Gay marriage salt thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheHeretic said:
I didn't slut shame anyone, the amount of unprotected casual sex going on in gay bath-houses and clubs was a major contributor to the aids epidemic in the gay community. Do you seriously disagree with this?
Click to expand...

Sure, but you basically said getting them to be monogamous, instead of just having safe sex, was the biggest fight for gay rights.
 
excelsiorlef said:
Sure, but you basically said getting them to be monogamous, instead of just having safe sex, was the biggest fight for gay rights.
Click to expand...

Convincing gay men that monogamous relationships were desirable at all was an enormous part of the fight for gay marriage. It was arguably the defining battle. You don't get gay marriage until you start asking for it, and you don't start asking for it unless you want it.
 
TheHeretic said:
Convincing gay men that monogamous relationships were desirable at all was an enormous part of the fight for gay marriage. It was arguably the defining battle. You don't get gay marriage until you start asking for it, and you don't start asking for it unless you want it.
Click to expand...

I think this depends on where you were. Big cities, definitely. But my first 20 years were in Indiana - trust me, we didn't have bathhouses.

Also, I know all of my gay friends (and myself) were promiscuous sex but we didn't not or stop looking for relationships. We just had fun along the way.
 
I'm not sure I'm comfortable being in a thread where spilling the blood of those you disagree with ideologically is being seriously discussed (even if direct threats aren't being made). I think George W. Bush is a horrible person and was responsible for driving America backward on many social issues. I do not want to murder him.

I'm bowing out until we put that other shit to bed.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
Because humans evolved as resource hoarding apes governed by their need to survive and successfully reproduce and not by some kind of logical apparatus. Selfishness isn't a learned behavior, it's coded into our genes.

Exhibit A: On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
Click to expand...
Weak effort, C-

Humans pretty clearly evolved as cooperative, social animals. We lived in small egalitarian groups for a million plus years. We cooperated and worked together and shared because in small groups being an asshole just gets you kicked out, where you're all alone and it's easier to get eaten by lions.

Also, can you provide any evidence for humans today being inherently selfish? I suppose you're just a rabid monster who desires nothing but to rape and plunder all around him, but what about the rest of us? Or are you one of the special few who isn't evil? And if everyone is so shitty, why is being a good person the most emphasized thing in pretty much any religion or belief system?

But wait, there's more - our nature is actually irrelevant because

A) If humans are shitty, then the ideal system is one that does not give people power over eachother. Capitalism creates a permanent ruling class of the shittiest, meanest people - since gaining power is a process that hurts a lot of people, so the worst of us ends up in charge under capitalism. Therefore, a system that actively suppresses those tendencies and spreads power the most is the ideal. For most people, socialism is the selfish choice - you no longer have someone stealing the value of your labor.

B) If humans are good, then a society based on sharing and cooperation is actually the best. It takes advantage of our good-hearted and social nature in obvious ways.

C) If humans are just products of their society, then we want a society that creates the nicest people possible - that's not capitalism, which encourages greed, selfishness, and fucking people over to get ahead. It's socialism/communism, which encourages teamwork and helping eachother.

And let's elaborate on C, because that's the real scenario - humans are a product of their material conditions. Ask any anthropology what human nature is. It's music, language, social organization, food acquisition, manners of dress, a desire to understand the world around them. Not selfishness or altruism. Those aren't human nature.

plop said:
I'm not sure I'm comfortable being in a thread where spilling the blood of those you disagree with ideologically is being seriously discussed. I think George W. Bush is a horrible person and was responsible for driving America backward on many social issues. I do not want to murder him.

I'm bowing out until we put that other shit to bed.
Click to expand...
That's not what anyone is calling for. We're saying we need to demand to end oppression and not limit ourselves by the oppressive system built around us. The ruling class will probably not put up with that and will try to stop us violently. If they do, we don't turn the other cheek. It'd be wonderful if we could do it peacefully, but that's up to the oppressors, not us.
 
NEx2ioF.jpg
Click to expand...

:)
 
plop said:
I'm not sure I'm comfortable being in a thread where spilling the blood of those you disagree with ideologically is being seriously discussed (even if direct threats aren't being made). I think George W. Bush is a horrible person and was responsible for driving America backward on many social issues. I do not want to murder him.

I'm bowing out until we put that other shit to bed.
Click to expand...
Yeah. This thread took a weird turn. I don't like it. I just want to laugh at racist bigoted homophobic rage. Not argue about who should be purified and wiped from the planet because they won't be tolerant like I am.

Let's get back to the funny FaceBook, Twitter and news posts.
 
The Real Abed said:
Yeah. This thread took a weird turn. I don't like it. I just want to laugh at racist bigoted homophobic rage. Not argue about who should be purified and wiped from the planet because they won't be tolerant like I am.

Let's get back to the funny FaceBook, Twitter and news posts.
Click to expand...

Ugh. That's not what I'm saying and you have to be intentionally misreading to get that.

But I don't want to derail this thread any further so I'll stop.
 
plop said:
I'm not sure I'm comfortable being in a thread where spilling the blood of those you disagree with ideologically is being seriously discussed (even if direct threats aren't being made). I think George W. Bush is a horrible person and was responsible for driving America backward on many social issues. I do not want to murder him.

I'm bowing out until we put that other shit to bed.
Click to expand...

What?

There was one guy and he got shut down like 35 seconds.
 
jackissocool said:
Definitely never said anything about bullying. And I stated that it's not a conspiracy theory but just a terrible, cruel system. No one is planning this stuff but it's set up to work this way.

My specific examples of oppression are just me shouting the word injustice? I have a point I've made pretty clear: this progress is great but if you want real lasting change for everyone then you need to abolish capitalism, and to do that is gonna require a revolution 90% of the time. I started this because people were talking about liberal politicians and whether or not they're sincere. I said no and people asked me to elaborate so I did.

Also you've never once addressed anything I've actually said but resorted purely to ad hominem attacks.
Click to expand...

Your specific examples of oppression were:

Starvation - which is not really oppression, it's more to do with tumultuous governments that are not stable enough to create a stable supply of food.

Water drought - Which is due resource scarcity, has nothing to do with oppression

Oil wars - Ok, except the majority of the middle east is not at war with the west and we still get oil. It's certainly a concern but not something a revolution would change as we would still need the oil. The actual way to fix this is through decreasing our dependence on oil which requires reform not revolution.

Sweat shops - How does a revolution in the US help with this?

Diamond slaves - How does a revolution in the US help with this?

There are certainly people being oppressed but your examples are entirely off the mark which is why it's just you shouting injustice. This is an unjust thing therefore revolution. The fact is that a revolution would seriously disrupt effort to aid the starving and thirsty peoples of the world by disrupting relief efforts and would result in no gain for them.

And a lot of our human oppression efforts would also cease in the face of a violent war in our own country were we to revolt. Reform is the way forward because it allows us to maintain the stability to actually help other people instead of disrupting our relief efforts while we get things sorted at home.
 
Okay, here's some salt that really pisses me off.

Orthodox Christians Must Now Learn To Live as Exiles in Our Own Country
No, the sky is not falling — not yet, anyway — but with the Supreme Court ruling constitutionalizing same-sex marriage, the ground under our feet has shifted tectonically.

It is hard to overstate the significance of the Obergefell decision — and the seriousness of the challenges it presents to orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. Voting Republican and other failed culture war strategies are not going to save us now.

Discerning the meaning of the present moment requires sobriety, precisely because its radicalism requires of conservatives a realistic sense of how weak our position is in post-Christian America.

The alarm that the four dissenting justices sounded in their minority opinions is chilling. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia were particularly scathing in pointing out the philosophical and historical groundlessness of the majority’s opinion. Justice Scalia even called the decision “a threat to democracy,” and denounced it, shockingly, in the language of revolution.

It is now clear that for this Court, extremism in the pursuit of the Sexual Revolution’s goals is no vice. True, the majority opinion nodded and smiled in the direction of the First Amendment, in an attempt to calm the fears of those worried about religious liberty. But when a Supreme Court majority is willing to invent rights out of nothing, it is impossible to have faith that the First Amendment will offer any but the barest protection to religious dissenters from gay rights orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
http://time.com/3938050/orthodox-christians-must-now-learn-to-live-as-exiles-in-our-own-country/

The part that really pisses me off is this whole "but when a Supreme Court majority is willing to invent rights out of nothing" bullshit. It only serves to promote the myth that the majority based its ruling on non-legal gobbeldygook, and that, as a result, it's an illegitimate ruling.

What part of "equal protection of the laws" does he not understand? It's a pretty damn clear choice of language.

But no. He doesn't misunderstand. He knows exactly what he's doing when he writes his drama-queen tripe. Which is why I'm enjoying the saline.
 
TheHeretic said:
Convincing gay men that monogamous relationships were desirable at all was an enormous part of the fight for gay marriage. It was arguably the defining battle. You don't get gay marriage until you start asking for it, and you don't start asking for it unless you want it.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree. I believe this is victim blaming. I think that is a reversal of the true cause and effect. I believe that monogamous relationships in the gay community were strongly hindered by society's refusal to recognize gay relationships. When I was growing up, nothing gay-related was ever talked about except for in a deviant, pedophilic fashion. Gay relationships had to be secretive and were almost deviant by nature. There was no support for legitimate gay relationships. Even two same sex people living together was difficult and taboo except for the more rebellious risk-takers or people in strongly gay communities. Many gay people had few opportunities to be involved with other gay people outside of discreet, no-strings-attached encounters.

So, by nature, you heard a lot more about promiscuity than anything else. And adopting children and having families is STILL risky for gay couples unless the SCOTUS decision overturns all of the joint, same-sex custody issues. Even now, gay couples in some states cannot safely adopt knowing that their partner will have right to the children if they pass away (again, unless the SCOTUS decision changes adoption laws).
 
Edit: nvm, I see we're stopping to avoid derailment.

Here's some salt: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...-pinckney-eulogy-reaction-119508.html?hp=l2_3

“I think people have to say, if you’re going to have a new celebration that we’re not going to discriminate, may I ask: Are we now going to discriminate against people of conscience, people of faith, who may disagree with this ruling? Are they going to be forced either out of business, like the florists, the caterers, the photographers, like the CEO of Mozilla who was run out of his job because of a personal contribution,” he asked. “Are we going to trade one level of what’s called discrimination for a new level of discrimination against people of faith?”
Click to expand...

The Huckster ladies & gentlemen.
 
Anyone notice how anti gay marriage proponents keep bringingup Dred Scott? At least when Roe vs Wade gets brought up I understand why and the irony isnt so tremendous.
 
Today, there was a pride event downtown, and I stopped by for a few minutes. I was in pride colors, and it was fairly civil as the few protestors were half a block away, squared off. Got some Chick Tracts (gotta love those horrible things) of course, but we gave a youth pastor an aneurysm. long story short, he thought that being trans was just an extreme last-stage perversion of being gay, and that gays were the only queers. He broke down to the ground crying to god in anguish to stop the "multiplication of the sodomites" as he put it, because they are no longer mingling within themselves and can now multiply.

Yeah... I was honestly not expecting seeing something like that. Kinda refreshing from the god hates fags sign holders. Was he salty? After the aneurysm, kinda, yeah; he was so sheltered.
 
HUELEN10 said:
Today, there was a pride event downtown, and I stopped by for a few minutes. I was in pride colors, and it was fairly civil as the few protestors were half a block away, squared off. Got some Chick Tracts (gotta love those horrible things) of course, but we gave a youth pastor an aneurysm. long story short, he thought that being trans was just an extreme last-stage perversion of being gay, and that gays were the only queers. He broke down to the ground crying to god in anguish to stop the "multiplication of the sodomites" as he put it, because they are no longer mingling within themselves and can now multiply.

Yeah... I was honestly not expecting seeing something like that. Kinda refreshing from the god hates fags sign holders. Was he salty? After the aneurysm, kinda, yeah; he was so sheltered.
Click to expand...

So trans people are now the evolution of gay? Late stage gay?
 
Dragmire said:
I completely disagree. I believe this is victim blaming. I think that is a reversal of the true cause and effect. I believe that monogamous relationships in the gay community were strongly hindered by society's refusal to recognize gay relationships. When I was growing up, nothing gay-related was ever talked about except for in a deviant, pedophilic fashion. Gay relationships had to be secretive and were almost deviant by nature. There was no support for legitimate gay relationships. Even two same sex people living together was difficult and taboo except for the more rebellious risk-takers or people in strongly gay communities. Many gay people had few opportunities to be involved with other gay people outside of discreet, no-strings-attached encounters.

So, by nature, you heard a lot more about promiscuity than anything else. And adopting children and having families is STILL risky for gay couples unless the SCOTUS decision overturns all of the joint, same-sex custody issues. Even now, gay couples in some states cannot safely adopt knowing that their partner will have right to the children if they pass away (again, unless the SCOTUS decision changes adoption laws).
Click to expand...

Of course there is a lot of truth to this, but the first step is to stop thinking of yourself as a victim and beginning to think honestly about what gay rights really means.

A certain style of identity politics will never stop seeing homosexuals as victims, and we've heard some of that in this thread. Breaking out of that paradigm is the first step.
 
Darksol said:
So trans people are now the evolution of gay? Late stage gay?
Click to expand...
Apparently this is what some ignorant people actually believe. Honestly, not the first time I've heard it. Obviously it's offensive and totally wrong, but some people, like these protestors, actually think that trans is the last stage of gay.
 
Dragmire said:
I completely disagree. I believe this is victim blaming. I think that is a reversal of the true cause and effect. I believe that monogamous relationships in the gay community were strongly hindered by society's refusal to recognize gay relationships. When I was growing up, nothing gay-related was ever talked about except for in a deviant, pedophilic fashion. Gay relationships had to be secretive and were almost deviant by nature. There was no support for legitimate gay relationships. Even two same sex people living together was difficult and taboo except for the more rebellious risk-takers or people in strongly gay communities. Many gay people had few opportunities to be involved with other gay people outside of discreet, no-strings-attached encounters.

So, by nature, you heard a lot more about promiscuity than anything else. And adopting children and having families is STILL risky for gay couples unless the SCOTUS decision overturns all of the joint, same-sex custody issues. Even now, gay couples in some states cannot safely adopt knowing that their partner will have right to the children if they pass away (again, unless the SCOTUS decision changes adoption laws).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand the custody issue; can you clarify a bit?
 
TheHeretic said:
Of course there is a lot of truth to this, but the first step is to stop thinking of yourself as a victim and beginning to think honestly about what gay rights really means.

A certain style of identity politics will never stop seeing homosexuals as victims, and we've heard some of that in this thread. Breaking out of that paradigm is the first step.
Click to expand...

You are definitely a fuck you got mine type.
 
Anas said:
I don't know
isn't Neogaf support gays? the new logo itself prove it.
or the owners are afraid from being called homophobic if they don't add the colors to the old logo?
Click to expand...

Before I post something I'll regret, is English your first language?

EDIT: I'm gonna need a rainbow avatar pleeeeeez
 
BamfMeat said:
For someone wanting to stamp out "gay", he sure does have fabulous shoes.
Click to expand...

That's not what's happening, rainbow flags are concentrated gay, he stupidly didn't know the rules. Stepping on it means he now has caught "the gay" his shoes have already been claimed & it will slowly spread to his trousers next before he is fully converted and one of us as that's how it spreads lol.
 
Impotaku said:
That's not what's happening, rainbow flags are concentrated gay, he stupidly didn't know the rules. Stepping on it means he now has caught "the gay" his shoes have already been claimed & it will slowly spread to his trousers next before he is fully converted and one of us as that's how it spreads lol.
Click to expand...

Is that why the guy with the white shoes on the left isn't even stamping on any of the colours?
 
TheHeretic said:
Convincing gay men that monogamous relationships were desirable at all was an enormous part of the fight for gay marriage. It was arguably the defining battle. You don't get gay marriage until you start asking for it, and you don't start asking for it unless you want it.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, your position is that gays are partially responsible for the length of time it has taken to achieve marriage equality?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dave Grohl announces daughter outside of his marriage
2 3
143
9K
Dr.Morris79 replied
  • Poll
AI Doomer thread
2
59
3K
Sophist replied
  • Poll
UFC 307: Pereira vs. Rountree Jr. - Salt Lake City (4,265 ft) - October 5
Poll Event  2
54
2K
GymWolf replied
New School Music Thread
20
826
Audiophile replied
Snow & White | Review Thread
Community  2
80
5K
GymWolf replied
Top Bottom