Gay Oppression [Archive]

The Feral Underclass

17th October 2003, 11:53

It has come to my attention that some people on this message board feel it acceptable to hold latant homophobic views such as "they make me feel uncomforatble" or "gay people are ok, just not if they get married". Well people, it is not acceptable.

Gay oppression is one of the biggest contemporary issues we have. Homophobia is not only an instationalized phenomenon it is a psychological problem facing human beings. It baffles me that people can take such offence to the things people do in private.

I came out as a gay man seven years ago, and i can safly say that I have not gone one day since then, that I have not had to say "i'm gay" or I have had someone remind me of my sexuality. It seems to shock people that someone can be so comfortable with their sexuality that they proceed to ask me bizarre questions like "does it hurt"...."aren't you affraid of getting aids" as if gay people are the only people who can get aids....I have people refer to me, not as a person who happens to be gay but "A gay!" as if we are some kind of subhuman life form that sludges around the planet. But when confronted these people say "i'm not a homophobe...I have many gay friends" as if this is some valid reason to behave in a homphobic way...well it isnt a vaild reason.

It was only until two years ago that the age of consent for two men to have sex was reduced to 16. It was only in 1994 that it was reduced to 18 from 21. Not even three years has gone passed since gay men where given the same rights as straight men. Same sex couples are not given the same laws as married couples, but are not allowed to marry, the state has turned around to two people who love each other and said "sorry your love is not a valid love" which now means that if your partner of 50 years dies, you are not allowed to go and see the body without first asking the relatives permission...that all the property that your partner owns is not legally yours even though it has been your home for 50 years.

And then there is the church...the church is state sponsered and is allowed to stand up infront of masses of people and say that anyone who is gay will burn in hell...meaning that young teenagers are forced to adopt a lifestyle which is against every grain in their bodies. or they commit sucide, and the then the church say that it was a tragedy of life....young boys are arrested for expressing their sexuality to each other, beaten by police and inturned into "correction treatment centres" where they recieve ecletric shock treatment and physically draning punishments like having to squat for eigtht hours while guards put phone books on your head and legs and then beat you if you do not manage to stay in the position....is this in Iraq or Saudi Arabia, no...it is in the land of "freedom", the United Shite of America.

Again in America a young man called Matthew Shepard was picked up by two men who then tied him to a post and beat hiom around the head with a gun, leaving him half dead. If that wasnt enough, the christain right demonstrated outside of his hospital demanding that they turn on his life support machine so he can burn in hell. And then, while his family where laying to rest their murdered son these bastards demonstrated outside the church, against the fact he was being burried on sacred ground,. why, because he enjoyed having sex with other men...and this is not 1920's america, it is modern america, it is now.

Until I can go through a day without my sexuality being brought to my attention. without people making crude inuendoes, thinking it is funny, without having to listen to some prick, who has insecurities of his own say "there ok if they dont try it on with me". Gay oppression will not end. Unless you morons realise that we are just human beings who happen to love in a different way and that in reality, it dosnt matter, then teenagers will not stop killing themselves, the institution will continue to oppress human love and sexuality in the most vile way.

oppression comes in latant and blatant forms. Either way, homosexuality is not going to go away, and it is up to comrades on the left to fight gay oppression with the same zeal they would have stomping on the face of a fasicst.

To Matthew Shepard
1976 - 1998

Invader Zim

17th October 2003, 16:11

I would like to say that I agree with what you say, but I would like to see where members have shown "latant homophobic views". I personally have not noticed it In a long, long while, you are making IMO some very serious accusations, please could you show us where these opinions have been voiced, so that we can judge for our selves. As far as I am aware (though I could be wrong) che-lives has a strong line on homophobic's.

The Feral Underclass

17th October 2003, 16:47

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...=ST&f=8&t=18113 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=18113)

Man in the White Shirt

17th October 2003, 18:45

Libertarian Commie, I assume you are refering to this remark by Socialist Freedom:

"this kid was talking badly about homosexuals and i said they cant choose it there born that way!"

I have one question for you, in all honesty, where do you think your homosexuality came from? I do not want you to take this the wrong way or anything, and if the remark I posted above is not the remark your refering to, I aplogize. This question is just so I can understand better an angle, where homosexuality comes from, which is used by both the pro and anti-homosexual groups.

Once more, please do not take this as a personal attack, I just want to better understand one of the major arguements.

Dhul Fiqar

17th October 2003, 18:45

If anything homophobia has gone away from the forums - there were a couple of instances in the past with younger members and one or two south american macho types who had a fundamental problem with homosexuality. They don't post much any more - at least not about that. And the recent thread: "Which men would you like to fuck" had not a trace of homophobia - even though several male members (pun intended) mentioned other males they found attractive.

You are apparently referring to the views of a member with 12 posts - so I am not sure it represents any real portion of the users on this board.

That being said - I agree 100% with your post and find homophobia repulsive in all it's forms - and it should not be tolerated any more than racism.

--- G.

Dhul Fiqar

17th October 2003, 18:46

Originally posted by Man in the White [email protected] 18 2003, 02:45 AM
Libertarian Commie, I assume you are refering to this remark by Socialist Freedom:

"this kid was talking badly about homosexuals and i said they cant choose it there born that way!"

I have one question for you, in all honesty, where do you think your homosexuality came from? I do not want you to take this the wrong way or anything, and if the remark I posted above is not the remark your refering to, I aplogize. This question is just so I can understand better an angle, where homosexuality comes from, which is used by both the pro and anti-homosexual groups.

Once more, please do not take this as a personal attack, I just want to better understand one of the major arguements.
I think he meant the Y2A comment...

I don't really feel comfortable with gay's and gay marriage

--- G.

Dhul Fiqar

17th October 2003, 18:49

I sort of skimmed through the post the first time to make a post - but I have reread the whole thing and it is extremely well said and poignant. Something we should all keep in mind - whether or not there are homophobes among us or not - gay rights are an issue we should all rally behind.

--- G.

Andrei Kuznetsov

17th October 2003, 19:31

As a non-heterosexual myself (I'm not gonna give my preference a label), I am definitely angry at how this society has treated Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transsexuals. Libertarian Commie has a lot to say, guys; we need to fight this shit and blast the stupid and despicable ideas of homophobia off the face of the Earth and overthrow the religious fascists that uphold homophobia.

I like the Draft Programme of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA and its stance on this:

As for intimate relations, socialist society will promote values of, and create the conditions for, personal, family, and sexual relations based on mutual love, respect, and equality.

The revolutionary proletariat is staunchly opposed to the attacks on homosexuality by reactionary forces such as religious fundamentalists, and to all physical assaults on, discrimination against, and government repression of homosexuals, which is so widespread and vicious in the U.S. today. In the new society, discrimination against homosexuals will be outlawed and struggled against in every sphere of society, including personal and family relations. (DP Part. 1)

Homosexuality

Under socialism people will not be stigmatized because they are homosexuals or because of their sexual orientation. Discrimination will not be tolerated, and the repression and violence against homosexuals that has been so prevalent in capitalist society will be firmly opposed and dealt with.

At the same time, it is important to grasp that same sex relations do not escape and do not exist outside of the prevailing family and sexual relations and the corresponding ideology of male supremacy that oppress women in this society. In many ways the outlook that characterizes male gay culture in bourgeois society is not a departure from—and in fact there are elements in which it is a concentration of—male right. Lesbianism is in many ways a response to the oppression of women in class society, but in and of itself it is not a fundamental solution to this oppression.

The outlook that one partner in an intimate relationship must be devalued, dominated, abused, or owned is a reflection of the oppression of women in society; and forms of male right, in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, will be targets of criticism and transformation.

For a more detailed Communist analysis on the question of Homosexuality and Heterosexuality, see the detailed research paper On the Position on Homosexuality in the New Draft Programme at http://2changetheworld.info/docs/h-02-fulltext-en.php

Lardlad95

17th October 2003, 21:56

I wish that I could say that I am totally unhomophobic, but that would be lie.

I mean I don't care if you are gay, I have no ill will towards anyone, I don't care if you marry, I don't care if you live near me or work with me, we can be friends, i don't even care if you hit on me(I"ll just polietly tell you I"m not gay)

The only problem I have is sometimes I will say something like "Thats gay" to say something is stupid or bad.

I'm trying to stop this, and hopefuly I will. But growing up around people who do say that so much it's hard.

To all the gay people on this site i apologize for doing this, and as I think about it and type I'm starting to feel really bad, I'm sorry. I know that I don't deserve forgiveness but I hope you can forgive me.

Dhul Fiqar

17th October 2003, 22:01

Eh, I don't think saying: "Man, this is ghey!" is really a sign of any kind of prejudice. It's just a funny way to make fun of internet geeks that call everything that is not amusing: "Ghey". Think about the alternative: "lame". Is it better to use a word over cripples? =D

It's all in how you use the words, like if I were to say: "You ma nigga!" to a friend that is hardly the same as if I used it in a racist context...

--- G.

Lardlad95

17th October 2003, 22:09

Originally posted by Dhul [email protected] 17 2003, 10:01 PM
Eh, I don't think saying: "Man, this is ghey!" is really a sign of any kind of prejudice. It's just a funny way to make fun of internet geeks that call everything that is not amusing: "Ghey". Think about the alternative: "lame". Is it better to use a word over cripples? =D

It's all in how you use the words, like if I were to say: "You ma nigga!" to a friend that is hardly the same as if I used it in a racist context...

--- G.
I still feel kinda bad about it

Loknar

17th October 2003, 22:30

I am ok with people wanting to practice their own life style (so long as it isn’t NAMBLA like stuff and other weird crap) and I am ok with anyone who wants to be a homosexual. My belief is they should be afforded the same benefits (and downfalls) a marriage offers (insurance coverage ect.. ). But I think a union between homosexuals should not be called a marriage. I believe that a union between strait couples should be distinguished, by name, from a union between homosexual couples.

Discontinuity

17th October 2003, 22:36

I think homosexuals should be respected and treated as everyone else should be. Standard rights and so on; as long as they're not harming anyone, why harm them?

So, I have no problem with homosexuality, except for two things:

1. I do not in any way believe that the number of homosexuals today is entirely natural. I've had arguments about this, strange arguments I don't understand. Homosexuality exists in nature, in every species of mammal (possibly every animal, but I'm not sure of that). So normal deviation is expected... but it seems to be reaching levels that no longer make sense. This is not to say homosexuality is dangerous, or unacceptable, or anything of the sort. I simply maintain the right to say that the majority of them are not natural.

2. I do not approve of flamboyant homosexuals. I don't approve of flamboyant heterosexuals, either, but I've noticed that events like the "Gay Pride Festival" seem to take things to the extreme. Be gay, be happy being gay, good for you, I wish you all the best of luck. I have nothing but support for you. But don't go parading down the street in a pleather thong and waving various appendages at random passers-by. Whether you're gay or straight, I don't need to see that, and neither does anyone else.

Does this make me homophobic? Apparently.

(I agree with Loknar on distinguishing marriage between straights and a... union of homosexuals. The original definition was husband and wife, it shouldn't be changed. There's plenty of other good words.)

The Feral Underclass

17th October 2003, 22:57

Saying something is "gay" is a form of latent homophobia. For me it dosnt necessarily offend me. And some may think I am being pedantic in saying this, but to refer to a thing that you think is bad by using a term used to refer to somebodies lifestyle can sometimes be offensive.

Being gay is a fucking hard thing, and it is an experience that only gay people could understand. Coming out and actually coming to terms with the fact you are so fundamentally "different" to societies "norm" is a very hard thing to come to terms with. When you are 11 and having to deal with the fact you fancy other boys is a massive thing, it shapes who you are. I was not conscious, I was not aware of Marx or Anarchism and it took a long time for me to become comfortable with who I am and then make the decision that actually, there is nothing I should be ashamed off and that I am proud to be who I am. So after going through all that to then here someone simplify something that has been such a profound thing in your life, and use it to catagarise something they dont like or something that is bad is very hurtful. It isolates you and whether it is met to offend or not, only reaffirms the difference you have with other people. Not only that, but you dont know what your little brothers or sisters could be going through. Maybe they are battleing with it. Maybe the loner at your school is praying to god to make him "normal". So hearing someone say "you faggot" or "dont you think that is gay" pushes them further into this mental rut. It is probably something you have never even considered, but this is the oppression young gay people have to cope with everyday.

Other things like going to a shop and buying a gay magazine and seeing that they are on the top shelves with the straight porn mags because they are not regarded as sanitary reading may seem trivial to a straight person. But actually it is demonstrating that society regards gay people as some kind of debourched people, whose genuinly legitamtate magazines are not fit to be with "mainstream" magazines. You have to go into the shop and reach up to the top shelve with everyone looking at you and sniggering in the corner and making you feel dirty for simply being yourself. For me and I am sure others, these things are not trivial.

Having said this, it is comforting to know that there are people in the world who do take these things seriously and I am happy to see such a positive response. :)

Lardlad95

17th October 2003, 23:00

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 17 2003, 10:57 PM
Saying something is "gay" is a form of latent homophobia. For me it dosnt necessarily offend me. And some may think I am being pedantic in saying this, but to refer to a thing that you think is bad by using a term used to refer to somebodies lifestyle can sometimes be offensive.

I see...and how can I overcome (for lack of a better term) the use of this word in a negative conotation

Dhul Fiqar

17th October 2003, 23:00

EDIT: two people posted while I was typing this - it refers to something along the lines of "there are statistically more gays than there should be"

Do you have any scientific data to suggest that homosexual activity is not generally practiced by large percentages of any group of primates? Because according to what I have read and seen on Discovery (lol - not the best source - but come on!) - almost all primates engage in a great deal of homosexual activity.

PREFERANCE for that over heterosexual activity is however relatively rare in primates, a few percent though. But iirc, about half were getting down and dirty with the same sex. Surprisingly lesbianism was more common than gay male behaviour in some species of monkeys - it was a pretty good hour long program on discovery that I am referring to here. It basically argued that homosexual behaviour was completely misunderstood because scientists in the past chose to ignore it as a subject of study. In reality - it is VERY widespread in all our nearest cousins.

Thus the deviance here is probably the lack of openness about homosexual behaviour and perhaps an overall larger percentage of humans preferring the same sex over the opposite sex than in most primates - but I am not even sure about that. Figures on exactly how many people do not go for the other sex at all are notoriously unreliable - and similar figures on apes are obviously incredibly hard to come by because you have to follow that monkey around - they respond poorly to questioning on their past sexual activity =D

--- G.

Discontinuity

17th October 2003, 23:20

:lol: I bow to your Discovery Channel wisdom, Dhul.

I do admit, I am no scientific expert on homosexuality, and it is quite possible that you're right about the greater prevalence of homosexuality among primates. I'd have to discuss that with someone more learned than I.

In response to Libertarian, although I'm not sure if he was including me in his statement, I don't use gay in a negative context, and didn't intend it to be seen that way. The "Gay Pride Festival" is officially called that, and I don't see it as being negative, then, to refer to homosexuals as gays.

It makes me cringe a little bit everytime I hear some stupid kid say "That's gay" or call someone a 'faggot'. I just call them idiots if they're idiots, and leave it at that. If I'm really mad at someone, I ignore them and then kill them a few days later and make it look like an accident. *mutter* <_<

The Feral Underclass

17th October 2003, 23:20

I am ok with people wanting to practice their own life style (so long as it isn’t NAMBLA like stuff and other weird crap) and I am ok with anyone who wants to be a homosexual.

How very thoughtful of you!

But I think a union between homosexuals should not be called a marriage. I believe that a union between strait couples should be distinguished, by name, from a union between homosexual couples.

This goes back to my original point. You are simply reaffiming that hetrosexual people somehow have superiority over homosexual people. So only straight people have the right to call their public declaration of love for each other marriage. Why should there be any distinguishing. For what purpose does it serve but to show the world that those who are gay and those who are straight can not function together as human beings. Of course two men or two woman who wish to bind their love in a ceramony should be able to call it a marriage if the wish. Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to tell anyone what they can and can not call such a union.

1. I do not in any way believe that the number of homosexuals today is entirely natural. I've had arguments about this, strange arguments I don't understand. Homosexuality exists in nature, in every species of mammal (possibly every animal, but I'm not sure of that). So normal deviation is expected... but it seems to be reaching levels that no longer make sense. This is not to say homosexuality is dangerous, or unacceptable, or anything of the sort. I simply maintain the right to say that the majority of them are not natural.

You should be careful how you choose your words my friend. What do you actually mean by "I simply maintain the right to say that the majority of them are not natural". Are you saying that some people may choose to be homosexuals. yes, there are. But what relevance does that have to anything. If a woman chooses that she wants to have a sexual relationship with another woman, so be it. Good for her. People should be allowed to choose what ever lifestyle they lead.

2. I do not approve of flamboyant homosexuals. I don't approve of flamboyant heterosexuals, either, but I've noticed that events like the "Gay Pride Festival" seem to take things to the extreme.

In the fifties a gay mafia boss owned a club in San Francisco called 'Stonewall' where gay men went to socialise with other gay men. Many of them transvestites. This was at a time when gay people had to tell the owner of clubs and pubs and cafes that they where gay, so that the propriater could choose whether or not to surve you. If you failed to disclose this vital piece of information, you could be arrested and imprisioned. Well, the police came to brake up this club and these queens went out onto the streets, in their full costumes and wigs, clapping down the side walk with their high heels on and then as the police tried to brake them they revolted. They used those high heels to kick some piggy ass. The cops had never seen anything like it and ran away scared for their lives.

Not dwelling any further on the futality of coming to terms with your sexuality, to finally do it and still find that society hates you for it sometimes pisses you off and so when you see these raging queens cavorting down the street they are merely saying that they "are here queer and not going shopping", in other words, there telling you and the rest of the world that they are proud to be GAY! Until we are accepted as equals these celebrations of pride will not end. I suppose it is fine to be black, as long as you dont demonstratre in the streets about the oppression you are being inflicted.

This was my best line though...

Be gay, be happy being gay, good for you, I wish you all the best of luck.

How fucking patronizing. Thanks for your permission, and I will be sure to pass it onto everyone else.

...don't go parading down the street in a pleather thong and waving various appendages at random passers-by. Whether you're gay or straight, I don't need to see that, and neither does anyone else.

And why the fuck not...why are you so affraid. lighten up for fuck sake...so a man dressed up like barbrah striesand on acid is waving a black 12" dildo at you, go and give him a hug and tell him that you love him and that you admire how fucking brave he is!

I see...and how can I overcome (for lack of a better term) the use of this word in a negative conotation

Acknowledge that it isnt appropriate, why it isnt appropriate and just stop doing it.

The Feral Underclass

17th October 2003, 23:21

No I was not refering to your use of the word gay when talking about "Gay Pride".....bless

Lardlad95

17th October 2003, 23:24

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 17 2003, 11:20 PM

Acknowledge that it isnt appropriate, why it isnt appropriate and just stop doing it.
Can do

Dhul Fiqar

17th October 2003, 23:30

Excellent posts - and sorry if this seems irrelevant - but the Stonewall riots took place in 1969. It was a great blow for the movement - some claim it was partly the result of poor timing because the police raided the place just as news of Judy Garland's burial was being announced (she died earlier the same week) - NOT a good day to piss off the gay community! Everyone was in mourning - and basically the raid was the last straw.

It got ugly - but it led to the establishment of the GLF (Gay Liberation Front) which was a good move :)

--- G.

Discontinuity

17th October 2003, 23:39

I didn't intend it to be patronizing, I meant it the same way -you- said 'good for her'. Yeesh. <_<

Now, for the other points...

1. My point was just that, that some choose to be, and some are naturally homosexual. I argued with someone on this, because they maintained that my saying some homosexuals decide to be homosexuals was homophobic, in some way. I don't understand how exactly, I made the point to try and get someone to explain to me how it was homophobic.

I apologize if my wording was unclear, by the way, I'm not the most articulate person, even at the best of times. I babble a lot.

2. I draw a line between being proud of what you are, and being agressively and publicly indecent about this. Like I said, whether you're gay, straight, black, white, whatever, there's some things that aren't appropriate. I don't dislike the Gay Pride Festival because of the gays, I dislike it because I don't see why they need to behave like that.

I don't see the reason for the 'Stonewall' story. Resisting unjust laws and discrimination? Right, good on that, I again fully support it. It has nothing to do with whether the actions at the Gay Pride Festival is or is not appropriate.

Bless? What? :huh:

(EDIT: I just noticed my tenses and subjects are totally fucked up, but I won't change them. Mock me in my weary grammatical incorrectness.)

Dhul Fiqar

17th October 2003, 23:42

I love it when people argue homosexuality is a choice - and by extension someone can be convinced to become a homosexual.

You think I could get you to take one up the ass with the right argument? Or do you think that one day you might decide the lifestyle is cool - so you want to suck some cock to fit in? =D

--- G.

Discontinuity

17th October 2003, 23:47

I didn't say all homosexuals just decided to be homosexual... I said some did. Some are naturally homosexual, some choose to be.

Would you rather I just go hardcore homophobic, and save you the trouble of trying to twist my words so that you can feel self-righteous? :angry:

The Feral Underclass

18th October 2003, 00:00

We have already said that some people choose homosexulaity as a lifestyle. not that it has any relevance to anything...

2. I draw a line between being proud of what you are, and being agressively and publicly indecent about this. Like I said, whether you're gay, straight, black, white, whatever, there's some things that aren't appropriate. I don't dislike the Gay Pride Festival because of the gays, I dislike it because I don't see why they need to behave like that.

People should be able to express themselves in anyway they want...creativly or sexually...if two gay men want to dress up in funny clothes and dance around with staps on and vibrators then who cares, let them dance...why are you so up tight.

I know you do not see the need for people to behave in such a way. That does not mean it is wrong, only that you do not understand it. Like I have said, people behave like that because they feel it is the only way to attack the oppression they are under. That is why palestinians blow themselves up at bus stops. They are desperate acts if retaliation against violent and aphorent oppression. These men and woman display themselves in these ways for exactly the same reasons. You should not be disgusted by such shows of revolt, by anyone, not just gay people. You should embrace it.

Your own conservativeism concludes that it is aggresive and publicly indecent. Just laugh. join in. sing raining men with us and suck a dildo. It's ok, we wont think your gay!

Dhul Fiqar

18th October 2003, 00:01

Did I say that you said all homosexuals chose to be so? No - I did not.

I said that the notion that anyone decided to become gay was ludicours - as it is.

And I am not self-righteous about gay rights - I am non-prejudiced - big difference.

--- G.

Dhul Fiqar

18th October 2003, 00:02

IT'S RAAAAIIIIIINING MEN!!!!!! HALLELUJAH IT'S RAINING MEN!!!!!! =D

--- G.

Discontinuity

18th October 2003, 00:12

Sorry, I assumed you were directing your post towards me, Dhul.

It did come right after, so.... Meh. Whatever.

Lardlad95

18th October 2003, 10:51

Originally posted by Dhul [email protected] 18 2003, 12:02 AM
IT'S RAAAAIIIIIINING MEN!!!!!! HALLELUJAH IT'S RAINING MEN!!!!!! =D

--- G.
Oh how I loathe that song

Totalitarian

18th October 2003, 11:48

Gay man:It has come to my attention that some people on this message board feel it acceptable to hold latant homophobic views such as "they make me feel uncomforatble" or "gay people are ok, just not if they get married". Well people, it is not acceptable.

Why do you get to decide what is and isn't acceptable?

The Feral Underclass

18th October 2003, 12:15

Why do you get to decide what is and isn't acceptable?

Are you for real? This is a message board for left-wing and liberal minded people. Not for homophobes or racists. On this message board, homophobic behaviour, whether it is blatant or not, should not be tolerated. Would you care to disagree with me.

As for the "Gayman" reference, anymore like that, and I will be asking the moderaters to have your membership revoked.

Dhul Fiqar

18th October 2003, 15:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 08:12 AM
Sorry, I assumed you were directing your post towards me, Dhul.

It did come right after, so.... Meh. Whatever.
It was directed at you - but you never said all homosexuals chose to be that way nor did I say that you said that - get it? ;)

What I take issue with is the belief that ANYONE can decide to start having gay sex just because he likes Barbara Streisand and Queer as Folk - i.e. "for the lifestyle".

--- G.

dopediana

18th October 2003, 18:57

Originally posted by Dhul Fiqar+Oct 18 2003, 03:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dhul Fiqar @ Oct 18 2003, 03:03 PM)
[email protected] 18 2003, 08:12 AM
Sorry, I assumed you were directing your post towards me, Dhul.

It did come right after, so.... Meh. Whatever.
It was directed at you - but you never said all homosexuals chose to be that way nor did I say that you said that - get it? ;)

What I take issue with is the belief that ANYONE can decide to start having gay sex just because he likes Barbara Streisand and Queer as Folk - i.e. "for the lifestyle".

--- G. [/b]
rock on, dhul. seeing what happens to gay people i'd rather not be gay if for the mere price of remaining intact. i want to know why people would choose to be gay.

Totalitarian

19th October 2003, 05:02

On this message board, homophobic behaviour, whether it is blatant or not, should not be tolerated.

Oh, please. Do you really see "homophobia" as the only reason why some people wouldn't want to endorse gay marriages?

Dr. Rosenpenis

19th October 2003, 05:57

I completely agree with Libertarian Commie over here.

You said you have a problem with gays flaunting their homosexuality, and you also don't appreciate straight people flauting their heterosexuality, eh? Well, I don't see you complaining about men who constantly and openly express their endless lust for women, do you?

Why should there be any discriminations based on sexual orientation? Even if it only has to do with the tittle of a legal bond like marriage?

We're all equal.

If heterosexuals were a minority and were relatively recently beging to gain acceptance in society, would you like it if you were looked down upon for showing pride in your opennes and individuality?

Lardlad95

19th October 2003, 16:11

The Feral Underclass

19th October 2003, 17:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 05:02 AM
On this message board, homophobic behaviour, whether it is blatant or not, should not be tolerated.

Oh, please. Do you really see "homophobia" as the only reason why some people wouldn't want to endorse gay marriages?
Taking something such as marriage and saying one group of people can enjoy the benifits of it and another group can not is called discrimination. In this case it is the state saying that homosexual love is not valid and therefore two gay people are not allowed to publicly declare their love for each other and bind themselves not only in love but legally also, namly a marriage. Yet hetrosexual love is completely valid and therefore can enjoy the benifits of such a union.

It is exactly the same as saying to black people that they can not sit on park benches, yet white people can. That is classed as racism, and the discrimination against gay people who wish to marry is called homophobia.

I assume you are one of these people who would like to see gay people disciminated against?

mentalbunny

19th October 2003, 19:12

May I have your views on something? Would you say that disliking a gay guy, partly due to him being really camp, is homophobic? I just want to know because one of my "friends", who's gay, really gets up my nose. Actually it's not really his campness, it's his smugness so that was all pretty irrelevant.

I have to say, due to society, I do sometimes have to fight my conservative urges about things like Gay Pride, but I can overcome them. I have to say it would be really stupid of me to be homophobic considering my sister, and me of course.

I don't really care if same sex unions have a different name, what's in a name? I know it can make a small difference about people's attitudes but most people can get beyond that. Really it's the social status that matters, and insurance and stuff.

I, like Lardlad, sometimes use the word "gay" in a derogatory way but I've managed to start correcting myself, and if I hear someone else saying it I say "you shouldn't say that, people might find it offensive". Sometimes people listen, sometimes they don't. It's an uphill struggle, what can I say.

I have to say any sexuality that isn't the norm is pretty difficult to handle. I've got it relatively easy since I'm bi, but even then it's tough in someways. What I actualyl find really weird is the idea that most other people are only really attracted to one sex, ro so they say! I just can't imagine it!

Urban Rubble

19th October 2003, 19:19

Discontinuity

19th October 2003, 19:33

You said you have a problem with gays flaunting their homosexuality, and you also don't appreciate straight people flauting their heterosexuality, eh? Well, I don't see you complaining about men who constantly and openly express their endless lust for women, do you?

Assuming, again, that this was directed at me...

Victorcommie, you seem to be speaking from experience here. I forgot that you have known me for years, been able to monitor my behaviour on and offline, and are able to label me as a hypocrite when I have never posted anything to contradict what I have already said. I do not condone heterosexual or homosexual flamboyancy, just as Rubble said.

And if this was directed to someone else, then I just hate you all. <_<

What does 'camp' mean, exactly?

As for Dhul, what are you arguing? That nobody would want to be gay if they could help it? Or that people have to be somewhat inclined towards homosexuality to become fully gay? I really do not understand, I'm not trying to be hostile. :huh:

The Feral Underclass

19th October 2003, 20:12

As for Dhul, what are you arguing? That nobody would want to be gay if they could help it? Or that people have to be somewhat inclined towards homosexuality to become fully gay? I really do not understand, I'm not trying to be hostile.

There are examples of women coming out of violently abusive relationhips with men and have found a happy relationship woth another woman. There are of course men, such as the beatnik Neal Cassidy, who choose to have relationships with other men. These are examples of people consciously deciding to have a realtionship with somene of the same sex.

What is in question is the argument that all gay people choose to be homosexual. Of course this is not true. I did not choose to be a homosexual, anymore than you decided to be hetrosexual. I just found men to be a turn on, and women to be companions.

We are talking about young boys and girls batteling with their emotions. They did not choose to find the same sex attractive, indeed they dont even know that it is homosexuality.

I think the point Dhul was making was that no one in their right mind would consciously decide to be gay because of the disgusting oppression we have to endure. With all this said, I am very happy with being gay and wouldn't change it for a thing :)

Dhul Fiqar

19th October 2003, 20:55

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20 2003, 04:12 AM
I think the point Dhul was making was that no one in their right mind would consciously decide to be gay because of the disgusting oppression we have to endure.
That is pretty much it - I don't see any rational human being choosing to be oppressed because they like watching Will and Grace and listening to "Raining Men". It's not a culture you can just decide you want to belong to - there is so much more involved than the obvious things like parades that straight society focuses on.

Not only that - but as we all know graphic homosexual acts are not exactly easy for most straight people to watch with a straight face (pun intended) - let alone take part in. So I find the notion of someone making a conscious decision to stop being straight and start having sex with someone of their own gender for the sake of "fitting in" to be extremely hard to take seriously...

That being said - sexuality is not black and white. It might appear to people that someone is "becoming gay" when in fact they are just finally accepting themselves. Believe me - there are a lot more closeted "straight" guys out there than there are straight guys pretending to be gay...

--- G.

Discontinuity

19th October 2003, 21:42

Hmm. I get the feeling that I agree with you, Dhul, except I don't understand exactly what you're saying, and you both seem to misunderstand what I'm saying.

I thank TAT for the translation. :rolleyes: (A non-sarcastic eye-rolling, as it were.)

I never meant straight guys becoming gay, for a lark or whatever. I meant what TAT said at the beginning of his post when I referred to some homosexuals chosing to be gay, and I was told by someone else that I was incorrect.

I think perhaps you connected two seperate points in my posts that I did not intend to be taken together, the decision by some to enter a homosexual relationship and the decision by others to be flamboyantly gay.

BuyOurEverything

19th October 2003, 22:49

Oh, please. Do you really see "homophobia" as the only reason why some people wouldn't want to endorse gay marriages?

Oh, please. Do you really see "racism" as the only reason why some people wouldn't want to endorse interracial marriages?

As for flambouant gay pride (such as guys strapping on vibrators etc. as you said), in a perfect society where everyone was completely open with their sexuality I would have no problem with it however I think it can be a little detrimental. Young kids trying to come to terms with their homosexuality might be scared off by it because, as it is often the most visible side of homosexuality, it might seem that being gay means crossdressing and waving around sex toys whereas this is only one aspect of it. It would be the same as if when people thought of heterosexuality they imediately thought about macho guys and wet t-shirt contests and straight porn (maybe I picked bad examples but I hope you see what I mean.) I think what really needs to be advertised is that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality and eventually sexual openess for either preference will come about. It bothers me a little when I watch TV and the only gay guys I see are the guys from Queer Eye For The Straight Guy and people like that annoying guy from Will and Grace. For the record I don't like sitcoms gay or straight but can I look around all over the place and see straight people but the most common place you see gay people is on stupid sitcoms. Characters of all types on all shows should declare themselves openly gay and then people would see that gay people are just as different as straight people.

Dhul Fiqar

19th October 2003, 22:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 05:42 AM
I think perhaps you connected two seperate points in my posts that I did not intend to be taken together, the decision by some to enter a homosexual relationship and the decision by others to be flamboyantly gay.
True. I guess we have to agree to... eh... agree =D

--- G.

Totalitarian

20th October 2003, 08:49

My view on marriage is that it is a private affair; in the form of a religious sacrament or a private contract. The state should not get involved in it whatsoever.

So yes, i oppose the state recognising gay marriages.

For the moment, i feel that the law should either stay the way it is or government should get out of the business of marriage relationships altogether.

Monogamous marriage evolved as a heterosexual instituion, and a way for the religious institutions of the time to recognise the sacredness of the union between man and woman which is the sole cause of the species' continuation into the future. Furthermore it was to provide the children of that union with an environment where they were surrounded by their two biological parents and certain traditions could be passed on through them.

Throughout western history marriage has always been between a man and a woman.....because there is a clear and distinct difference between a procreative union and one which has no species survival value whatsoever (homosexual union).

The Feral Underclass

20th October 2003, 11:11

Young kids trying to come to terms with their homosexuality might be scared off by it because, as it is often the most visible side of homosexuality, it might seem that being gay means crossdressing and waving around sex toys whereas this is only one aspect of it.

People can not be scared away from their sexuality because so oipenly gay men have a pride march. You do not switch it off when it does not suit your tastes.

It is homophobia and oppression which scares people away from their sexuailties.

So yes, i oppose the state recognising gay marriages.

it would follow then that you therefore agree that homosexual love is not vaild. And you openly endorse the segragation of gay people from benifits straight people enjoy, because they are gay. Is this not you condoning state sponsered oppression against a minority?

Monogamous marriage evolved as a heterosexual instituion, and a way for the religious institutions of the time to recognise the sacredness of the union between man and woman which is the sole cause of the species' continuation into the future.

We know long live in the biblical era. If you have not already noticed this is the twenty first centuary. The "sole cause of the species continuation" is not the only reason people want to get married. People want to get married because they want to bind each others love publicly and also be awared the same rights as a straight marriad couple. It seems that your only reason for this is because gay people apparently can not have children.....

I dont know whether you are aware of this, so I will give you the benifit of the doubt. I have sperm. In fact so do most gay men. The same for gay woman, most I am sure have functioning wombs and ovaries and therefore can produce children.

Throughout western history marriage has always been between a man and a woman.....

What relevance does this have....for most of western hisotry black people were slaves, times change. We move on!

because there is a clear and distinct difference between a procreative union and one which has no species survival value whatsoever (homosexual union).

You are quite frankly a homophobe. You harber anti-gay sentiments that I do not think you are letting on to.

I very much want to have children. A friend of mine has just given birth to a boy [he's called Dudley :) ] and she is in a happy relationhsip with her girlfriend. Because I can not have a child with my partner does not stop me from being able to have children. Many gay people have children without having to have a relationship with someone of the opposite sex.

I have noticed you have been made a restricted member. Obviously you are already familiar to the administrators. Just to clarify, people who hold ultra-right wing, racist or homophobic views are not welcome on this website.

If anyone wishes to disagree, then I am more than willing to defend this position.

Dhul Fiqar

20th October 2003, 11:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 04:49 PM
there is a clear and distinct difference between a procreative union and one which has no species survival value whatsoever (homosexual union).
So infertile people should not be allowed to marry - and there should be a minimum of one child per marriage - or it should be declared void within a given time period? ;)

--- G.

Totalitarian

21st October 2003, 05:23

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20 2003, 11:11 AM

it would follow then that you therefore agree that homosexual love is not vaild. And you openly endorse the segragation of gay people from benifits straight people enjoy, because they are gay. Is this not you condoning state sponsered oppression against a minority?

I don't think that homosexual love is invalid. Gay people are not segregated from the benefits which straight people enjoy. They may still marry a member of the opposite sex.

You are quite frankly a homophobe.

No, i'm not scared of homosexuals.

Totalitarian

21st October 2003, 05:50

Originally posted by Dhul [email protected] 20 2003, 11:38 AM

So infertile people should not be allowed to marry - and there should be a minimum of one child per marriage - or it should be declared void within a given time period? ;)

--- G.
The difference is this....

Procreation requires a heterosexual coupling

0% of homosexual couples can have children naturally

That is why homosexuality is considered sexual deviance, and was never endorsed by those in charge of the marriage institution.

But as i've said, i do not agree that the state should be involved in the process of marriage, which is a private affair. Therefore i do not support extending the franchise to a whole other sort of coupling. In the west birthrates are below replacement level; so why should the state be encouraging what are technically non-procreative couplings?

BuyOurEverything

21st October 2003, 05:51

The Feral Underclass

21st October 2003, 07:11

Gay people are not segregated from the benefits which straight people enjoy. They may still marry a member of the opposite sex.

What you are saying is that gay people should stop being gay and become straight is it? Your solution is not to allow gay people to express their sexuality in the way they want, and still be allowed to enjoy the benifits of marriage, but to force them to become straight.

0% of homosexual couples can have children naturally

Oh that's right, I forogt, we have a queen gay who goes around and implants unsuspecting victims who wait for the baby to burst forth from her chest...of course gay people can have children naturally you twat...how the hell do you think we have babies. My sperm is more than capable of fertalizing an egg thank you very much.

Because I can not have a baby with my partner does not stop me from having a baby.

If on the other hand you are saying that two men who love each other is unnatural then why is I, and the other 600,000,000 (1 in 10) people find the most natural thing in the world...and if you go by this hypothesis why then do we were clothes. Why do we use knives and forks. These things aren't natural...oh yeah, that's right that wonderful thing called time...

But as i've said, i do not agree that the state should be involved in the process of marriage, which is a private affair. Therefore i do not support extending the franchise to a whole other sort of coupling. In the west birthrates are below replacement level; so why should the state be encouraging what are technically non-procreative couplings?[b]

You redneck. This is nothing more than an excuse to hide your disdain for gay people nothing more.

[b]why should the state be encouraging what are technically non-procreative couplings?

Because it has nothing to do with procreation. I is about being able to publicly declare my love for my partner and unionize it legally.

I have sent a message to the aministraters to request something be done about you. You are a homophobe and openly endores day descrimiation. In my oppinion you should be banned from che-lives.

Totalitarian

21st October 2003, 07:19

You are a homophobe and openly endores day descrimiation.

You're right. I hate Mondays.

:D

Totalitarian

21st October 2003, 07:25

What you are saying is that gay people should stop being gay and become straight is it? Your solution is not to allow gay people to express their sexuality in the way they want, and still be allowed to enjoy the benifits of marriage, but to force them to become straight.

Try to keep up, dimwit.

What i said was that i do not believe the state has any right to get involved in what is a private contract or sacrament between individuals.

So on those grounds, i don't support the state endorsement of gay marriages. I also pointed out that homosexuality is deviancy, because it is not the purpose for which our sex organs were designed.

Guest1

21st October 2003, 07:29

In the west birthrates are below replacement level; so why should the state be encouraging what are technically non-procreative couplings?

Haha, that's funny, as if not "encouraging" it would mean we'd have more kids.

In case you didn't notice, just cause the birth rate is falling in the West, doesn't mean that India and China aren't having an absolute crisis. Our world resources are strained, I'd say population decline is the least of our problems.

And besides, do you know what the Isle of Lesbos is? They found an entire population of lesbian seagulls there. Also, there's recent proof coming about that homosexuality is used by nature just as much as heterosexuality to preserve species. Some kind of evolutionary balance based on resources and the strain put on them by population growth. Gets too quick, the percentage of non-reproducing homosexuals in the population of that species rises. I'll have to find the source some time though, that was a while ago I read that.

Nothing unnatural about homosexuality, everything unnatural about your pathetic definition of love as being for reproduction only.

Totalitarian

21st October 2003, 07:36

Nothing unnatural about homosexuality,

I wouldn't go as far as saying it's unnatural. Some animals seem to practise it, and as you said it comes in handy when a population needs to be reduced. It is also probably a way of preserving the sex organs when there are no females around.

everything unnatural about your pathetic definition of love as being for reproduction only

I never said that.

The Feral Underclass

21st October 2003, 08:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 05:23 AM

I don't think that homosexual love is invalid. Gay people are not segregated from the benefits which straight people enjoy. They may still marry a member of the opposite sex.
How does that, actually mean

"What i said was that i do not believe the state has any right to get involved in what is a private contract or sacrament between individuals."

what you are saying by stating what is in the quote box is

"...that gay people should stop being gay and become straight is it? Your solution is not to allow gay people to express their sexuality in the way they want, and still be allowed to enjoy the benifits of marriage, but to force them to become straight."

Dhul Fiqar

21st October 2003, 14:21

Originally posted by Totalitarian+Oct 21 2003, 01:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Totalitarian @ Oct 21 2003, 01:50 PM)
Dhul [email protected] 20 2003, 11:38 AM

So infertile people should not be allowed to marry - and there should be a minimum of one child per marriage - or it should be declared void within a given time period? ;)

--- G.
The difference is this....

Procreation requires a heterosexual coupling

[/b]
That is simply ridiculous. First of all it requires transfer of seamen to the womb - not sex.

Secondly a heterosexual coupling is not enough to produce a child. Not everyone can or wants to have a child.

Your argument is getting increasingly desperate in it's stupidity and bigotted undertones.

--- G.

elijahcraig

22nd October 2003, 01:14

I agree with Anarchist Tension on the gay issue.

Being bisexual, I notice the homophobia of everyday people everywhere.

Not to mention some of our more "conservative" communists.

Dr. Rosenpenis

22nd October 2003, 03:30

Totalitarian, it seems that you're saying that since the government shouldn't be involved in the private and consensual decisions of individuals that affect nobody else, then they shouldn't endorse gay marriage. Isn't this involvement in private and consensual matters between two free individuals?

Now you're trying to suggest that homosexuality, and therefore a lack of heterosexuality is a threat to the growth of our population, ridiculous! By implying this, you're either saying that (a) people who are truly straight are being drawn into homosexuality by the government's tolerance for it and creating a lack of "naturaly" reproductive couples, or (b) gays ought to repress their homosexuality and reproduce "naturaly" for the good of humanity.

Urban Rubble

22nd October 2003, 03:37

I also pointed out that homosexuality is deviancy, because it is not the purpose for which our sex organs were designed.

So let me get this straight, anything that you do with your genitals that doesn't create a child is deviant ? So about an hour ago when I rubbed one out, that made me a deviant ? To think, I wasted all that wonderful jizz on a sock. So the other day, when I had sex with my girlfriend and she didn't become pregnant, that somehow made me a deviant ?

Nice logic dumbass. Please, go shoot yourself in the face with a high caliber rifle.

Being bisexual, I notice the homophobia of everyday people everywhere.

Not to mention some of our more "conservative" communists.

You know, I have been accused of being slightly homophobic before (actually, maybe by you =) but there is a difference in not enjoying seeing 2 men kiss and outright hating them for it. See, I have no problem with males fucking males, females fucking females, I just get grossed out if I see it (at least guys). That doesn't make me homophobic, it just means I don't like watching gay men fuck, no more than I would want to see an 80 year old hetero couple. Also, I have been accused of being a homphobe because I make jokes at flamboyant men's expense. Again, that doesn't make me a homophobe, it just means that I find flamboyant males to be entertaining. If you can honestly tell me that a 40 year old accountant wearing pink short shorts, speaking with a lisp and using phrases like "you go girl" to his male friends doesn't make you laugh, then I don't know what will. You must be a stronger person than me. Lighten up, go buy a sense of humor. Another thing, I have a straight friend who is flamboyant as Sigfried and Roy, and we laugh at him all the time. Not because he is gay (he isn't) but because I find that behavior kind of funny.

elijahcraig

22nd October 2003, 03:41

You know, I have been accused of being slightly homophobic before (actually, maybe by you =) but there is a difference in not enjoying seeing 2 men kiss and outright hating them for it. See, I have no problem with males fucking males, females fucking females, I just get grossed out if I see it (at least guys). That doesn't make me homophobic, it just means I don't like watching gay men fuck, no more than I would want to see an 80 year old hetero couple. Also, I have been accused of being a homphobe because I make jokes at flamboyant men's expense. Again, that doesn't make me a homophobe, it just means that I find flamboyant males to be entertaining. If you can honestly tell me that a 40 year old accountant wearing pink short shorts, speaking with a lisp and using phrases like "you go girl" to his male friends doesn't make you laugh, then I don't know what will. You must be a stronger person than me. Lighten up, go buy a sense of humor. Another thing, I have a straight friend who is flamboyant as Sigfried and Roy, and we laugh at him all the time. Not because he is gay (he isn't) but because I find that behavior kind of funny.

I was referring to El Brujo especially, I wasn't aware of any of your preferences.

I have opinions on WHY you find things revolting, etc., just as some find necrophilia or pedophilia revolting, I don't agree any are revolting in essence, but from a relative perceptionist basis; I don't want to argue about it though because I have no problem with you if you just let people do what they want, and don't make policy or persecute.

Urban Rubble

22nd October 2003, 03:48

Well, I don't find it nearly as "revolting" as a man inserting his penis into a dead body or a child, but I still don't enjoy watching it. Like I said, I wouldn't want to watch an 80 year old couple go at it either. Or 2 ugly people for that matter.

Now, as far as your theories on why I find it revolting, that may have some basis in truth. You see, I was raised in a very conservative Christian home. I was never taught to hate anyone, only love, but I was also taught that homosexuality is "wrong". So that may have something to do with it, but I really don't think so. I just think it is a matter of preference. As I stated above, I find it no more "revolting" than ugly people or old people having sex. It sounds harsh, but it's just my preference. I would hope that as long as I am not looking down upon anyone I will be alright.

But who really knows ? It could just be a result of my social programming. These things are hard to break. It took me until about 11 to realize that being gay isn't "wrong".

elijahcraig

22nd October 2003, 03:55

Now, as far as your theories on why I find it revolting, that may have some basis in truth. You see, I was raised in a very conservative Christian home. I was never taught to hate anyone, only love, but I was also taught that homosexuality is "wrong". So that may have something to do with it, but I really don't think so. I just think it is a matter of preference. As I stated above, I find it no more "revolting" than ugly people or old people having sex. It sounds harsh, but it's just my preference. I would hope that as long as I am not looking down upon anyone I will be alright.

I used to find it disgusting, and I grew up in a conservative household as well. I'm not sure how I changed from finding it disgusting to not finding it disgusting, probably something in early psychosexual development.

But who really knows ? It could just be a result of my social programming. These things are hard to break. It took me until about 11 to realize that being gay isn't "wrong".

It took me until about 13, but around two years ago to see that nothing is "wrong".

I think Freud said, "There is nothing humans can do which is perverted." Or something like that.

It blends with a naturalist philosophy to a point, meaning morality being completely bunk, and having everything being a natural product, nothing is "unnatural", I don't even know how someone could claim something as such. There are values and those which you have and that which is in your interest you act in a way for your interest, even martrydom fits into that equation. "Unnatural" only takes place on a man-made scale--much like god--and is the subjective man forming morals, vs the objective existence without, which is natural and without morality.

Urban Rubble

22nd October 2003, 04:50

It took me until about 13, but around two years ago to see that nothing is "wrong".

I think Freud said, "There is nothing humans can do which is perverted." Or something like that.

It blends with a naturalist philosophy to a point, meaning morality being completely bunk, and having everything being a natural product, nothing is "unnatural", I don't even know how someone could claim something as such. There are values and those which you have and that which is in your interest you act in a way for your interest, even martrydom fits into that equation. "Unnatural" only takes place on a man-made scale--much like god--and is the subjective man forming morals, vs the objective existence without, which is natural and without morality.

Ya, I agree to a certain degree. But then again, I think there are things that obviously "wrong". Murdering someone for pleasure I would say is wrong. Hurting a child, whether it be physical abuse or sexual I consider to be a universal "wrong". Stealing from someone (unless you abosultely need it) I'd say is wrong.

I think we all know what is truly wrong. But then again, just about everything in life is subjective.

elijahcraig

22nd October 2003, 05:08

I do not agree that there are "universal wrongs".

You are viewing it from your subjective culture; if the Roman thought it moral or amoral to kill a child (Caligula often dressed as a transvestite at night and raped little children and murdered them), then it is their subjective choice. If the cannibal in Africa views it as moral to eat another human, it is not immoral to do so, it is from his subjective view: moral. It is also immoral from your vantage point obviously, but if viewed from an objective point, it is altogether empty of morals, acting for your passions and will, "justifying" those actions by subjective morality. Of course the word "justifying" (it is hard to escape what Heidegger called man's "dwelling in language" when speaking of objective sterile things), is obviously tainted with "moral" vigor, and needs to be removed and replaced with something which fills that void, "molding" maybe? I am not sure, but I think the idea is there even if the word is not.

BuyOurEverything

22nd October 2003, 05:16

elijahcraig

22nd October 2003, 05:52

I've argued with people over this (school teachers many times), and they usually fall into the trap of "well, it's just wrong", or the abstract, "well, each person knows and can see their own truth." Which is a mere pit of petit bourgeois idealism without grounding in reality (much like a anarchist "ideal" of the utopia without confronting the reality that it is based on human construct without science, or natural law and is exactly a utopia which has no effect on the real world), and without grounding in anything with effect over the world or its human participant. Blake-like mysticism also goes down this trail, along with many eastern religions cultivated by former princes or such people.

Dr. Rosenpenis

23rd October 2003, 00:07

I think oppression among humans is fundamentaly wrong.

Bodyguard

23rd October 2003, 05:50

Homosexuality is a fact of life. What one does in the privacy of their home matters not at all to me. I agree with those that say I prefer not to see ANYONES sexuality in public. Gay or straight, have just a bit of class and be descrete. As for gay marriage I defer to comedian Richard Jenny who said "I think gays have the same right to lose half their shit the same as I do!" If someone is in a committed relationship then they should have the right to hospital visits and medical insurance etc. But flaunting blatent sexuality will not get you accepted in the mainstream (that goes for either gay or straight). Wear space helmet and a french tickler on the bus and guess what???? You will be noticed and diminished in the eyes of those you are trying to appear normal to. (I mean it may be "normal" to have sex with the same sex partner but blatent displays of any sexuality is not the "norm" of our society) Ram anything down someones throat long enough and the natural reaction of anybody is to fight back. Sometimes less is definetly more.

BuyOurEverything

23rd October 2003, 06:03

blatent displays of any sexuality is not the "norm" of our society

Dude watch any music video or concert and you'll see women in tight skimpy slothes grinding shit and look on any bus and you'll see a boyfriend and girlfriend kissing and few people think this isn't normal. But if you see two guys kissing on a bus or guys in skimpy clothes grinding shit and all of a sudden it's a "blatant public display of sexuality. And just to clarify, I'm totally for public openess about sexuality.

Bodyguard

23rd October 2003, 06:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 06:03 AM

blatent displays of any sexuality is not the "norm" of our society

Dude watch any music video or concert and you'll see women in tight skimpy slothes grinding shit and look on any bus and you'll see a boyfriend and girlfriend kissing and few people think this isn't normal. But if you see two guys kissing on a bus or guys in skimpy clothes grinding shit and all of a sudden it's a "blatant public display of sexuality. And just to clarify, I'm totally for public openess about sexuality.
Ahem "dude" :) There are many degrees of things dont you think? A music video on tv gives one a CHOICE to watch or not. Being trapped in traffic or on a bus implies less of a choice...see my point? A quick kiss or hand hold does not equate with open sex acts. Those of us who prefer not to see your sexual drives (hetero or homosexual) should have consideration also! Your NEED to get a hummer in no way has anything to do with your RIGHT to have one in a public place! Keep it zipped in public, male or female....have some class and dignity.

The Feral Underclass

23rd October 2003, 16:55

Class and dignity...what does tha mean?

It was illegal up to three years for two men to get of with each other in the streets, just like straight people. You could have been fined if spotted by a police man. So when you refer to gay pride as "blatant public display of sexuality" what you are actually talking about is gay people saying that the descimination of homosexuality is wrong and an infringment of human rights. If two men wish to kiss each other in public using their tongues then so be it. As BuyOurEverything said, it is perfectly acceptable for two straight people to do it.

As for choosing to watch Christina agulaira and britney spears rub themselves up and down various men and play with their tits you are right. You can choose to turn of the television. The point is though, there are no homosexual equivilants for me or other gay people to choose from. We do not have that choice to watch or not watch something that displays my sexuality, because homosexuality is disgusting in the eyes of the law and in the minds of many people. When we have that choice we wont need to parade down the streets.

So bodyguard...what are your oppinions to wonderbra adds or huge CK adverts with half naked women on them? or how about FHM magazine billboards with some blonde haired maiden staring eluring at you with her tits flopping about...I suppose that "blatant public display of sexuality" is acceptable...or would you rather we all wear chastity belts, ban make-up, revealing clothes and ban the word sex or cock within a mile radius of the nearest human...?

Bodyguard

23rd October 2003, 17:12

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 23 2003, 04:55 PM
Class and dignity...what does tha mean?

It was illegal up to three years for two men to get of with each other in the streets, just like straight people. You could have been fined if spotted by a police man. So when you refer to gay pride as "blatant public display of sexuality" what you are actually talking about is gay people saying that the descimination of homosexuality is wrong and an infringment of human rights. If two men wish to kiss each other in public using their tongues then so be it. As BuyOurEverything said, it is perfectly acceptable for two straight people to do it.

As for choosing to watch Christina agulaira and britney spears rub themselves up and down various men and play with their tits you are right. You can choose to turn of the television. The point is though, there are no homosexual equivilants for me or other gay people to choose from. We do not have that choice to watch or not watch something that displays my sexuality, because homosexuality is disgusting in the eyes of the law and in the minds of many people. When we have that choice we wont need to parade down the streets.

So bodyguard...what are your oppinions to wonderbra adds or huge CK adverts with half naked women on them? or how about FHM magazine billboards with some blonde haired maiden staring eluring at you with her tits flopping about...I suppose that "blatant public display of sexuality" is acceptable...or would you rather we all wear chastity belts, ban make-up, revealing clothes and ban the word sex or cock within a mile radius of the nearest human...?
It is illegal im most western countries to have sex in a public place, gay or straight. Events like gay rights parades in San Franscisco (I live 2 hours from SF) have often included explicit sex acts. What I am saying is that IMO events and acts like that do nothing to further your cause for equal treatment. Since the majority of us are hetero, then it only is logical to assume that most displays or references to sexuality will be hetero, right? Advertising has alwyas tried to titilate and tease and push the envelope of public standards, that is very true. A print ad or a billboard ad is far different than having sex in public, cant you see what I mean? Or are you saying that the rest of us have to watch and accept anything that you do in a public place? As for the words class and dignity, I think that a man and a woman having sex on a park bench surrounded by cheering crowds have no class or dignity. The same would be thought of two men or two women doing the same thing.

On a side note:
Since this site has several Stalinists on here, I would be interested to hear opinions on how the NKVD and KGB treated homosexuals in the USSR.

Saint-Just

23rd October 2003, 20:40

BuyOurEverything

23rd October 2003, 21:36

It is illegal im most western countries to have sex in a public place, gay or straight. Events like gay rights parades in San Franscisco (I live 2 hours from SF) have often included explicit sex acts. What I am saying is that IMO events and acts like that do nothing to further your cause for equal treatment. Since the majority of us are hetero, then it only is logical to assume that most displays or references to sexuality will be hetero, right? Advertising has alwyas tried to titilate and tease and push the envelope of public standards, that is very true. A print ad or a billboard ad is far different than having sex in public, cant you see what I mean? Or are you saying that the rest of us have to watch and accept anything that you do in a public place? As for the words class and dignity, I think that a man and a woman having sex on a park bench surrounded by cheering crowds have no class or dignity. The same would be thought of two men or two women doing the same thing.

So you think that what you believe is "class and dignity" should be legislated on the masses?

Lardlad95

26th October 2003, 21:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 01:14 AM
I agree with Anarchist Tension on the gay issue.

Being bisexual, I notice the homophobia of everyday people everywhere.

Not to mention some of our more "conservative" communists.
I think you are the first bisexual stalinist I've ever met. Most stalinists I've talk to want to kill gays or something of that nature.

I'm sure you've talked to them too, whats the deal with them?

elijahcraig

27th October 2003, 00:32

I think that the advancement of the movement that is trying to attain acceptance of homosexuality depends on vigorous and uncomprimising action. I do see oppression towards homosexuals. I dislike heterosexuals and homosexuals who subscribe to immoral views on sexuality though. Therefore I would not support any homosexuals who advocate promiscuity, although it may still be important to not get in the way of their movement. I think that homosexual marriages may help do curb sexual liberality.

How do you define “immoral”?

I think you are the first bisexual stalinist I've ever met. Most stalinists I've talk to want to kill gays or something of that nature.

I'm sure you've talked to them too, whats the deal with them?

A strand of Conservatism? I don’t know.

I am sickened by so called Communists saying homosexuality “must be destroyed”.

It is utterly ridiculous.

Bodyguard

27th October 2003, 04:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 09:36 PM

It is illegal im most western countries to have sex in a public place, gay or straight. Events like gay rights parades in San Franscisco (I live 2 hours from SF) have often included explicit sex acts. What I am saying is that IMO events and acts like that do nothing to further your cause for equal treatment. Since the majority of us are hetero, then it only is logical to assume that most displays or references to sexuality will be hetero, right? Advertising has alwyas tried to titilate and tease and push the envelope of public standards, that is very true. A print ad or a billboard ad is far different than having sex in public, cant you see what I mean? Or are you saying that the rest of us have to watch and accept anything that you do in a public place? As for the words class and dignity, I think that a man and a woman having sex on a park bench surrounded by cheering crowds have no class or dignity. The same would be thought of two men or two women doing the same thing.

So you think that what you believe is "class and dignity" should be legislated on the masses?
I think it should be part of education just like math or reading. What is wrong with being a polite and pleasant person?

BuyOurEverything

27th October 2003, 05:00

I think it should be part of education just like math or reading. What is wrong with being a polite and pleasant person?

The problem is who's definition of class, dignity, politness and pleasantness do you teach? Pretty much everybody has a different idea of these concepts.

Bodyguard

27th October 2003, 05:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 06:00 AM

I think it should be part of education just like math or reading. What is wrong with being a polite and pleasant person?

The problem is who's definition of class, dignity, politness and pleasantness do you teach? Pretty much everybody has a different idea of these concepts.
No, pretty much everybody knows exactly what politness and pleasantness is. Acting like an animal in any activity is pretty much not "polite".

BuyOurEverything

27th October 2003, 05:06

So you think politness and pleasantness are universal concepts? What exactly defines "acting like animal?"

Bodyguard

27th October 2003, 05:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 06:06 AM
So you think politness and pleasantness are universal concepts? What exactly defines "acting like animal?"
Yes, I do. Do you really need to have it spelled out? Animals crap wherever they want........they often attack and eat their young......they have sex in front of the rest of the pride.......they talk to much in the movie theater.........they never know what fork to use.......the bite the ears off of other boxers.......I really dont think many need help with the definition.........

Saint-Just

27th October 2003, 10:24

man and a woman having sex on a park bench surrounded by cheering crowds have no class or dignity.
Did that really happen?

That is an issue concerning 'class and dignity' as you said, those people should certainly be punished. We do need to educate people in 'class and dignity', but it is not much to do with homosexuality.

I have seen a gar pride parade myself and it had a lot of naked people in it. I don't find that acceptable myself. I think homosexuals would be better off going round and cracking some skulls to make provocative statements.

Dhul Fiqar

27th October 2003, 11:00

Let me get this straight - two people had sex in front of CHEERING onlookers - obviously they and everyone else was enjoying themselves.

But "they should be punished"? Heil Mao!! ;)

--- G.

p.s. and you find public violence towards other human beings more acceptable than showing one's body - which is a totally natural thing and doesn't hurt anyone?

Saint-Just

27th October 2003, 11:12

You could punish the onlooker too.

I think public violence is rather deplorable. I mean punishment as imprisonment. Public or private physical abuse towards the protagonists seems to be barbaric, although they would deserve it.

Dhul Fiqar

27th October 2003, 11:25

I thought you just said "cracking some skulls" in public was a good way to get a message across?

Maybe you should start with my skull - since I am guilty of the horrible crime of watching people have sex in public and enjoying it?? You do realize you are siding with the John Ashcroft school of morality?

While on the subject of punishment, the hipocritical morality police should be strung up by the balls and whipped with poison ivy if I can help it ;)

--- G.

elijahcraig

28th October 2003, 00:15

Stirring up chaos is an act of revolt, I don't think the gay parades go far enough.

BuyOurEverything

28th October 2003, 01:21

here's one
it was adam and eve
not adam and steve

Why the fuck aren't you banned yet?

You could punish the onlooker too.

I think public violence is rather deplorable. I mean punishment as imprisonment. Public or private physical abuse towards the protagonists seems to be barbaric, although they would deserve it.

Why would they deserve it? Have they hurt anyone? If you don't like it, don't watch, if you do, what's the problem?

Bodyguard

28th October 2003, 04:46

This thread was about homosexuals and treatment of them. My point that seems to have been lost in the "l have a right to fuck in public BS" is that there is a standard of decency in most countries. (***** about it or not) Want to be accepted in your homosexual lifestyle?....then dont flaunt what other people dont want to see. Is this really that hard to understand? If you must flaunt what you are (hetero or homo) then dont ***** when others object!

Totalitarian

28th October 2003, 09:22

Our sex organs were designed for one purpose...which is to produce children. That is why homosexual intercourse is a perversion (although i'm not saying that perversion is necessarily a bad thing).

Dhul Fiqar

28th October 2003, 10:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 01:46 PM
. My point that seems to have been lost in the "l have a right to fuck in public BS" is that there is a standard of decency in most countries. (***** about it or not) Want to be accepted in your homosexual lifestyle?....then dont flaunt what other people dont want to see. Is this really that hard to understand? If you must flaunt what you are (hetero or homo) then dont ***** when others object!
The point, my dear, is that no one seems to object to hetero couples kissing in public - but gays are harassed for doing the same. The reason we are discussing acceptable levels of heterosexual behaviour is that some people don't want to see a difference between gays kissing and heterosexuals having wild sex in the middle of the street - it suits their prejudices.

--- G.

Dhul Fiqar

28th October 2003, 10:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 06:22 PM
Our sex organs were designed for one purpose...which is to produce children. That is why homosexual intercourse is a perversion (although i'm not saying that perversion is necessarily a bad thing).
ROFLMAO - you ever take a piss? Because you really really should - it helps releave that pain you probably have in your abdomen from never using your sexual organs for anything but vaginal intercourse with a fertile female =D

--- G.

Saint-Just

28th October 2003, 11:04

I thought you just said "cracking some skulls" in public was a good way to get a message across?

You do realize you are siding with the John Ashcroft school of morality?

There is a difference between legitimised punishment and revolt. Homosexuals attacking certain people who are hindering their movement would be barbaric, however if it was the only choice to achieve their aims it would be necessary. I think having sex in public, although provocative is misrepresentative of what their movement should be. I think violence towards those who hinder their movement would not be. However, the majority of the movement has a different view than me.

I am not aware of the John Ashcroft comparison.

Why would they deserve it? Have they hurt anyone? If you don't like it, don't watch, if you do, what's the problem?

I think you know the answer yourself. I have a view of society that says their should be little deviation from a single acceptable ideology and moral code. My views combine what are very conservative views in this society with revolutionary Marxist-Leninist views. However, conservatives in this society tie in their views with their reactionary ideologies. Similarly my views combine puritanical views with the concept of ideological struggle in society, in which my views on morality will be part of the homogenising of society. As you can geuss I do view this act as hurting people and so on.

RedAnarchist

28th October 2003, 13:32

All people should have their own moral codes. If an individual wishes to be homosexual, then so be it. If an individual wishes to use cannabis, so be it. The government is not a nanny, it is a machine that the people control in order for the country to run.

Dhul Fiqar

28th October 2003, 14:08

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 28 2003, 08:04 PM
I have a view of society that says their should be little deviation from a single acceptable ideology and moral code. My views combine what are very conservative views in this society with revolutionary Marxist-Leninist views.
So - basically - you are a conservative and wholly intolerant of all opposing points of view or morality (presumably you don't care for Pakkies or Yardies, they have their own ideology and morality apart from your dogma)...but you are also somehow a Marxist? =D

--- G.

Bodyguard

28th October 2003, 15:37

Originally posted by Dhul Fiqar+Oct 28 2003, 11:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dhul Fiqar @ Oct 28 2003, 11:21 AM)
[email protected] 28 2003, 01:46 PM
. My point that seems to have been lost in the "l have a right to fuck in public BS" is that there is a standard of decency in most countries. (***** about it or not) Want to be accepted in your homosexual lifestyle?....then dont flaunt what other people dont want to see. Is this really that hard to understand? If you must flaunt what you are (hetero or homo) then dont ***** when others object!
The point, my dear, is that no one seems to object to hetero couples kissing in public - but gays are harassed for doing the same. The reason we are discussing acceptable levels of heterosexual behaviour is that some people don't want to see a difference between gays kissing and heterosexuals having wild sex in the middle of the street - it suits their prejudices.

--- G. [/b]
I fully understand your point and it is well taken. I think we need to look at degrees of behavior. A kiss goodbye or a hug outside of a building is no big deal.....a make out session and some groping is more of a problem for either homo or hertersexual......see my point?