ultimate Big Apple City of America…

15. Yet some of the worst IDA erupted when I posted a few minor modest Gay Haiku there in The NYTimes Urban Haiku Forum. The Urban Haiku Hard-Copy File speaks for itself—soon I’ll publish it as an example of “Gay Poetics in Conflict.” East vs. West—Gay vs. Straight. Basho vs. Upper East Side.

16. The same with The NYTimes Readers Group Discussion of the Camille Paglia BBB (Break Blow Burn) Poetry Anthology—with over 1000 messages about poetry, poetics & yes, the Gay Poetry of Dickinson, Ginsberg etc.

17. Both these Forums were banned by The NYTimes—supposedly because of premier pay-as-you go Failed Business Decisions—leaving only Crossword Puzzle fans, Opera Queens & Classical Music aficionados to delicately & ever so piquantly discuss less controversial topics.

18. Apparently The NYTimes—the premier newspaper of America & perhaps the world—isn’t bashful about applying “The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy” about Gay Americans to Gay American Literature itself as well…

19. What does this mean? I’m totally flummoxed.

20. What is a Gay American? Is there a Gay American Poetry & Literature? What would Walt Whitman say now? Have we gone beyond Hart Crane’s Modernist “The Bridge”? Did the Beats—change American Literature? Is there a robust Postmodern Gay Poetry?

21. For example, when Gregory Woods the author of A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition (Yale, 1998) and Articulate Flesh: Male Homo-Eroticism and Modern Poetry (Yale, 1987) mentions me in both books—why do I feel flummoxed even more?

22. Am I not Articulate Flesh? Am I not a part of the Gay Literary Canon? Have I not put my Queer Shoulder to the Wheel—as Allen Ginsberg told me to try & do here in Seattle one rainy night on Capitol Hill at the Broadway Performance Hall? Why do I still feel so flummoxed tho?

23. When Stephen Coote publishes a poem of mine in The Penguin Book of Homosexual Verse (London, 1983)—you’d think I’d be pleased & happy. Sandwiched in there between Judy Grahn & Rita Mae Brown—nestled in there between Adrienne Rich and Sharon Barba and Fran Winant? Am I not a Sapphic Modernist poet—like Gertrude Stein, Djuna Barnes and Mina Loy? Am I not a Gay Poet—not just a Poet Who Happens To Be Gay?

24. But instead for some strange queer transgressive POMO reason—I’m, well, flummoxed beyond words… Am I not a Baby Boomer Neocon Love Child?

25. I’m flummoxed—because that’s the nature of being a gay writer in extremis—a gay poet exiled to the American Archipelago—where Don’t Ask Don’t Tell still rules…




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 09, 2008, 04:29:47 AM
(http://www.thenewyorkerstore.com/assets/2/50080_l.jpg)

The Making of Gay Americans

“This is then complete
disillusionment in living—
The complete realization
That no one can believe
As you do about anything.”
—Gertrude Stein
The Making of Americans

You’ve been living with this “idea”—you’ve been feeling it a long time now—you’ve lived inside it for many years & it’s lived deep inside you—you’ve been thru it & around it & above & below it—this “idea” that you’re a gay American—

You’ve been feeling this idea of being a gay American for a long time now—the older you get the more articulate this idea becomes—it’s not just “living thru it”—or “living inside it”—it’s about “talking thru it”—it’s about not playing the same old “don’t ask don’t tell” game anymore with your head—it’s about “free speech” inside your own mind—it’s about New York City—it’s about San Francisco—it’s about LA & Las Vegas—after Stonewall—

Especially after Stonewall—you see Political Correctness is a word-game—PC is a two-way street—there’s GLBTQ queens telling you one thing to do—Straights telling you another—everybody has their own idea about being Gay American—with lots of Political Correctness thrown in for tricks—along with FOXNews & Hollywood—but you write for yourself—yourself & strangers—

How much PC does Whitman go thru—what about Hart Crane even now—dished by The New York Times—for being too fond of young Sailorboys—as if that were any book reviewer’s business—and Gertrude Stein—Exiled to Paris to find her Voice—Exile, my dears, is de rigueur & soup de jour—for Outsiders who want to know themselves—that’s how the making of Gay Americans works—that’s what happens when you’re exiled—living it & writing it & being it—in the outsider moment—

Writing Leaves of Grass, The Bridge & The Making of Americans—it’s not easy being a Gay American writer—even tho you’re busy typing away & doing all the right asking, telling & talking—being a Gay American isn’t easy—being told all the time—what to do & how to think by Straights—it’s hard getting beyond the Orwellian “don’t ask don’t tell” trope—because “mind-speak” has its own Narrative—and it’s been so deeply ingrained in you—the Narrative of the Straight All-American Apple Pie success story—

The Making of Americas inside you—the Making of Americas outside you—no matter who you are or what you’re doing—you’re still down there in the nitty-gritty of the ongoing immediate continuous American Moment—the continuous American present that encompasses us now—the American experience that composes itself—without Explanation or Elucidation—without beginning middle or end—simply starting it—over & over again each day—a rose is rose etc.

Being a Gay American—being a Zit on the American Zeitgeist—being a Zoid amongst Neocon Creepazoids—who needs Romero, Lynch or Ed Wood Jr—when you’ve got “They’re coming to get you Barbara” every day & night—here in the lonely American Night of the Living Dead—or maybe you’re Eraserhead—coming back from work each day—each day another Plan Nine from Outer Space???

Reading Stein’s The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas—writing your own version thru a series of gestalts & synchronicity—calling it The Autobiography of Anybody—embedding yourself in American stream-of-consciousness—like Faulkner did breathing Mississippi in—and breathing Yoknapatawpha out—the map of your own mythic Mississippi inside your brain—New York City—Elba—




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on June 09, 2008, 04:42:30 AM
" . . . like Faulkner did breathing Mississippi in—and breathing Yoknapatawpha out—the map of your own mythic Mississippi inside your brain—New York City—Elba—"

Fine, mighty fine,  Puge.  A sentence like that doesn't come along all that often to anyone, gay or straight.


Title: Re: What Is A Gay American?
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 09, 2008, 08:34:24 AM
(http://www.thenewyorkerstore.com/assets/2/46183_l.jpg)

What Is A Gay American?

1. Thank you Donotremove, MrUtley & others—for debating this issue calmly, rationally & diplomatically.

2. The issue of gay rights is an issue I’ve tried to discuss here in the Elba Gay Rights Forum as well as The NYTimes Reading Group Forum—What is a Gay American?

3. The issue has many angles—from gay marriage rights to what are the other rights of gay Americans?

4. I’ve tried to be calm, rational and diplomatic—after all I should know what a Gay American is after being one for over half a century don’t you think?

5. As a Gay Writer I don’t claim to be Truman Capote or Gore Vidal—nor am I a famous Gay Poet like Hart Crane or Walt Whitman—nor am I an eloquent GLBTQ Spokesperson like Allen Ginsberg or Gertrude Stein.

6. I’ve been “out” & open to discussion here in Elba, in The NYTimes Book Discussion Group, Gay Poetry Online, The Advocate, The Seattle Gay News & other venues…

7. But there always seems to be an Irrational Discriminatory Attitude tho—that comes out of Left Field to surprise me.

8. It rears its Ugly Head not just in this Gay Rights Forum—but in the Poetry Forum, the Fiction Forum, the Movie Forums, the Meandering Forum…

9. I want to debate the Gay Rights Issue—that’s why I use the Ignore Function selectively. I want to know what my Homo-Critics are saying. I’m curious about their Irrational Discriminatory Attitudes—their Opinions & Anecdotes…

10. The NYTimes Hart Crane homophobic review by Logan, for example, has been discussed on the Internet a great deal both here in Elba & many other discussion sites.

11. Gay Poetry & Gay Literary Criticism is nothing new—nor is Gay Film Criticism a Forbidden Topic among Gay Postmodern Intelligentsia in the Modern Language Association—as well as the recent Yoknapatawpha Conference on William Faulkner and Human Sexuality.

12. And yet no matter which online venue I’ve posted in—there’s always an Irrational Discriminatory Attitude that pops up.

13. The way IDA engages itself thru different posters in these different Forums is interesting.

14. The NYTimes Urban Haiku Forum—one would expect a more cosmopolitan attitude toward Gay Haikus since after all New York City is the ultimate Big Apple City of America…

15. Yet some of the worst IDA erupted when I posted a few minor modest Gay Haiku there in The NYTimes Urban Haiku Forum. The Urban Haiku Hard-Copy File speaks for itself—soon I’ll publish it as an example of “Gay Poetics in Conflict.” East vs. West—Gay vs. Straight. Basho vs. Upper East Side.

16. The same with The NYTimes Readers Group Discussion of the Camille Paglia BBB (Break Blow Burn) Poetry Anthology—with over 1000 messages about poetry, poetics & yes, the Gay Poetry of Dickinson, Ginsberg etc.

17. Both these Forums were banned by The NYTimes—supposedly because of premier pay-as-you go Failed Business Decisions—leaving only Crossword Puzzle fans, Opera Queens & Classical Music aficionados to delicately & ever so piquantly discuss less controversial topics.

18. Apparently The NYTimes—the premier newspaper of America & perhaps the world—isn’t bashful about applying “The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy” about Gay Americans to Gay American Literature itself as well…

19. What does this mean? I’m totally flummoxed.

20. What is a Gay American? Is there a Gay American Poetry & Literature? What would Walt Whitman say now? Have we gone beyond Hart Crane’s Modernist “The Bridge”? Did the Beats—change American Literature? Is there a robust Postmodern Gay Poetry?

21. For example, when Gregory Woods the author of A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition (Yale, 1998) and Articulate Flesh: Male Homo-Eroticism and Modern Poetry (Yale, 1987) mentions me in both books—why do I feel flummoxed even more?

22. Am I not Articulate Flesh? Am I not a part of the Gay Literary Canon? Have I not put my Queer Shoulder to the Wheel—as Allen Ginsberg told me to try & do here in Seattle one rainy night on Capitol Hill at the Broadway Performance Hall? Why do I still feel so flummoxed tho?

23. When Stephen Coote publishes a poem of mine in The Penguin Book of Homosexual Verse (London, 1983)—you’d think I’d be pleased & happy. Sandwiched in there between Judy Grahn & Rita Mae Brown—nestled in there between Adrienne Rich and Sharon Barba and Fran Winant? Am I not a Sapphic Modernist poet—like Gertrude Stein, Djuna Barnes and Mina Loy? Am I not a Gay Poet—not just a Poet Who Happens To Be Gay?

24. But instead for some strange queer transgressive POMO reason—I’m, well, flummoxed beyond words… Am I not a Baby Boomer Neocon Love Child?

25. I’m flummoxed—because that’s the nature of being a gay writer in extremis—a gay poet exiled to the American Archipelago—where Don’t Ask Don’t Tell still rules…




Two thoughts:

1) William Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice---If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?

2) You're gay?
 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 09, 2008, 08:35:39 AM
Oh, and I'm diggin' the obvious phallic imagery on the New Yorker cover, too. Subtle, but effective.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 10, 2008, 06:34:20 AM
The moon has a weird effect on the personality of the woman-half of the species.

Booze has a weird effect on the personality of certain male brain-dead child-idiots who think they’re God’s gift to men & women in the Blogosphere.

The only problem is that booze is boring & kills brain-cells—it’ a sad & tragic way to go. There’s this guy over in another forum—he’s got one single neuron left. He’s like a broken record—it goes on & on like some kind of tacky TV Guide that won’t quit.

What’s truly entertaining isn’t what he says—it’s how he says it. It’s not just sexist garbage like the quote above—what’s entertaining is the way he wiggles out of it the next day with his hangover. His “I’m just joking” jokes about gay men being douchebags—or erasing his messages when he’s sober again.

Booze also gets rid of any goodlooks a boozer might have had in the past—real quick. The ravages of alcohol are grim—the list of gone plastered moviestars is a sad one. Kenneth Anger’s Hollywood Babylon has lots of pics of boozers beaten-up & hung-over after skuzzy LA escapades.

Yes, it’s a sad case. One-too-many cheap 6-packs—guzzled down each night.

Destroying one’s liver & what’s left of one’s brain-cells.

It’s not a pretty picture—Ray Milland in The Lost Weekend.





Booze isn't nearly as physiologically (or psychologically) destructive as crystal meth, which is very popular among homo's.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 10, 2008, 06:35:53 AM
Puget:  Go ahead and sign up if you are ready to serve your country in wartime, otherwise stay out of shit you know nothing about, you reveal your ignorance every time you post more than five words, and you hide behind some kind of you're here, you're queer shield that nobody respects especially since you can't talk worth a fuck.  You should consider reading before posting, or taking community college classes to approach logic or critical analysis, but not the "anal-ysis," where you have your head up your own ass, the kind where you think before you demonstrate your idiocy.

Dude, chill.

The guy who should be signing up for duty is our little MBA candidate from Kansas...Bob Dole's lost grandson is busy fighting the war at KUBS...

Must be tough, being so "tough".


So, I really don't get it...Should I be ashamed to be on the path to earning a MBA at a relatively young age?



Grow up, Nutley


Title: How to spot a Gay
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 10, 2008, 06:36:41 AM
Oh, and I'm diggin' the obvious phallic imagery on the New Yorker cover, too. Subtle, but effective.

I bet you are.  You know, I failed to make that connection.



Interesting


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 10, 2008, 07:01:26 AM
Puget:  Go ahead and sign up if you are ready to serve your country in wartime, otherwise stay out of shit you know nothing about, you reveal your ignorance every time you post more than five words, and you hide behind some kind of you're here, you're queer shield that nobody respects especially since you can't talk worth a fuck.  You should consider reading before posting, or taking community college classes to approach logic or critical analysis, but not the "anal-ysis," where you have your head up your own ass, the kind where you think before you demonstrate your idiocy.

Dude, chill.

The guy who should be signing up for duty is our little MBA candidate from Kansas...Bob Dole's lost grandson is busy fighting the war at KUBS...

Must be tough, being so "tough".


So, I really don't get it...Should I be ashamed to be on the path to earning a MBA at a relatively young age?



Grow up, Nutley


No, idiot, you should be embarrassed for being so rabid in your support of sending  others off to a unjust war, while you stay home and convince yourself that learning how to sell things is a meaningful experience. Even at your age, you should fundamentally understand that concept.

But being that you think the world should revolve around you and your particular needs and desires, maybe that concept is well beyond your ken.


Title: Re: How to spot a Gay
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 10, 2008, 07:02:39 AM
Oh, and I'm diggin' the obvious phallic imagery on the New Yorker cover, too. Subtle, but effective.

I bet you are.  You know, I failed to make that connection.



Interesting


You fail to make a lot of connections. Why does this particular one surprise you, pup?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on June 10, 2008, 01:46:12 PM
Puget:  Go ahead and sign up if you are ready to serve your country in wartime, otherwise stay out of shit you know nothing about, you reveal your ignorance every time you post more than five words, and you hide behind some kind of you're here, you're queer shield that nobody respects especially since you can't talk worth a fuck.  You should consider reading before posting, or taking community college classes to approach logic or critical analysis, but not the "anal-ysis," where you have your head up your own ass, the kind where you think before you demonstrate your idiocy.

Dude, chill.

The guy who should be signing up for duty is our little MBA candidate from Kansas...Bob Dole's lost grandson is busy fighting the war at KUBS...

Must be tough, being so "tough".


So, I really don't get it...Should I be ashamed to be on the path to earning a MBA at a relatively young age?



Grow up, Nutley

Thomas Paine knew your ilk well, summertime soldier and sunshine patriot.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: vookaleer on June 10, 2008, 02:45:15 PM
Oh, and I'm diggin' the obvious phallic imagery on the New Yorker cover, too. Subtle, but effective.


Actually not very subtle or original.  The cover and other images of the building have been used in that context several times over the years.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 10, 2008, 04:44:47 PM
I meant subtle as applied HERE, vook.


Title: Re: What Is A Gay American?
Post by: Lhoffman on June 10, 2008, 08:10:29 PM
(http://www.thenewyorkerstore.com/assets/2/46183_l.jpg)

What Is A Gay American?

1. Thank you Donotremove, MrUtley & others—for debating this issue calmly, rationally & diplomatically.

2. The issue of gay rights is an issue I’ve tried to discuss here in the Elba Gay Rights Forum as well as The NYTimes Reading Group Forum—What is a Gay American?

3. The issue has many angles—from gay marriage rights to what are the other rights of gay Americans?

4. I’ve tried to be calm, rational and diplomatic—after all I should know what a Gay American is after being one for over half a century don’t you think?

5. As a Gay Writer I don’t claim to be Truman Capote or Gore Vidal—nor am I a famous Gay Poet like Hart Crane or Walt Whitman—nor am I an eloquent GLBTQ Spokesperson like Allen Ginsberg or Gertrude Stein.

6. I’ve been “out” & open to discussion here in Elba, in The NYTimes Book Discussion Group, Gay Poetry Online, The Advocate, The Seattle Gay News & other venues…

7. But there always seems to be an Irrational Discriminatory Attitude tho—that comes out of Left Field to surprise me.

8. It rears its Ugly Head not just in this Gay Rights Forum—but in the Poetry Forum, the Fiction Forum, the Movie Forums, the Meandering Forum…

9. I want to debate the Gay Rights Issue—that’s why I use the Ignore Function selectively. I want to know what my Homo-Critics are saying. I’m curious about their Irrational Discriminatory Attitudes—their Opinions & Anecdotes…

10. The NYTimes Hart Crane homophobic review by Logan, for example, has been discussed on the Internet a great deal both here in Elba & many other discussion sites.

11. Gay Poetry & Gay Literary Criticism is nothing new—nor is Gay Film Criticism a Forbidden Topic among Gay Postmodern Intelligentsia in the Modern Language Association—as well as the recent Yoknapatawpha Conference on William Faulkner and Human Sexuality.

12. And yet no matter which online venue I’ve posted in—there’s always an Irrational Discriminatory Attitude that pops up.

13. The way IDA engages itself thru different posters in these different Forums is interesting.

14. The NYTimes Urban Haiku Forum—one would expect a more cosmopolitan attitude toward Gay Haikus since after all New York City is the ultimate Big Apple City of America…

15. Yet some of the worst IDA erupted when I posted a few minor modest Gay Haiku there in The NYTimes Urban Haiku Forum. The Urban Haiku Hard-Copy File speaks for itself—soon I’ll publish it as an example of “Gay Poetics in Conflict.” East vs. West—Gay vs. Straight. Basho vs. Upper East Side.

16. The same with The NYTimes Readers Group Discussion of the Camille Paglia BBB (Break Blow Burn) Poetry Anthology—with over 1000 messages about poetry, poetics & yes, the Gay Poetry of Dickinson, Ginsberg etc.

17. Both these Forums were banned by The NYTimes—supposedly because of premier pay-as-you go Failed Business Decisions—leaving only Crossword Puzzle fans, Opera Queens & Classical Music aficionados to delicately & ever so piquantly discuss less controversial topics.

18. Apparently The NYTimes—the premier newspaper of America & perhaps the world—isn’t bashful about applying “The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy” about Gay Americans to Gay American Literature itself as well…

19. What does this mean? I’m totally flummoxed.

20. What is a Gay American? Is there a Gay American Poetry & Literature? What would Walt Whitman say now? Have we gone beyond Hart Crane’s Modernist “The Bridge”? Did the Beats—change American Literature? Is there a robust Postmodern Gay Poetry?

21. For example, when Gregory Woods the author of A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition (Yale, 1998) and Articulate Flesh: Male Homo-Eroticism and Modern Poetry (Yale, 1987) mentions me in both books—why do I feel flummoxed even more?

22. Am I not Articulate Flesh? Am I not a part of the Gay Literary Canon? Have I not put my Queer Shoulder to the Wheel—as Allen Ginsberg told me to try & do here in Seattle one rainy night on Capitol Hill at the Broadway Performance Hall? Why do I still feel so flummoxed tho?

23. When Stephen Coote publishes a poem of mine in The Penguin Book of Homosexual Verse (London, 1983)—you’d think I’d be pleased & happy. Sandwiched in there between Judy Grahn & Rita Mae Brown—nestled in there between Adrienne Rich and Sharon Barba and Fran Winant? Am I not a Sapphic Modernist poet—like Gertrude Stein, Djuna Barnes and Mina Loy? Am I not a Gay Poet—not just a Poet Who Happens To Be Gay?

24. But instead for some strange queer transgressive POMO reason—I’m, well, flummoxed beyond words… Am I not a Baby Boomer Neocon Love Child?

25. I’m flummoxed—because that’s the nature of being a gay writer in extremis—a gay poet exiled to the American Archipelago—where Don’t Ask Don’t Tell still rules…




Have been without power for a few days.  Reading this late this afternoon, two things:  First, a sentence from the LRB review of Jelenck's "Greed":  "Time becomes oppressive when we are unable to see where it is leading."  Are you familiar with this author?   Non-linear style, continunal present as Stein...history culminates at this point? 

Second,  Rilke's "The Panther"....here's a page with several translations. http://www.thebeckoning.com/poetry/rilke/rilke3.html


The Panther
Translated by D.C. Barranco, echt mench

From seeing only bars, his seeing is exhausted.
It holds nothing, nothing more.

To him, the world is bars,
100,000 bars, and behind the bars, nothing.

The lithe swinging of his rhythmic, easy stride
circles an inner hub – a dance of energy,
‘round a central point.

Inside, a gigantic Will stands stunned and numb.

Only, at times, the curtains rise.

Silently, a vision enters,
slips though the focused silence of his shoulders,
reaches his heart,
and dies.

 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 10, 2008, 10:09:12 PM
(http://www.thenewyorkerstore.com/assets/2/46183_l.jpg)

What Is A Gay American?


You're gay?
 

I was going to be PC & answer your question by saying I’m a “gay American”—along the lines of Gertrude Stein’s The Making of Americans. It’s a Modernist tome like Joyce’s Ulysses & Eliot’s The Wasteland.

But they say we’re POMO now—these are the dayz of Postmodernism. In other words there’s no classic Text to worship or emulate—Modernism is outdated & POMO Lit is polymorphically perverse. Movies, You-Tube & the Internet are closer to our fragmented, multi-linked, transgressive existence now… compared with what Novels used to do back then.

Think, Hemingway, Greene, Grass, Orwell, Capote...

Things are different now. That’s why I say there's no such thing as being gay anymore & the GLBTQ Movement is dead. The gay bookstores are closed, the gay lit distribution networks are gone, the gay lit magazines are kaput—why?

Because the gay movement has been absorbed into the System—just as gay marriage has been legalized into the MA, VT, NY & CA Zeitgeist. This is how social change happens. It used to take 100 years or 4 generations for things to change—at least that’s what Gertrude Stein says in her various essays. She’s pretty astute—when it comes to writing. But she's a gone Sapphic Modernist now—along with Djuna Barnes & Mina Loy...

It’s the Blogosphere that’s the engine of change now as far as writing, publishing, marketing is concerned—and it’s the reason why the gay movement is morphing & going mainstream. The blurb & link below explains it—how the generational thing has been squeezed down from Stein’s dayz to now. 

Being a gay poet these dayz is different...

I guess you could call me kinda pomo-homo now.

 8) 8) 8)

http://www.likethespice.com/aftereverything.html

“A queer sensibility has run through much of contemporary art since the end of abstract expressionism. Gay artists such as Andy Warhol, David Hockney, Felix Gonzalez-Torres, Keith Haring and John Waters have had major effects on the art and pop-cultural landscape. While their art is hardly restricted to gay subject matter, a queer sensibility sits at the bedrock of their production. From pop's cool fabulousness to John Waters' polymorphically perverse outsider's take on everything to artists coping with the massive scope of the AIDS crisis, gay issues have been at the center of art history since the fifties.”

"Recently there is a seismic shift in what it means to be gay. Factors driving this change are the internet's inherent capacity for social networking and increasing visibility, legal protections and acceptance of gay men. The era of a hermetically sealed gay culture, hiding in the closet or in gay bars is over. Now gay men interact with a much broader range of society and in a greatly expanded context, they also interact with men from across the world online. There is a new generation of gay men who came out at 16, took their boyfriends to the prom without hassle and hardly see the point of going to a gay bar. This exhibition examines some of the ways artists are expressing, reacting to and using these new conditions and remembering the old ones in their work.”







Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 10, 2008, 11:25:35 PM
(http://www.thenewyorkerstore.com/assets/2/46183_l.jpg)

Big Apple Haiku

Basho’s back in town—
He’s doing the Big Apple…
Hear the frog go plunk?


 


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 11, 2008, 12:23:32 AM
(http://www.poster.net/anonymous/anonymous-empire-state-building-with-graf-zeppelin-1931-2804912.jpg)

Zeppelin Over Manhattan

Skimming skyscrapers—
Making love to the waiter…
Nude in my cabin


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 11, 2008, 01:14:10 AM
(http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/06w16cye0Of7t/340x.jpg)

Haiku for Madame Quoad

“Let me taste it,” she queried—
Savoring her rhubarb cream.”
—Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow

“Repellent?” she asked—
“Narcissistically divine?”
“Gawd, it sounds like me!?!”
_______

“The Times's original review (sorry, only in pay archive), by Richard Locke, says "Gravity's Rainbow" "is the longest, most difficult and most ambitious novel to appear here since Nabokov's 'Ada' ... its technical and verbal resources bring to mind Melville and Faulkner ... Pynchon establishes his imaginative continuity with the great modernist writers of the early years of this century."—Mick Sussman, Books Producer, The New York Times on the Web

http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/books/februaryreadinggroupgravitysrainbowbythomaspynchon/index.html?offset=0&fid=.fa91266/0




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 11, 2008, 01:28:30 AM
(http://whatisitabout.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/nature-man-framed.jpg)

Urban Haiku
—for Shiki Masaoka (1867-1902)

A sharp lightning flash—
Between the New York Times…
And the old master


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 11, 2008, 02:22:45 AM
(http://palavracriativa.googlepages.com/typewriter22.jpg/typewriter22-full;init:.jpg)

Brooklyn Bridge Haiku

“his sexual appetites were
voracious  and involved
far too many sailors”
—William Logan, “Hart
Crane’s Bridge to Nowhere”
NYTimes January 28, 2007

There's more than just that—
Hart Crane was writing up there…
Columbia Heights

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/books/review/Logan.t.html?ref=books




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 11, 2008, 05:13:54 AM
(http://a-e-m-gmbh.com/wessely/ej-um2.jpg)
Elfriede Jelinek

POMO Horror Story


Reading this late this afternoon, two things: First, a sentence from the LRB review of Jelenck's "Greed": "Time becomes oppressive when we are unable to see where it is leading." Are you familiar with this author?  Non-linear style, continual present as Stein...history culminates at this point? 


Up from the Cellar
Nicholas Spice
Greed by Elfriede Jelinek, translated by Martin Chalmers 

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n11/spic01_.html

And I thought I had it bad—poor little Pomo-Homo me!

Nobel Prize-winning Jelinek abandons all reference to realist form.

She writes a kind of horror prose poetry or extended dramatic monologue.

The voice of the narrator is as much the subject of the book as the events it describes.

She has nothing to do with linear form.

Her novels are like art installations.

They’re like large panels painted in the same style treating horror—but in an ever shifting kaleidoscope.

She goes to the very edge of coherence—but never beyond it.

She asks the question: “Is writing the gift of adaptability and suppleness, of cuddling up to reality?”

She’s intensely introspective, not over concerned with intelligibility, and reading her is like overhearing someone talking to themselves trying to figure something out.

She’s an internet literary bag lady and crank.

She’s a kooky “cyberite”—an agoraphobic Cassandra whose preferred channel of prophecy and admonition is the internet: www.elfriedejelinek.com 

She gets the Nobel Prize—and all hell breaks loose. 

What does this have to do with gay rights? Well…

Jelinek reminds me of Tod Browning and his horror movie Freaks. She reminds me of queer minimalist Dennis Cooper with his trashy S/M novels.

If you don’t like this POMO literary approach—don’t go to her internet site or read her novels or LRB review. And please don’t read the next post.




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 11, 2008, 05:52:48 AM
(http://a-e-m-gmbh.com/wessely/ej-um2.jpg)
Elfriede Jelinek

POMO Horror Story 2

Hoffman, I prefer Dennis Cooper’s minimalust/minimalist writing style—maybe even more minimalist than that. I like transgressive Pomo haiku—keeping it to 3 lines & 17 syllables. And then dumping all the rest as footnotes—I don’t care, they can be a mile long.

As you know, there were the feel-good types in the NYTimes Urban Haiku Forum—doing haikus that were smoochy & schmoozey. There were the Traditionalists—who stuck with the seasons & flowers. There were the dummies who thought a You-Tube clip was all it took.

And then there was me & Roadytoad—posting gay urban haiku. We were immediately called freaks & scumballs—I guess you could say we were truly Pomo horror poets to the butchy homophobic set. As if “gays” weren’t “urban”—and the haiku form belonged to straights.

That’s why I identify with Jelinek—she knew the shit would hit the fan when she got the Nobel Prize. Her critics got hysterical—they said she profaned the Novel as a sacred form & she gave all of Austria a bad name.     

Elfriede Jelinek is the author of Up from the Cellar and Die Klavierspielerin (1983), translated as The Piano Teacher—she makes an apparently startling dialectical swerve in her analysis of sexual politics, rotating the subject through 180 degrees in both novels.

The Piano Teacher is about woman-as-dominatrix-ogre and  Up from the Cellar is about man-as-dominatrix-ogre.
 
“Time becomes oppressive when we are unable to see where it is leading.”

“In Greed, Jelinek finds a way to deal with depth (with the abyss inside the human) without either reverting to the analgesic of realism or exhausting the reader with flood-lit ugliness.”

“The narrative voice is half-cracked and pitiable and speaks the language of a mind driven back inside itself by the horror of what it has to tell: like the language of Ophelia after she goes mad, or the language of a traumatized child talking to her doll, or an old lady drifting into dementia.”

“The story of Amstetten has the unreality of the ‘bad’ fairy tale. The numbers in it are fairy-tale numbers: seven children above ground, seven children below. The 24 years of Elisabeth’s captivity are as inexact as the hundred years that Sleeping Beauty slept – they stand for eternity. We might be able to imagine being locked away in a windowless cellar for 24 days, for 24 weeks even, but not 24 years. How did Elisabeth Fritzl survive this? In what sense did she survive it?”

“The style of Jelinek’s essay ‘Im Verlassenen’ is very similar to that of Gier; indeed, for some years now, Jelinek has written everything in this style: novels, plays and the pieces she posts on her website. It’s a demanding idiom characterised by long slabs of unparagraphed text, free-form and improvisatory, in which the movement of thought is impelled by association and wordplay, and changes in voice and register happen without warning. Part of the mission of this way of writing is to go down into the cellars of the language and unlock long buried relationships between words. For example, the phrase ‘Im Verlassenen’ is an invention, a gerundive formed from the verb verlassen, ‘to leave’, ‘desert’ or ‘abandon’. ‘Im Verlassenen’ means something like ‘in a place of essential abandonment’ or ‘in abandon-ness’, and it draws to the surface the derivation of Verlies – the word for ‘dungeon’ used to describe the Amstetten cellar – from verlassen. A Verlies is a place where you are abandoned.”

“She needed to be kept moderately human. So he built her a kitchen and a bathroom (did he let her choose the tiles? Jelinek asks). So that, like any good housewife, she could wash and cook. So that, like any good housewife, she would remain wholesome to fuck.”

“As an apprenticeship in dissidence, a childhood sacrificed to classical music is hard to beat. Classical music is always acceptable to authority because it cannot overtly challenge power with subversive ideas or disturbing representations. Parents and states know they are on safe ground when their children or subjects are playing Mozart or Schubert – and enjoying it.”

The Piano Teacher’s merciless portrayal of female sexual perversion is the overlay on a savage critique of normal male sexuality.

“In the year The Piano Teacher appeared, Jelinek published a short piece on the theatre with the title ‘Ich möchte seicht sein’, ‘I want to be shallow’ – the nearest thing in her output to an aesthetic manifesto. The hyperbole of the piece throws up an ironic halo around it (it was later staged as a dramatic monologue), but it explains a lot about Jelinek’s aims in her early work. ‘I want to be shallow’ is an attack on conventional realist theatre. ‘I don’t want to bring strange people to life in front of an audience,’ Jelinek, or ‘Jelinek’, says. Characters on stage should be flat, like clothes in a fashion show: what you get should be no more than what you see. Psychological realism is repulsive, because it allows us to escape unpalatable reality by taking shelter in the ‘luxuriousness’ of personality, losing ourselves in the depth of individuated character. The writer’s task is to block this manoeuvre, to chase us off to a point from which we can view the horror with a dispassionate eye.”




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 11, 2008, 06:21:18 AM
(http://www.thenewyorkerstore.com/assets/2/46183_l.jpg)

What Is A Gay American?


You're gay?
 

I was going to be PC & answer your question by saying I’m a “gay American”—along the lines of Gertrude Stein’s The Making of Americans. It’s a Modernist tome like Joyce’s Ulysses & Eliot’s The Wasteland.

But they say we’re POMO now—these are the dayz of Postmodernism. In other words there’s no classic Text to worship or emulate—Modernism is outdated & POMO Lit is polymorphically perverse. Movies, You-Tube & the Internet are closer to our fragmented, multi-linked, transgressive existence now… compared with what Novels used to do back then.

Think, Hemingway, Greene, Grass, Orwell, Capote...

Things are different now. That’s why I say there's no such thing as being gay anymore & the GLBTQ Movement is dead. The gay bookstores are closed, the gay lit distribution networks are gone, the gay lit magazines are kaput—why?

Because the gay movement has been absorbed into the System—just as gay marriage has been legalized into the MA, VT, NY & CA Zeitgeist. This is how social change happens. It used to take 100 years or 4 generations for things to change—at least that’s what Gertrude Stein says in her various essays. She’s pretty astute—when it comes to writing. But she's a gone Sapphic Modernist now—along with Djuna Barnes & Mina Loy...

It’s the Blogosphere that’s the engine of change now as far as writing, publishing, marketing is concerned—and it’s the reason why the gay movement is morphing & going mainstream. The blurb & link below explains it—how the generational thing has been squeezed down from Stein’s dayz to now. 

Being a gay poet these dayz is different...

I guess you could call me kinda pomo-homo now.

 8) 8) 8)

http://www.likethespice.com/aftereverything.html

“A queer sensibility has run through much of contemporary art since the end of abstract expressionism. Gay artists such as Andy Warhol, David Hockney, Felix Gonzalez-Torres, Keith Haring and John Waters have had major effects on the art and pop-cultural landscape. While their art is hardly restricted to gay subject matter, a queer sensibility sits at the bedrock of their production. From pop's cool fabulousness to John Waters' polymorphically perverse outsider's take on everything to artists coping with the massive scope of the AIDS crisis, gay issues have been at the center of art history since the fifties.”

"Recently there is a seismic shift in what it means to be gay. Factors driving this change are the internet's inherent capacity for social networking and increasing visibility, legal protections and acceptance of gay men. The era of a hermetically sealed gay culture, hiding in the closet or in gay bars is over. Now gay men interact with a much broader range of society and in a greatly expanded context, they also interact with men from across the world online. There is a new generation of gay men who came out at 16, took their boyfriends to the prom without hassle and hardly see the point of going to a gay bar. This exhibition examines some of the ways artists are expressing, reacting to and using these new conditions and remembering the old ones in their work.”



Look, that's all great, but apparently you don't get sarcasm.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 11, 2008, 07:01:53 AM
Harvard Business School Haiku
—for Detective_Winslow

I didn’t know, man—
There’s a Harvard Business School…
Way out there in Kansas

_____


"So, I really don't get it...Should I be ashamed to be on the path to earning a MBA at a relatively young age?"



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 11, 2008, 07:12:48 AM
Hoity-Toity Haiku
—for vookaleer

I’m not here for fun—
I’m not paid to be subtle…
Snarky is your game



Actually not very subtle or original.  The cover and other images of the building have been used in that context several times over the years.




Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on June 11, 2008, 07:18:53 AM
Don't put California in the confirmed list for legalizing same sex marriages.  The issue will be on the ballot this November, and California has a large white, black, and Latino contingent that vigorously oppose same sex marriage/civil union.  This hot button issue, like abortion, the death penalty, taxes, and etc., is not going down without a fight by the opposition, using all the spin that can be dredged up.

I have a cousin on my father's side who is a Baptist missionary in central Mexico.  Been down there some 30 years.  He sends me copies of e-mails (besides our personal ones) between him and his church.  From the e-mail I got this morning, the Baptists everywhere in the world are gearing up to influence the California vote.


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 11, 2008, 08:23:06 AM
California Gay-marriage opponents abandon recall campaign against judge

http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2005/07/california-gay-marriage-opponents.html

SACRAMENTO – Opponents of same-sex marriage have abandoned their campaign to recall a Sacramento County Superior Court judge who upheld a controversial gay-rights law.

The drive against Judge Loren McMaster had been closely watched, coming as it did at the height of ideological fights in the courts and Legislature over same-sex marriage.

The state's attorney general, judges from across the country and gay-rights advocates had rallied behind the jurist, saying removing him would send an ominous message.

Sacramento County social conservatives launched the recall in late December, angered by McMaster's ruling three months earlier that upheld the state's domestic partners law granting same-sex couples many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

The state Supreme Court unanimously agreed with McMaster in a June 29 ruling.

"That took the wind out of our sails," recall leader Tony Andrade said in a phone message announcing the campaign had folded.

Judges said they were pleased with the outcome and that a recall generally should be reserved for unethical or illegal behavior.

Unhappy voters can oust judges at the next election or work to change the law, they said.

"It potentially could have a great chilling effect on the legal process. ...I shouldn't have to be worried about whether I'm going to be recalled based on whether some group likes my decisions," said Gayle Nachtigal, an Oregon Circuit Court judge and president of the American Judges Association.

Judge James Mize, president of the California Association of Judges, said a successful recall "would have destroyed the legal system as we know it.



Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: thecap0 on June 11, 2008, 08:24:13 AM
Don't put California in the confirmed list for legalizing same sex marriages.  The issue will be on the ballot this November, and California has a large white, black, and Latino contingent that vigorously oppose same sex marriage/civil union.  This hot button issue, like abortion, the death penalty, taxes, and etc., is not going down without a fight by the opposition, using all the spin that can be dredged up.

I have a cousin on my father's side who is a Baptist missionary in central Mexico.  Been down there some 30 years.  He sends me copies of e-mails (besides our personal ones) between him and his church.  From the e-mail I got this morning, the Baptists everywhere in the world are gearing up to influence the California vote.

If they do, I hope the IRS rescinds their tax exemption for their foray into the electoral process,

In the interim, assuming the initiative wins a majority, what do you suggest be done with the same sex marriages contracted during the interim?

On the other hand, won't it be delicious if the intiative LOSES?  Then where will the homophobes go?


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: Donotremove on June 11, 2008, 08:31:53 AM
Cap, " . . . on the other hand . . . ."  From your text to God's inbox.  :)


Title: Re: Gay Rights
Post by: pugetopolis on June 11, 2008, 08:45:07 AM
In the interim, assuming the initiative wins a majority, what do you suggest be done with the same sex marriages contracted during the interim?

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/15/court-watch-california-gay-marriage-ruling/

If the measure qualifies for the ballot and voters approve it, it will