Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below Longhorn85
New member
The Nature Boy said:
Clearly not. Absurd and desperate attempt to make an invalid point.
How Do Homosexuals Feel About Homophobes?
- Thread starter curling
- Start date
Clearly not. Absurd and desperate attempt to make an invalid point.
musclebrains
New member
dballer said:
LOL....Damn, dballer. You eat at queer central -- Willy's at Piedmont Park -- during gay pride week and you need mace to fend off the gay boys? Come onnnnnnn.
HansNZ
New member
flexed1 said:
You seem to be implying that gay imagery and behaviour are much more visible than straight imagery and behaviour.
As for the gay flauncing bit - i don't see anyone anyone on here harrassing people who being hyper-masculine and playing up extreme male stereotypes.
In fact you seem to be celebrating male stereotypes by going on about how masculine you are.
And don't be deluded that if you keep things to yourself that people will leave you alone. you are SO wrong.
GinNJuice
New member
musclebrains said:
Well, I question the ability of his attorney (as I stated before).
The LL would somehow have to prove that sodomy took place. Did the LL have pictures, eye witnesses? I doubt it, but correct me if I'm wrong. If there was proof of the sodomy, was the offender indited? If not, why?
musclebrains
New member
Blue Sky said:
Lord Buddha says you should not be attached to property, as it will cause suffering keep you forever in tenant's samsara.
The issue is equal housing opportunity for gay people. There are no protections except sporadic local and state ones.
Longhorn85
New member
runner said:
Oh really. It should be easy for you to name a few then. If you're not comfortable naming them on this thread (no free publicity for jerks), PM me.
the nature boy
New member
ttlpkg said:
you are the definition of absurdity.
the nature boy
New member
runner said:
you're wasting your time with ttlpkg, the black version of Ronald Reagan. And when I say Ronald Reagan, I'm referring to the senile years.
HansNZ
New member
The Nature Boy said:
Nature Boy, I don't know what ttlpkg is saying to you because his posts are blocked on my screen. What I will tell you is that it is absolutely pointless arguing with him.
Someone could beat him up on the street and ttlpkg would limp away saying "wow! I really kicked that guy's ass". This would be despite the fact that ttlpkg would be bleeding to death and the guy who thrashed him has nothing more than a couple of scratches, LOL!
the nature boy
New member
HansNZ said:
read my above post complete with the Ronald Reagan refernce. I'm sure he's a nice guy, however there are some people who just cannot be debated with. It's like tring to put a square peg in a circular hole. It won't work.
D
dballer
Guest
musclebrains said:
No shit... WTF??
I did not need to use mace at that time... but I was with a group and there were chicks there.hahaha But you know as well as I do.. some gay guys are not ashamed to make sexual advances without warning. I was suggesting a stun gun or a taser gun for those times this happens to you.
As you should be able to go anywhere in the city and not be harraseed by blubbering drunk bimbos.. I should be able to have the same privacy.
runner
New member
ttlpkg said:
well, a quick internet search produced the following. i'm sure there are many others.
Small groups of militant and highly organized child molesters operate worldwide through pedophile organizations, whose members claim genuine concern for the welfare of children. Their belief is that sex with children is harmless; some even claim that sexual relations are healthy for children. These groups' goals include decriminalizing child molestation and lowering the age of consent.
The actual number of members in these organizations is unknown, though one, the Rene Guyon Society, is listed in the Gale Encyclopedia of Associations as having five thousand members. Other major pedophile organizations include NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) and PAN (Pedophile Alert Network) in the Netherlands.
john937
New member
GinNJuice said:
Because that's what we were.
We lived in San Francisco, were gay men forming a chorus.
Our target audience was the San Francisco Gay Community, not making legal arguments.
One of the basic points I think has been missing from the whole discussion so far,
is that I think you believe this is all about sex.
It is not. Gays have a community.
Just like the blacks and hispanics have a community, with shared values and culture.
When gay people started getting "uppity" was when the police were arresting us for peacable assembly,
going to bars, being together in a social context.
polarpixie
New member
musclebrains said:
I wonder if that was intentional??musclebrains
New member
john937 said:
Hmmm. John, you weren't on that boat that afternoon the Advocate, the Gay Men's Chorus and The Experience were all conceived, were you? We may have friends in common.
musclebrains
New member
Blue Sky said:
NO! really?
musclebrains
New member
GinNJuice said:
No, he wasn't indicted, because the goal was just to get the queer off the premises.
So, let's say it went to court, my client took an oath. What's he supposed to say? No, I'm not gay? No, I didn't commit sodomy on the premises? Is he supposed to file a lawsuit in which he challenges -- under what law? -- the landlord's right to establish heterosexuality as a community standard? These same endless battles are why we ended up with federal protections for other minorities and women.
There was at the time of my client's case no privacy protection. Recall that the the case in which the Supreme Court upheld Ga's sodomy law -- since overturned-- involved the police actually entering Hardwick's home to catch him "in the act."
musclebrains
New member
GinNJuice said:
MB, FYI, I have great repect for you and your agenda(s). I just like to argue the logic and reason of your opinions..... not that I disagree them, but just for argument sake (fun).
I knew what you were doing, Mr. Gin. I've been posting between clients today so I haven't been my most cohesive.
john937
New member
musclebrains said:
Could be. I went to "The Experience", and was there the first night the chorus rehearsed and 7 years thereafter and went with them on national tour, but wasn't part of the organizers that thought of it.
The central idea that came out during that time was "Never accept being treated like anything less than a 1st class citizen".
What I hear here being advocated sounds very "appologist" for my tastes.
GinNJuice
New member
GinNJuice said:
MB, FYI, I have great repect for you and your agenda(s). I just like to argue the logic and reason of your opinions..... not that I disagree them, but just for argument sake (fun).
Post on my Abortion thread.... that should be fun too.
..... and I'm gonna have some fun with John697
musclebrains
New member
john937 said:
Ditto to your last statement. Welcome to 2002.
Yeah, we probly know a few people in common.
GinNJuice
New member
john937 said:
So John, where you guys having sex with eachother or talking/singing about gay issues during your performance?
john937 said:
Granted..... you are right about my belief that it is all about sex...... I have this perfect ideal that "someday" everyone would be equal and there would be no need to segragate 'communities' to be with like-kind. In my perfect world, everyone would live by the same rules and be treated the same (or by the merits of thier actions). I think it would be nice if blacks, whites, hispanics, gays, straights could all go the the same bars and be in a 'social context' together without all the hatered.
Can't we all just get along?
Longhorn85
New member
The Nature Boy said:
I'll take that as a compliment.
Longhorn85
New member
runner said:
You suggested that there were many heterosexual pedophile groups and that is what I asked you to name. Are you saying NAMBLA is hetero? At any rate, they are all disgusting.
john937
New member
GinNJuice said:
Actually I never had sex with a single other chorus member. They were my "sisters".
We had parties, camped it up, had great social fun, but almost no sex occurred amoung the 120 guys.
That's what the baths were for.
Look at the earth. If God created the earth, then the one thing we can say about God is he likes diversity.
There are over 100 different species of tree frogs.
Why 100+ ? Wouldn't 6 or 7 cover the map?
I like a world where the gays can have a community, and the hispanics can have a culture different from the black community, different from the white community, different from the photographers club, the garden club, the NASCAR club, the golfers, the scuba divers....
Everybody's got different interests and socializes with others of their kind.
But when gays do it, it's called "flaunting".
D
dballer
Guest
ttlpkg said:
Bro.. there are not any in the US.. I looked before I said that. and the first one he mentioned IS active in the US. George does not want us to talk about that group anymore. I think someone cried about it earlier.
john937
New member
ttlpkg said:
Heterosexuals don't much need such groups, they've already achieved most of their goals.
Quite a number of self respecting states/countries have a lot in common with Nambla's goals.
The age of heterosexual consentual sex is
age 12 - Chile, Columbia, Argentina, Mexico, Netherlands, Panama, Phillipines
age 13 - Korea, Spain, Syria
age 14 - Iowa, Missouri, South Carolina
GinNJuice
New member
john937 said:
So, if you didn't have sex with eachother while on stage, during a performance, and you didn't sing about gay issues, then why call yourselves the "San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus". Why not just San Francisco Men's Chorus?
I mean, is it appropriate to put "Gay" in the title, even though you weren't having sex with gays on the stage, or singing about gay issues?
john937 said:
Well, I'm agnostic (see signature), but to me a frog is a frog... why differentiate between 100+ of the darn things?
john937
New member
GinNJuice said:
AGAIN: You're missing the point that it's all about the CULTURE.
We called ourselves that because That's Who We Were!
Everybody in the chorus was gay, and our audience was gay, and we served the gay community.
So why NOT put gay in the title?
Does this look like a sex group?
We're singing Shubert, Wager, Brahms, and Mozart for Chris' sake!
BTW - yes I'm in there, the only pic I've posted on EF.
I'm right of center, 3rd row from the top.
The fuzzy one.
Last edited:
HansNZ
New member
GinNJuice said:
Well probably because it was a social organistion for people to mix with their own type. This serves several functions such as allowing people to be openly gay without having to put up with the general daily discrimination of their normal lives.
It is also because straight people meet eachother everywhere but gays often have to deliberately meet up with eachother in order to meet their own sort - hence the "gay men's" chorus.
In my own city, unless you deliberately go out to find other gays and unless you deliberatly form social groups for gay people then your chances of meeting other gays are limited. I must add that straights also participate in these groups. My rugby teams/rowing teams are predominantly gay but with straight participants too. They are welcome.
Well because there is diversity among things of the same type. Chinese are all Chinese, but they also have different qualities as individuals too.
GinNJuice
New member
john937 said:
Ok, so in a different situation, would it be "OK" or more importantly APPROPRIATE for a group of male chorus singers to call themselves the "Omaha Straight Men's Choir"??????? Especially, if they only admitted 'straight men' into the choir and only sung to straight audiences?
Longhorn85
New member
runner said:
Many consider sex to mean intercourse between a man and a woman, but that is not always the case is it?
If someone is oriented sexually towards children, I would say that sexual orientation means something other that what you assumed.
john937
New member
GinNJuice said:
Ok, so in a different situation, would it be "OK" or more importantly APPROPRIATE for a group of male chorus singers to call themselves the "Omaha Straight Men's Choir"??????? Especially, if they only admitted 'straight men' into the choir and only sung to straight audiences?
It already exists, it's call the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
GinNJuice
New member
john937 said:
LOL....
.... Do you get where I'm going with this? You weren't having sex on stage, and you weren't singing about gay issues, so it doesn't seem appropriate to add "Gay" in your title...
Unless, you agree with Hans that it was "a social organistion for people to mix with their own type"..... is that the case?
D
dballer
Guest
HansNZ said:
Isn't this a bad thing nowadays?????
john937
New member
GinNJuice said:
There is a gay area of Dallas called Turtle Creek.
They have a gay men's chorus called "The Turtle Creek Chorale"
They are very good, but I don't go to see them.
It's a matter of "are you proud enough of who you are to be 'out' about it."
They say they left the gay word out so to focus more on the music.
I say they're closeted. There's no one consensus on this one.
Sounds like, according to your argument, if a group of Dallas men interested in gardening, were to get together evenings for drinks, talks, and presentations, that they shouldn't be called the "Dallas Men's Garden Club" because when they get together they don't actually garden.
PURE EXTRACT
New member
I have a good question...why is that most gay people (and I know many) act more like women than most women do? It wouldn't bother me so much if they didn’t act so...girly. I mean it's like the ones I know are so damn feminine, and it's not because I KNOW they're gay, it's because they try so hard to act like a woman...it's kind of annoying.
john937
New member
PURE EXTRACT said:
We call 'em Queens, and there's a lot of gay people that don't like them anymore than you do.
Particularly when they effect speech mannerism's like "Miss thing!", "You go girl!".
But we'll put up with them if they give good blow jobs.
The gays that aren't butch are obvious, so you notice them.
The butch gay guy at the next workout station doesn't register a blip on your gaydar screen,
so you assume he's straight.
Most straight people believe they don't know any gay people. That's so mistaken.
Most gays put the percentage of the population at 10% but even if it's a conservative 5 percent:
Each gay person has two parents and probably a brother, sister, aunt, uncle, grandfather, grandmother
That means 5%*7 relatives = 35% of the population have a close relative that is gay
not to mention coworkers, neighbors, doctors, barbers...
I'd also have to say, the acting girly is somewhat a regional thing. It's much more prevalent here in Texas than when I lived in California.
Same with drag shows, they're all over the place here in Texas. In California the only people that went to see drag shows were the tourists.
Last edited:
GinNJuice
New member
john937 said:
The Turtle Creek Chorale IS very good. My wife's boss invited us about a year ago. In the presentation, it was obvious they they were gay, but it was also more obvious that they had 'focused on thier music'. It was entertaining and they didn't have to annouce their sexual orientation to sell the symphony hall out. I don't think that anyone WHO WAS GAY in the place was in the closet. But there were no drag queens either and there were many straight people too. They may not have gotten the symphony hall, had they had "Gay" in the title, but they did get the hall, and they had a great performance.
Garden Club....... Hmmm, do you think they would call themselves that if they were a singing group? But in your example, they might not actually garden, but the "talks, and presentations" would probably be about gardening, so there would be a logical connection with the name. If they didn't talk and present gardening issues, or actually garden, then it would not make any sense to call it the "Garden Club".
john937
New member
GinNJuice said:
Exactly.
Exactly why my chorus 20 years earlier found it important to put the word in there.
And yes we had to fight the legal battles in order to get the symphony halls, and the newpaper advertising,
and it was all worth it.
So that now 20 years later people can take it for granted.
And although I respect them for the quality of their music, I'm a bit P.O'd Turtle Creek didn't do the same, and the whole Texas gay climate lags behind what we did in SF.
Hanz you are SOOO wrong. First off NOBODY bothers me period. never have never will. Its not a macho thing its a behavior and how i carry myself. Fact is even in gay bars I am asked are you gay? Should I change the way I act to better suit your image of gays? Should I walk around saying girl this and that> Know what if you knew me and I did that you would bust out. I am VERY secure with myself and don't need to act to draw attention and by the way yes gays do flaunt more than straights no question in my mind.
John yes stonewall happened and yes gays did get arrested for being gay and did in return throw bottles at cops. I was not there and to this day gay bars are still burned down and agys are still tormented and no its not right and its hate. but I will say if more of gays who are like Runner nad myself where represented people may not hate as much. That might not be right to say but when you cause attention to yourself as a group you get what you get.
John yes stonewall happened and yes gays did get arrested for being gay and did in return throw bottles at cops. I was not there and to this day gay bars are still burned down and agys are still tormented and no its not right and its hate. but I will say if more of gays who are like Runner nad myself where represented people may not hate as much. That might not be right to say but when you cause attention to yourself as a group you get what you get.
GinNJuice
New member
john937 said:
Oh, so you didn't do it for the music at all! From what you say, you were in the chours for the sole reason of fighting the political battles of gays. ......
Well, don't come on this site and complain and cry about not being able to sing in San Fransico, just because you were gay... Don't say that you were not allowed to sing....... that's not what you were doing at all! YOUR SOLE PURPOSE WAS TO SHOVE IT DOWN PEOPLES THROAT THAT YOU WERE GAY.... and you were fighting the political battle.
Now you won't support another group of gays just because they want to sing instead of making a political statement! That is pretty damn sad.
That seems like gay discrimination to me.I was hoping you would respond in the way that you did
It shows what kind of person you really are.
HansNZ
New member
john937 said:
This is just SO true. Straights have a stereotype of what a gay person is. The fact is that most of them aren't queens, but the regular Joe you work out next to at the gym, most people immediately assume is straight. They also assume that some guy with a string of pretty girlfriends is also straight.
Most people would laugh if I told them my ex-boyfriend is gay. He has a reputation for being such a ladies man that they wouldn't consider it possible. He's just using these women because he's so closeted. He's not even bisexual.
You're so right about the girly thing. Where I live camp is in. When I go to Sydney the guys are much more butch. If people are camp that is fine. I personally have no problem with it. I think others do because they feel threatened by people who don't conform to society's ideas about gender behaviour. Flexed1 pops to mind as an example. You see gays persecute eachother too - although they'll justify it as something else.
There are so many guys who play up the hyper-masculine stereotypes that they think make them "real men". But when feminists question this they get hassled for it. But when it comes to homosexuals, it is the queens, not those who criticise their campness who cop the flak.
Last edited:
GinNJuice
New member
GinNJuice said:
Oh, so you didn't do it for the music at all! From what you say, you were in the chours for the sole reason of fighting the political battles of gays. ......
Well, don't come on this site and complain and cry about not being able to sing in San Fransico, just because you were gay... Don't say that you were not allowed to sing....... that's not what you were doing at all! YOUR SOLE PURPOSE WAS TO SHOVE IT DOWN PEOPLES THROAT THAT YOU WERE GAY.... and you were fighting the political battle.
Now you won't support another group of gays just because they want to sing instead of making a political statement! That is pretty damn sad.
I was hoping you would respond in the way that you did
I'm out for the day.... So, John, come up with some lame excuse and I'll read it tomorrow.
john937
New member
Oh, so you didn't do it for the music at all! From what you say, you were in the chours for the sole reason of fighting the political battles of gays. ......
No, we just wanted to sing and have a concert.
In order to have that concert we had to do battle.
20 years later the gays of SF no longer have to do that battle, and that's progress in my eyes, but it's not why we had a chorus.
We had a chorus to enrich our COMMUNITY, again it's all about making a sense of COMMUNITY!
Now you won't support another group of gays just because they want to sing instead of making a political statement!
I've already said I respect their singing ability and wish them well.
I'm just pointing out that the Texas Gay COMMUNITY has not benefited the way the SF community has.
Last edited:
musclebrains
New member
GinNJuice said:
Oh brother. Are you really this clueless?
Here is the way it works. The dominant culture oppresses and marginalizes minority populations by disempowering them. It does this through a variety of means. It uses explicit means -- like poll taxes and formal segregation with black people, disenfranchising women, making it illegal for gay people to even assemble, much less have sex with one another.
But it operates more subtely too. The dom culture eliminates the history of the group from its official record. Thus, until 40 years ago, you could not pick up a text book and find any significant mention of black people who made any important contribution to American culture. Ditto for women. Now you can't find any mention of gay people who made significant contributions. Indeed, the gay rights struggle, an important social movement in America, isn't even taught.
Of course, members of the dom culture argue -- just as they are here -- that there should be no "special" history, no special mention of the contributions of these minorities because, after all, we are all Americans. Ironically, though, by the very effort of marginalizing populations -- by forcing them into ghettoes and closets -- the dom culture actually sows the seeds of alternative cultures. By not admitting them to the main culture, they invite the formation of rebellious alternative cultures.
The dilemma of the minority member then becomes, as a person denied access to the privileges of the dom culture, to find his identity within his group. This means uncovering the heritage that is the source of his or her oppression. For black people, it meant penetrating the wall of slavery -- to confront the fact that they were brought here illegally and to rediscover their origins, which are quite different from that of the nation's white religious settlers. For women, in the '60s, it meant penetrating the wall of partriarchal domination of the body -- of finding ownership and autonomy in their own bodies. For gay people, it meant penetrating the wall of the closet, likewise claiming ownership of the body's erotic desire.
In this effort, we came together and created explosive alternative cultures. The idea of black or gay pride is necessitated by the generations-long effort by the dominant culture not merely to oppress but to disappear minorities behind the phony argument of assimilation -- even as they are denied equality. This lives today in don't ask/don't tell. GEt back in the closet. And what has the result been? A radical increase in discharges for homosexuality. Scratch an assimilationist and you'll find a segregationist trying to look polite.
Most of you are far too young to have any idea of what it was like to have grown up being told you are second-rate, to have no legal right to love whom you choose, to be threatened with imprisonment just for going to a bar and drinking with people like yourself, to be subject to court committal to a state mental hospital because you love members of your own gender, to live continually under the threat of violence, to have to hide the fundamental facts of your life from your own family. Sounds lke a totalitarian state, doesn't it? Well, for gay people it was -- as it was for black people until the '60s.
So, try to imagine what it was like if you were 20 years old, from a world where gay people weren't even allowed to assemble, and you land in San Francisco and you see several hundred men defying stupid laws by standing up and singing, identifying themselves openly as gay. Imagine what it was like for those of us who wanted to be writers but had been told we could never write about our own lives. So we founded our own magazines because the mainstream wouldn't publish us. It was earth-shattering for us.
You don't understand this because you have utterly NO sense of what it is like to be pursued, oppressed and hated in America. It is grotesque trivialization and completely ignorant of the actual status of gay people in America -- read your own words, for god's sake -- to say that a gay cultural identity is not necessary. You don't offer participation in the mainstream. You offer at best tolerance as long as we disappear the things that make us different.
To deny the development of alternative cultures makes as much sense as saying that the relgiously persecuted had no right to establish a separate culture over 200 years ago -- namely the United States of America.
musclebrains
New member
PURE EXTRACT said:
How come you know so many gay people?
musclebrains
New member
john937 said:
BTW - yes I'm in there, the only pic I've posted on EF.
I'm right of center, 3rd row from the top.
The fuzzy one.
You look great, John.
john937
New member
Most of you are far too young to have any idea of what it was like to have grown up being told you are second-rate, to have no legal right to love whom you choose, to be threatened with imprisonment just for going to a bar and drinking with people like yourself, to be subject to court committal to a state mental hospital because you love members of your own gender, to live continually under the threat of violence, to have to hide the fundamental facts of your life from your own family. Sounds lke a totalitarian state, doesn't it? Well, for gay people it was -- as it was for black people until the '60s.
So, try to imagine what it was like if you were 20 years old, from a world where gay people weren't even allowed to assemble, and you land in San Francisco and you see several hundred men defying stupid laws by standing up and singing, identifying themselves openly as gay. Imagine what it was like for those of us who wanted to be writers but had been told we could never write about our own lives. So we founded our own magazines because the mainstream wouldn't publish us. It was earth-shattering for us.
"Miss thing! You go girl!"
You look great, John.
I guess you can see my biceps were particularly pumped that day!
Anyway, I'm outta here. See ya'll tuhmarrow.
So, try to imagine what it was like if you were 20 years old, from a world where gay people weren't even allowed to assemble, and you land in San Francisco and you see several hundred men defying stupid laws by standing up and singing, identifying themselves openly as gay. Imagine what it was like for those of us who wanted to be writers but had been told we could never write about our own lives. So we founded our own magazines because the mainstream wouldn't publish us. It was earth-shattering for us.
"Miss thing! You go girl!"
You look great, John.
I guess you can see my biceps were particularly pumped that day!
Anyway, I'm outta here. See ya'll tuhmarrow.
Last edited:
HansNZ
New member
[QUOTEOriginally posted by PURE EXTRACT
I have a good question...why is that most gay people (and I know many) act more like women than most women do? It wouldn't bother me so much if they didn’t act so...girly. I mean it's like the ones I know are so damn feminine, and it's not because I KNOW they're gay, it's because they try so hard to act like a woman...it's kind of annoying. [/QUOTE]
OK, well if you take the 1 in 10 statistic for the number of gay people and then compare that to the number of queens you meet, then doesn't that put things into perspective? I don't meet that many queeny men in my daily life, yet 1 in 10 people around me is a lot of people.
In any case ask yourself why are you annoyed by queeny guys? We are brought up with quite strong ideas about how a man behaves and how a woman behaves. So when people come across butch lesbians or camp men who violate these ideas of how they are "supposed" to behave then it bugs people and is a threat to some of them.
At the end of the day why does it matter if someone is camp? Who are they hurting? No one.
I have a good question...why is that most gay people (and I know many) act more like women than most women do? It wouldn't bother me so much if they didn’t act so...girly. I mean it's like the ones I know are so damn feminine, and it's not because I KNOW they're gay, it's because they try so hard to act like a woman...it's kind of annoying. [/QUOTE]
OK, well if you take the 1 in 10 statistic for the number of gay people and then compare that to the number of queens you meet, then doesn't that put things into perspective? I don't meet that many queeny men in my daily life, yet 1 in 10 people around me is a lot of people.
In any case ask yourself why are you annoyed by queeny guys? We are brought up with quite strong ideas about how a man behaves and how a woman behaves. So when people come across butch lesbians or camp men who violate these ideas of how they are "supposed" to behave then it bugs people and is a threat to some of them.
At the end of the day why does it matter if someone is camp? Who are they hurting? No one.
D
dballer
Guest
God almighty!!! If it is that fucking bad to be gay... put your pp in a vagina. It feels fine.
ask somebody.
ask somebody.
J
JohnyJuice
Guest
flexed1 said:
Agreed. Keep your preferences to yourself and everything should be ok.
musclebrains
New member
dballer said:
Whooooooooooosh.
GinNJuice
New member
musclebrains said:
You make reference to oppression that is significantly different than that of gays. For example, when a black man or a woman walk past you, you know immediately that they are black or a woman... you don't have to talk to them to find out what "minority" they are a part of (If I remember correctly, there is at least as many women as men on this planet). You don't have to ask a black man if he is black. In a job interview, the company knows he's black the second he walks in the door..... thus, he can be discriminated against before he hands his resume over. Same thing with getting an apartment... as soon as he meets the LL, discrimination can happen. The same goes for women.
.... however, as suggested earlier, the guy working out next to me in the gym could be gay..... several of the people I work with could be gay..... I don't know. When a man comes in to interview with me, how would I know he is gay?????? Or if a two college men come to rent one of my apartments, how would I know that they are gay?????
No one can discriminate against a gay man unless this man tells everyone that he likes/wants to sleep with men. (we are not discussing trannys or xdressers here, we are talking about gay men).... No one can discriminate against a choir of men, unless they inform "them" that they like to sleep with men.
When are YOU going to get it? It is not necessary to tell strangers who you like to have sex with.
Using your reasoning like "it meant penetrating the wall of partriarchal domination of the body -- of finding ownership and autonomy in their own bodies", then heterosexuals that like to have sex doggy style should identify them selves as different from heterosexuals that like it missionary, and then again from those who like it both ways. (I could go on an on about different sexual preferences). Then if some right-wing extremist thinks it is immoral to do it doggy style, then there would be some form of discrimination. And heterosexual couples engage in sodomy all the time. But in reality, all of this is personal and private information.
musclebrains said:
Oh, I don't huh, How do YOU know that? Because I question your reasoning for perpetuating differences in people?
GinNJuice
New member
john937 said:
If, indeed, all you wanted to do was sing, then you would have omitted "Gay" from the title. Instead, you wanted to fight a political battle with your chorus as the vehicle! Though the battle has merit, you should not complain that you wheren't given the opportunity to sing..... but instead you do, as if "the choir" was a victim.... you were not victims, but rather warriors...... JUST DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT THE BATTLE YOU STARTED. You can be proud of the battle and results, but don't complain about it!
john937 said:
making sense of the community.... whatever!
john937 said:
Yes, you said that they were good, but you WON'T go see them, while straight people, like myself, will go and support them.... pretty damn ironic to me
Maybe the COMMUNITY in Texas hasn't benefited because so-called gay activists like yourself won't support the COMMUNITY. Your statements and actions are such a contradiction!
J
JohnyJuice
Guest
SmegmaSoldier said:
I agree. Except not all gays are feminine. I think they just happen to get the piece of woman genetic material that wants cock.
musclebrains
New member
GinNJuice said:
No, you really don't get it. Why should anyone have to hide who they love? You, in a very silly and reductive way, try to make one's sexual orientation a mere matter of where you put your penis and that it shouldn't be disclosed if you want a trouble-free life.
The implication of that is that you should hide the person you love from view -- your actual relatinships, your family. (This is partly why your analogy of doggy-style sex is so unfathomably irrelevant.) What if you are part of a same-sex couple that has adopted children? Should you likewise tell the children to stay mum. And don't tell me for one second it's not common to ask in a job interview: "Are you married? Do you have a girl friend," etc. You're suggesting we lie -- closet ourselves -- in order to get aparmtents, get jobs, to get along.
No thanks. Persecuted people have two choices, to fight back or to accommodate their oppressors. I'm not interested in the latter, especially when it means hiding who I am with the knowledge that I remain at risk because I didn't disclose myself from the start. And, fortunately, I've never had to do it but I'm luckier than a lot of gay people.
I already addressed at length the way alternative cultures develop and I see no need to repeat the argument that certain subcultural-bound characteristics come to cluster about the original cause of oppression.
When you tell people to keep quiet you are hardly advocating a world in which difference doesn't matter. Quite the contrary.
Anyway, I'm done with this topic.
GinNJuice
New member
musclebrains said:
musclebrains said:
I'm simply stateing that there is an appropriate and inappropriate time/place to annouce sexual orination. You don't walk down the street and tell the first person that walks by that you are in love with so-and-so right? You don't go into a job interview and start telling a stranger about your love life right? But you may want to talk about it with a FRIEND, when it's appropriate.
And it is ILLEGAL, as you know, for an interviewer to ask those kind of questions!
musclebrains said:
Oh, logic wins over huh?
D
dballer
Guest
Gin&Juice.....
I have a new found respect for you.
I have a new found respect for you.
musclebrains
New member
GinNJuice said:
Oh yeah. Very logical. Your logic depends on YOUR telling the rest of us when disclosure is appropriate. This is not one bit different from telling black folks when not to be uppity -- if they want what the white folks got.
musclebrains
New member
LOL...yeah, but that's it. I don't suffer fools, Gin. And this is foolishness.
IF I lived my life the way you prescribe, I'd kill myself with boredom -- or I'd be carrying around a can of mace anticipating attack by all the people I'd identified as freaks. There's a reason I've had a very entertaining life and it's not because I accommodated fools.
IF I lived my life the way you prescribe, I'd kill myself with boredom -- or I'd be carrying around a can of mace anticipating attack by all the people I'd identified as freaks. There's a reason I've had a very entertaining life and it's not because I accommodated fools.
john937
New member
As I understand Gin's position, my gay chorus should not have had gay as part of our name,
and then when we advertised in the paper for a concert, the public would have no notice they were going to a gay oriented event.
I can just imagine Dballer and Gin walking into a gay themed party/concert/event unsuspecting.
"What the hell?"
and then when we advertised in the paper for a concert, the public would have no notice they were going to a gay oriented event.
I can just imagine Dballer and Gin walking into a gay themed party/concert/event unsuspecting.
"What the hell?"
john937
New member
GinNJuice said:
Do you have a problem with the band's name "Bare Naked Ladies" ? Isn't that obviously hetero?
Are you complaining P.Diddy's new album is called "I need a girl" ?
Is there any ambiguity about the sexual nature of nearly every rock video on MTV ?
I don't hear you complaining about them ?
Your wedding ring announces to the world you have sex with women.
Anytime your name is listed Mr. & Mrs. Gin&Juice you announce your heterosexuality to the world.
The pictures of your family on your office desk announce your heterosexuality to the office.
Your IRS filing status = Married filing jointly announces your status to the government.
On the most recent census, they asked questions down to the level of how many toilets do you have, and are you samoan.
But there was no category for gay. Like we don't even exist. Talk about devalued.
I have to make these accomodations every day.
There are no pictures on my desk.
I don't get to put momentos of the ones I love in my office. Because I don't want to risk offending my co-workers.
Enough is more than enough.
Last edited:
GinNJuice
New member
john937 said:
Assuming that you were singing, I don't see how it is relevent that the performers are gay. I don't see why you would want or need to exclude anyone from the performance. Of course, as I revealed before, you were not doing it to sing, you were making a political statement using the chorus as the vehicle.
john937 said:
Assuming that I went into a concert, I don't see how I would notice/care that the performers were gay
Maybe you can explain this.Don't I say that I went to see the Turtle Creek Chours? They sang very well.
Don't you think I go and see movies? A good amount of actors are gay, but who cares, .........and they don't have to put "Gay" in the title of the movie (Unless they were talking about gay issues or having sex in the movie...... which was my second qualifying question to you, if you remember)
GinNJuice
New member
john937 said:
True, but is relevant, only in my case. What about a single person?
john937 said:
Not all people have pictures on their desk.... nor do I.
john937 said:
Oh, but I should wish I could file single.... a better tax break....
john937 said:
It burned ME up that I had to put down my race
I guess I have a different perspective on that issue.... I don't think we should have to give out all that personal info.john937 said:
Yet, you won't even support (pay money to see) a group of individuals that have to suffer as you do. ?????
Oh, and not all people share Smegma's views!
john937
New member
GinNJuice said:Assuming that you were singing, I don't see how it is relevent that the performers are gay. I don't see why you would want or need to exclude anyone from the performance.
We do not want to exclude anyone from coming except those who would be offended by coming to a gay community event. How do we let them know it's going to be a gay community event without putting the word gay somewhere in the title?
More importantly, we want to ATTRACT the gay community to our event. Remember, the event I was talking about was the FIRST EVER concert by the FIRST gay community chorus. 99% of our own community didn't know we existed. How are we supposed to communicate to our own people that we exist if we left "gay" out of the title?
Of course, as I revealed before, you were not doing it to sing, you were making a political statement using the chorus as the vehicle.
You didn't "reveal" anything before, you incorrectly twisted what I said to fit your bias.
Assuming that I went into a concert, I don't see how I would notice/care that the performers were gay
There's a lot of SmegmaSoldiers out there that would disagree with your statement. We have no interest in suprising them after they're already in the hall attending the event. It seemed only prudent to let people know this was going to be a concert of the gay community, by the gay community, and for the gay community. Anybody else was welcome, but haters were warned in advance, simply by that one word in our name, what they were getting into.
No appologies.
I'm thru with this thread.
HansNZ
New member
JohnyJuice said:
I don't see heterosexuals keeping their preferences to themselves. Heterosexual imagery and relationships fill our screens and lives. When you walk through town you see straights kissing in public, holding hands, etc. You hardly ever see gays doing these things. But when you do they are accused of "flaunting it".
HansNZ
New member
GinNJuice said:
Your reasoning is completely flawed. Essentially you are arguing that people have no right to be different or themselves.
Because blacks can't hide their difference the it must be tolerated, but because gays can then they aren't entitled to be treated the way that people of the dominant culture are.
HansNZ
New member
SmegmaSoldier said:
Your posts are so intellectually retarded that you just make a fool of yourself. I also believe that you don't really think half the things you type, but you just make ridiculous comments to get a reaction. I usually scroll past your posts now because I know there will be nothing in them even worth responding to. I am going to put you on my ignore list because the presence of your posts on my screen just fills up valuable space.
GinNJuice
New member
HansNZ said:
You either didn't read my posts, or you have a reading comprehension problem that you might want to look into. I am arguing that a gay man "could" pick an appropriate time and place to announce his sexual orientation. The ISSUE, in this argument, was about a problem John had with reserving concert halls.
You guys are generalizing and I am being specific.... I'm debating specific issues and you guys keep bringing in examples from other, broader, issues........
I can only assume that you know that I was right (about the specific issue, not any broader/different issues)
HansNZ said:
This statement/comparison (whatever it is) is neither logical or coherent.
HansNZ
New member
GinNJuice said:
You either didn't read my posts, or you have a reading comprehension problem that you might want to look into. I am arguing that a gay man "could" pick an appropriate time and place to announce his sexual orientation. The ISSUE, in this argument, was about a problem John had with reserving concert halls.
You guys are generalizing and I am being specific.... I'm debating specific issues and you guys keep bringing in examples from other, broader, issues........
I can only assume that you know that I was right (about the specific issue, not any broader/different issues)
This statement/comparison (whatever it is) is neither logical or coherent.
It is quite logical. And in any case you seem to be arguing that gays get discriminated against only when the "pick inappropriate" times to mention their sexual orientation.
D
dballer
Guest
SmegmaSoldier said:
Most of them are.
smallmovesal
New member
i really will never understand why someone else's sexual preference affects anyone else's life other than the individuals in the relationship...
so someone is of the same gender as his/her partner... we all love the same, the only difference is that both have peepees or don't have peepees.
every person has the capability to love in the same way, so i don't see anyone as different from me.
so someone is of the same gender as his/her partner... we all love the same, the only difference is that both have peepees or don't have peepees.
every person has the capability to love in the same way, so i don't see anyone as different from me.
HansNZ
New member
LOL at your logic! Gays are "intolerant" when they call into question your comments that they are unnatural or freaks of nature or whatever. This is so typical of bigots. They want free reign to say whatever they like about people but when their remarks come under scrutiny they scream that they are being treated with intolerance and being censored. Them questioning us is free speech, us questioning them is intolerance and censorship.
musclebrains
New member
HansNZ said:
LOL...Tell it.
Similar threads
