Pages: 1 … 26 27 28 29 30

 

Poll

Do you agree with the gay marriage approval in California?

Yes67%67% - 112
No27%27% - 45
I don't know0%0% - 0
Plead the fifth3%3% - 5
Other? (Please State)1%1% - 3
Total: 165
2015-09-30 09:13:27
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5396|Sydney
Basically people who are paranoid about marriage equality or gay marriage or whatever people like to call it are just that - paranoid.

The world won't end, the sky won't fall in and society will continue with the same fucked up wars, the same corruption in governments and the same stupid arguments from those so small minded about the small issues they miss the big issues.

And wine will still continue to be enjoyable. Cheers.
2015-09-30 23:43:00
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6989|PNW

Who brainwashed you into enjoying your wine?
2015-10-01 06:30:28
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6993|Moscow, Russia

coke wrote:

We can't counter your arguments because as you usually do, you discount anything that is posted that doesn't agree with your OPINION as "brainwashed" "propaganda" etc.
the issue of so called "gay rights" have been politicized to such extent that it's virtually impossible to discuss, but...

Yet you never post anything of any actual substance yourself.
oh, i did, and plenty. but, you either can't read or willingly ignore everything because it doesn't fit into your manufactured world view.

it's fine either way. continue the circle jerk.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2015-10-01 06:54:38
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6993|Moscow, Russia

Jaekus wrote:

Basically people who are paranoid about marriage equality or gay marriage or whatever people like to call it are just that - paranoid.
paranoid? or simply cautious? how do you tell?

i think, we still don't know enough to just let it go. gays don't reproduce naturally, but now, with special assistance, more and more of them can. basically, we are already artificially introducing more of the genes responsible for homosexual disposition into the pool, and very few gene combinations only affect single specific aspect and nothing else - so, does anybody know what else is there? no?
then, almost every other human trait that has psychological and/or social aspect to it is subject to influence and manipulations by social and psychological means, especially in childhood - why not sexuality? what, it is somehow stone set on day one? or two? how? nobody knows.

too many questions re this are still unanswered, imo. and the fact that this issue have seemingly forever been one of the golden banners used by the liberal "enlightened" west in their "us-vs-them" rhetoric doesn't help either.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2015-10-01 07:36:34
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+640|3937
Gays not being able to reproduce naturally is probably a good thing. There are a lot of kids in the foster care system and orphanages that need parents. Every child is entitled to a loving two parents household. If they are same sex, that's fine with me.

Gay adoption is still taboo in the U.S. There is a commercial for insurance that comes on I think from a big company like Nationwide that shows "precious moments" that are worth protecting with insurance. One of those moments are two gay men showing off their Chinese infant to the family. It may be pandering for gay money but at least they are helping the conversation which is one good thing about capitalism. I wonder if they show the commercial in Kentucky. Probably not.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2015-10-01 09:08:24
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6934

Shahter wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Basically people who are paranoid about marriage equality or gay marriage or whatever people like to call it are just that - paranoid.
paranoid? or simply cautious? how do you tell?
lol.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2015-10-01 22:41:04
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6989|PNW

lololol

Wait, who's getting brainwashed? This is so confusing.
2015-10-02 02:54:09
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5396|Sydney

Shahter wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Basically people who are paranoid about marriage equality or gay marriage or whatever people like to call it are just that - paranoid.
paranoid? or simply cautious? how do you tell?

i think, we still don't know enough to just let it go. gays don't reproduce naturally, but now, with special assistance, more and more of them can. basically, we are already artificially introducing more of the genes responsible for homosexual disposition into the pool, and very few gene combinations only affect single specific aspect and nothing else - so, does anybody know what else is there? no?
then, almost every other human trait that has psychological and/or social aspect to it is subject to influence and manipulations by social and psychological means, especially in childhood - why not sexuality? what, it is somehow stone set on day one? or two? how? nobody knows.

too many questions re this are still unanswered, imo. and the fact that this issue have seemingly forever been one of the golden banners used by the liberal "enlightened" west in their "us-vs-them" rhetoric doesn't help either.
So in a nutshell your argument is that you are 'cautious' (lol) because gay people might produce more gay people, but you have nothing to cite this theory, and have glossed over that heterosexual people also produce gay people (obviously).

Just 'come out' and admit you're homophobic (see what I did there?)
2015-10-09 01:27:07
uziq
Member
+493|3669
every gay person I know has straight parents. I don't understand this fear of gay people begetting gay people, like its some reproducing phenomenon.
2015-10-09 04:37:34
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX
Wasn't it gay people who invented surprise butt-sex?

Or was it the Marines?
Fuck Israel
2015-10-09 04:49:16
uziq
Member
+493|3669
it was probably some ancient culture from earth's armpit in the Middle East who used it as a form of disrespect or something.

so basically the marines.
2015-10-09 08:26:49
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6926|England. Stoke

uziq wrote:

every gay person I know has straight parents. I don't understand this fear of gay people begetting gay people, like its some reproducing phenomenon.
Same.
And I also know a 2 married gay men, who have 3 children from when they were married to women (both went the traditional route of feeling they had to hide they were gay and try be in "normal" relationships) produced "naturally", who are in their mid teens and are straight.

Also saw an article today about a genetic test they can identify gay people with a 70% accuracy due to genetic markers.

Last edited by coke (2015-10-09 08:27:23)

2015-10-16 06:03:11
globefish23
sophisticated slacker
+334|6541|Graz, Austria

coke wrote:

And I also know a 2 married gay men, who have 3 children from when they were married to women (both went the traditional route of feeling they had to hide they were gay and try be in "normal" relationships) produced "naturally", who are in their mid teens and are straight.
Ha!
They only got straight kids because the probably reproduced with a straight women.
If they had reproduced with another gay man, those kids would surely be gay as well.

coke wrote:

Also saw an article today about a genetic test they can identify gay people with a 70% accuracy due to genetic markers.
Cite or it was rejected in peer review.
2016-02-24 06:27:50
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+640|3937
Being gay or bisexual is perfectly normal. Sex is just two people enjoying each other. Nothing more really. But transgenderism seems like mental illness. Thinking you were born with the wrong body part and wanting to remove it or put something new there is just as crazy as people who want to amputate their arms or legs because they don't like it.

They should not be discriminated against but they shouldn't be encouraged.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2016-02-24 15:12:38
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6989|PNW

Interesting progression of gender/sexuality rights thought we have going on.

"Gay is wrong and evil. OK, gay isn't so wrong but they can't marry. OK, gays can marry but transgendered people are still freaking nuts."

"Seems" has got to be one of the most opinionated words in the English language. "The color 'purple' seems like the worst color." "Gay marriage seems wrong."

"GID seems like a mental illness." I think it's sad that its official recognition as a problem (albeit currently as a medical disorder) allows treatment for, but at the same time stigmatize individuals in the public eye.
2016-02-24 15:56:29
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+640|3937
There is a difference between the words "encouraged, stigmatized, and discriminated"

I have always been okay with LGBT people and their sexuality. I think transgender people should have laws protecting them from being fired or evicted for their gender identity. I would treat them fairly and with respect and defend one if I ever met them.

I don't think they should be allowed to use whichever bathroom they want and need to use the bathrooms of the gender they were born into unless they are post-op. It may seem unfair to them but you have to remember that a bathroom should be a safe place for women. Gender reassignment surgery and treatment should be legal but it shouldn't be easy to get and treatment for GID should be required before they move forward. Small changes can make big differences in some lives.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2016-02-24 17:29:50
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6989|PNW

SuperJail Warden wrote:

There is a difference between the words "encouraged, stigmatized, and discriminated"
There is? That was a huge point of confusion for me in the past. Thank you for enlightening me …

I have always been okay with LGBT people and their sexuality. I think transgender people should have laws protecting them from being fired or evicted for their gender identity.
OK, but …

I don't think they should be allowed to use whichever bathroom they want and need to use the bathrooms of the gender they were born into unless they are post-op. It may seem unfair to them but you have to remember that a bathroom should be a safe place for women. Gender reassignment surgery and treatment should be legal but it shouldn't be easy to get and treatment for GID should be required before they move forward. Small changes can make big differences in some lives.
I can identify a few problems with your simplistic blame game.

  • That you hoist the banner of chauvinism in using the "safe place for women" defense to keep transgendereds confined to the restrooms of their birth gender.
  • That you place the welfare of cisgendereds above that of transgendereds by insisting that, by extension of your all-inclusive argument, even those transgendereds who pass while pre-OP choose the restrooms of their birth gender.
  • That you think (I guess?) forcing transgendereds into the role of their former legal genders is healthy and will help them adjust to their assumed legal gender while at the same time claiming that you'd champion their dignity and rights.
  • That you ignore existing harassment in public restrooms apart from the transgendered issue, and assume that transgendered people will be giant pervy contributors.
  • That you stigmatize transgendereds by strongly and unfairly associating them with perverts.
  • That you think perverts would go through all the time, expense, risk, agony, humiliation, and ostracization just to win a ticket to the other sex's restrooms.

"It puts the lotion in the basket!" is kind of an outdated perception, don't you think? There's no vast MtF transgendered conspiracy to sew woman suits out of your daughters and wives. People who want to run for the hills because a transgendered person wants to use the can and wash their hands are kind of stuck in the past.

Look up harassment of transgendered individuals in prison for a glimpse of how well it works out when the state forces them to share space with others of their birth sex.

I would treat them fairly and with respect and defend one if I ever met them.
"I totally support these people's rights unless they want to exercise one of the basic privileges of living in a first world country."

Mind blown.
2016-02-25 09:18:43
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,978|6849|949

Don't use the word cisgendered.  You have descriptors for something out of the norm.  It's like going around calling yourself not-Muslim.
2016-02-25 19:28:28
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+640|3937
Why is 'not transgender' the default for you, Ken? Maybe being transgendered or confused is actually perfectly normal and should be considered an equally valid state of being.

All I'm saying is that transgendered people should be encouraged to seek help and welcomed into society even if they choose not to. We should be a society that says "we care about. please get help". I would even be willing to give public funding towards gender corrective or confusion therapy.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2016-02-25 22:16:46
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6989|PNW

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Don't use the word cisgendered.  You have descriptors for something out of the norm.  It's like going around calling yourself not-Muslim.
So, what … go ahead and call blacks "blacks" and whites "not-blacks?" Or still call whites "whites?" Or should I be calling non-trans people "normal," because that's certainly not insulting in any way to trans? Maybe "usual" would be a softer word? "Usualgender" doesn't seem like it could catch on. I could use "straight" for non-trans, but that's ambiguous. "Non-trans" sounds awkward and unspecific to me.

Also awkward is our unsatisfactory lack of non-specific gender pronouns at the moment ("he" or "she" assumes, "it" is demeaning, and "they" just doesn't look right on occasion), making it a somewhat frustrating task to make it through the PC minefield when writing.

I just use what, at the time, I think is the least confusing/insulting. Did you have a hard time understanding what I was talking about, or was it pretty clear? Or should I spend a week [e: five seconds; thank you dilbert] trying to come up with a magical new word that doesn't offend anyone? Pretty sure I'd fail at it.
2016-02-26 00:35:11
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+640|3937

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Should I spend a week trying to come up with a magical new word that doesn't offend anyone?
You should and update us when you find it.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2016-02-26 00:36:45
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Don't use the word cisgendered.  You have descriptors for something out of the norm.  It's like going around calling yourself not-Muslim.
But you're saying to go ahead and call blacks "blacks" and whites "not-blacks?" Or should I be calling non-trans people "normal," because that's certainly not insulting in any way to trans?

I understand there's reservations about new language on both sides of the issue. Nobody's really happy right now. I just use what I think is the least confusing at the time. Did you have a hard time understanding what I was talking about, or was it pretty clear? Should I spend a week trying to come up with a magical new word that doesn't offend anyone? Pretty sure I'd fail at it.
Would you call a person with two heads not normal? Would it be offensive to people with two heads if normal people were called 'normal'?

This argument is both gay and retarded.
Fuck Israel
2016-02-26 00:42:03
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+640|3937
Be careful, Dilbert. If you say retard too loud, FEOS might show up.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2016-02-26 01:50:23
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6989|PNW

SuperJail Warden wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Should I spend a week trying to come up with a magical new word that doesn't offend anyone?
You should and update us when you find it.
Done. Came up with Dilbert-approved terminology: normals and not-normals. Not-normals can have their own out-of-the-way bus seats, restaurant entrances, and drinking fountains so the normals don't have to be bothered.

OT: poll results speak for themselves.
2016-02-26 12:48:50
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,978|6849|949

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Don't use the word cisgendered.  You have descriptors for something out of the norm.  It's like going around calling yourself not-Muslim.
So, what … go ahead and call blacks "blacks" and whites "not-blacks?" Or still call whites "whites?" Or should I be calling non-trans people "normal," because that's certainly not insulting in any way to trans? Maybe "usual" would be a softer word? "Usualgender" doesn't seem like it could catch on. I could use "straight" for non-trans, but that's ambiguous. "Non-trans" sounds awkward and unspecific to me.

Also awkward is our unsatisfactory lack of non-specific gender pronouns at the moment ("he" or "she" assumes, "it" is demeaning, and "they" just doesn't look right on occasion), making it a somewhat frustrating task to make it through the PC minefield when writing.

I just use what, at the time, I think is the least confusing/insulting. Did you have a hard time understanding what I was talking about, or was it pretty clear? Or should I spend a week [e: five seconds; thank you dilbert] trying to come up with a magical new word that doesn't offend anyone? Pretty sure I'd fail at it.
people use adjectives as descriptors, as i mentioned. You call people white or black because you want to be more specific with how you describe someone/something.  If you want to call people "normal" and trans "not-normal" that's up to you, but it's a bit silly to think that's what I was insinuating with my comment.  It's not about using a "softer" word.  It's about understanding the reason we develop place-holders to begin with.

Yeah, the english language could probably use some new pronouns.  You can always say "this person" or some derivative.

I only pulled out one little thing out of your post to nitpick (and yes I'm nitpicking).  The point was made, I'm just not a fan of the word "cisgendered".  We don't need a word to describe a statistical norm.

 

Pages: 1 … 26 27 28 29 30

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard